One more thing about that piece--when something is the positon of the majority of Americans, calling us all "extremists" is ridiculous. America wants out of Iraq--period. It's not just extremists, and not just the leftwing, and not just those "angry bloggers".
The entire country has "bile" concerning this. Your marginalization attempts are laughable. Harmon and all other hawks have plenty to worry about, but not from "extremists"--from regular voters.
And, of course, equating bloggers with Limbaugh and that mighty noise machine continues to be laughable. They're no role models, except to you in the mainstream media. I think Bernard Shaw said it just the other day, how it's all become like Fox?
This is very relevant: "...Question: does Romney genuinely not know that both the IAEA and Hans Blix's team had hundreds of inspectors in Iraq prior to the war? And that those inspectors found nothing?
Or does he know it perfectly well and has simply calculated that no one in the media cares enough about this stuff to make a big deal out of a howler like this? In any sane world, this kind of thing would be enough to disqualify a candidate from running for dogcatcher, let alone president of the United States. ..." -- http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_06/011439.php
A media that no longer cares to tell America what the actual truth is gets a response--that response is not "bile", but the "reporting" usually is, lately.
And its not merely worse than i thought -- it transcently provocative...and dead wrong.
Here is a clue, Joe. Most of the original vilification was based on your statement . "Voting against [the bill] means you're in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq." That was a stupid statement to make then, and it remains a supremely stupid statement today.
But you decided to rewrite history, and pretent THAT didn't happen.
And you are also rewriting history in terms of the chronology. You wrote that post AFTER the vote was taken -- and used the past tense that Harman HAD VOTED for the bill. But your column says that you (first) quoted Harman, then she changed her mind and voted for the bill.
Moveover, numerous commenters discovered your mistake regarding Harman's actual vote soon after you originally wrote about it. (someone named Mithras found it first.) You didn't make the correction until eight hours had passed....and the vote error had been mentioned in the comments to a host of other posts as well.
You want to know why you are REALLY vilified Joe? This is why.... not only do you make incredibly stupid statements that deserve vilification, BUT YOU REWRITE HISTORY (IE YOU LIE) TO MAKE YOURSELF LOOK GOOD, AND MAKE OTHERS LOOK BAD.
Well, organizationally speaking, that's more a problem for a top down system where a single point of vitriol will ultimatly flow down to the entire population.
When things are bottom up (and assuming a universal distain for trolls) those who would wish to propigrate anger will be mitgated. (Unless it truly is the majority that has been mobilized at which point, well, isn't it still a democracy?)
Yes, blogs are continously beset with the trolls and fringers, but that's the point. We've been dealing with that since the usenet days. It's part ofthe landscape, the trick is to remember that Sturgeon's Law is in full effect and act acccordingly. (What would happen if people told Rush that 90% of what he said was dismissed. Chances are he'd still say the same thing, just louder.)
In short: Single souce = very small amount of useful content, but very easy digestion by the consumer. Plurality of sources = Large amount of useful content, but some labor requred since there is a HUGE amount of junk to toss aside.
I know you're going to be bashed for this column and you are making a serious point -- but it should have gone in more depth, imho:
why not talk about *why* lefty bloggers like Atrios or others are so frustrated/angry with the media? I mean, sorry, but you watch much of cable news, read the columnists, etc... and how can one not be frustrated?
I think that's a story -- and while Atrios and TPM's frustration stems from the recount and Lewinsky, I think most of us are angry at the MSM for the bizarre, uncritical coverage of the Admin's claims in the leadup to war.
Just saying: there's a larger issue here and the lefty bloggers have a very legitimate point in becoming watchdogs/showing their disdain for many in the media.
I know you're going to be bashed for this column and you are making a serious point -- but it should have gone in more depth, imho:
why not talk about *why* lefty bloggers like Atrios or others are so frustrated/angry with the media? I mean, sorry, but you watch much of cable news, read the columnists, etc... and how can one not be frustrated?
I think that's a story -- and while Atrios and TPM's frustration stems from the recount and Lewinsky, I think most of us are angry at the MSM for the bizarre, uncritical coverage of the Admin's claims in the leadup to war.
Just saying: there's a larger issue here and the lefty bloggers have a very legitimate point in becoming watchdogs/showing their disdain for many in the media.
Good piece. I don't read the comments to your blog very often, but I read this thread and you are right. If this is typical, you've attracted more than your share of wingnuts.
Hang in there. I agree with some of your pieces, I disagree with others, but I enjoy them all.
Atrios didn't just wake up on the wrong side of the bed one day.
Familliarize yourself with the concepts of the Friedman Unit, and of High Broderism, just as a start.
See, I supported the war. I thought that Daily Kos was a hotbed of extremism and bile. I thought that every serious person agreed that the war was necessary.
Trusting the media = being misinformed. Straight up, that simple.
If you fail to grapple with the empirical grounding of why people are frustrated, then you're doomed to irrelevance.
People were frustrated, as Paul_L explains, with your Harman column because you posited the old chestnut, "everyone to the left of me isn't serious about national security and they want to act precipitously."
"But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed—especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable. Some of this is understandable: the left-liberals in the blogosphere are merely aping the odious, disdainful—and politically successful—tone that right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered. They are also justifiably furious at a Bush White House that has specialized in big lies and smear tactics."
To think I hadn't gotten snarky with you, but when you write something like this...how bout mention that at least on the left, there are voices across the spectrum from left of the center to the far left who are at least giving their opinion and disagreeing with YOU, let alone, all the windbags on Capital Hill. While those on the right are too cowardly to open the floodgates and let real opinion stand up against some of the blowhards like Limbaugh.
You read our anger, you hear our attacks, yet you only think its about YOU YOU YOU...well they are...they're about what you represent, an individual on a soapbox who throws out conjecture and posits opinions that rarely reflects the mixed bag of ideas, thoughts, opinions and perspectives that most of us on the blogosphere have.
You want us to walk lock step like many of the listeners of those right-wing talk-shows. Well no thanks...I'll exercise my First Amendment right, and maybe just maybe, someone who reads all these comments might get the idea..."We're Mad As Hell, and We're Not Going To Take It Any More"
"Each knows, as Senator Jim Webb has said repeatedly, that we must be more careful getting out of Iraq than we were getting in."
and each knows that the first step in getting out of Iraq, of doing anything right in Iraq, is putting restraints on the halfwit lunatic in the White House. Voting against this bill would have been a first step in doing so. Voting for it was a continued free rein to a man who intellectually, tempermentally and psychologically unfit for the office. You know that, I know that, Webb, Harman, Clinton and Obama all know that. Probably a third of the Republican caucus knows that. They put their party before the country, and you and Biden and a great many others bought into a lie to justify your support of a continued blank check.
I may be angry, even furious, about that fact, but it is a fact. And dealing with any situation involves looking first at what it is, not at what Davids Broder and Ignatius and Brooks would like it to be.
"But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere."
I'm sorry, what was that? I can't hear you over all the batshit insane wingnut crap being posted here on this blog.
Joe: OK I take your point. Some of the commenters here blown up out of frustration for the conventional wisdom that passes for probing political analysis. Some are rude. But you have made headway. I read your stuff and that of the rest of the Swampers and I try to respond without bile. Sometimes I get angry and often I am frustrated by the almost by rote output on issues from journalists who should know better.
Ultimately we both owe each honesty and integrity in the arguments we make and the conflicting views we express.
I begin with the assumption that you want to engage. And I want to do the same. Let us therefore remember that the blogs represent, at their best, tremendous resources which should better inform your journalism. By the same token your output should be helpful to us in understanding the working dynamics of politics as it is and not as some talking points from the political parties say they should be.
Still clinging to the notion that you are some misunderstood, persecuted good guy, attacked by people who disagree with your politics rather than your actions. "Look, I said George Bush would go down as one of the worst presidents in history, what do you want from me?" This, after 7 years of disastrous rule, about which you said next to nothing, while you were busy attacking the party that is out of power. I could go on, but it's obvious you've learned nothing from the savaging you've rightfully -- rightfully -- received over the past few years and you never will. You're a pathetic, passive-aggressive crybaby, eager to strike the first blow (as long as you think your victim is helpless), and then whine about "fairness" and "civility" and "bullying" when someone hits back. You make me sick, and it makes me sicker -- and frightened -- to realize that a specimen such as yourself was able to get near the top of American journalism.
Umm, Joke Line, you do realize that we don't like it when you give us bulls--t because you're lazy (or worse), right? Ok, so Harman screwed you, fine, and I'm wondering why you're not critical of her 11th hour flip-flop, but whatever. Your problem, not mine.
But...that wasn't the first time you (or others at TIME) printed a falsehood. Or have you (and your editor Priscilla Painton) forgotten your error on Markos' position on short-leash funding? Or CarneyBarker's lame attempt to equate Bush's historic unpopularity with Clinton?
The lazy (and often false) Conventional Wisdom that infects the brains of the MSM is what gets people angry, not that whole "fury begets fury" crap. When you start prioritizing 'accurate information' above 'balanced reporting,' that's when I'll lighten up on you (although I probably still won't like you personally).
Until then, enjoy the spitballs, and quit bitching.
QUOTE: But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. UNQUOTE
Also known as criticism, and how dare we mere riff-raff, we dregs of society, we unkempt, unclean proles fact-check or deign to publicly disagree with the GREAT AND ALLSEEING KLEIN THE GREAT!
Shorter Joe Klein:
I made a mistake, but it wasn't my fault, and even thought I fixed it people were still mean to me. They are nasty, nasty horrible people.
Shorter Reality.
Klein said something stupid. He got a lot of sh^t for it--and deservedly so. Then it was discovered that Klein was wrong on a key fact. But because he don't bother to read the comments, he didn't bother making a correction in a timely fashion. So for eight hours Klein got a lot of sh^t not for his (understandable) mistake, but for his failure to correct it, and deservedly so. Now Klein is completely rewriting history, and is going to get a lot of sh^t for it, and deservedly so. And there is nothing wrong with the people who give Joe sh^t, because 99% of the time he fully deserves it.
Mr. Klein,
>In which the pros and cons of the blogosphere are discussed.
>>A reasonable reader might ask, Why are the left-wing bloggers attacking you?
The concern trollism, it burns.
>>They are also justifiably furious at a Bush White House that has specialized in big lies and smear tactics.
You buried the lede.
>>I love linking to smart work by others, something you just can't do in a print column.
That reminds me, I missed that link to identifiable, real - not strawmen - left-wing extremists.
Wow Joe, are you ASKING to get savaged? Really, this article BEGS for it.
Showign a sign of weakness? oh no no no.
I doubt your ability to come back from this one... what's sad is, most of the bloggers were RIGHT to question you. Sure, we found out it was a misunderstanding, but if Bush came out today and said that there were WMD's in Iran, and it turned out to be true, could you fault us for being skeptical?
This is very disappointing. I thought Klein had graduated from the straw man and ad hominem. Apparently I was wrong. I'm not sure why he has tried to distance himself from the right-wing fanatics who do the same thing.
oh, and insofar as Joe didn't bother to link to the post he is referring to (understandably, since it is all the proof you need to know that Joe is lying through his teeth in the column), as a public service, here is the link...
You have something to offer that is much above the level of this column.
Geez, look at blogging as a chance to learn, to share, to grow. I'm thinking of one of my Profs who said something like, the first that you will learn in this class is that you can't possibly know everything and what you know right now may change. What you will learn in this class is how to go find the knowledge that you need to address an issue.
Over time, it is fairly easy to read the commenters and give appropriate weight to what they are saying.
In which the pros and cons of the blogosphere are discussed.
**********
So Joe, do you want us all to go away and eat worms because you think some of us do NOT use Broder style discourse? Ain't gonna happen!
If ya didn't have us to squabble with, you'd just be drinking more Vodka and taking hits at Markos, Atrios, and that other guy ya like to fight with at parties (name escapes me).
Glad to see you taking on Armey, but he has over stayed his welcome. Could you kindly ask him to head over to Freeperville where his views would be more appreciated?
"Some of this is understandable: the left-liberals in the blogosphere are merely aping the odious, disdainful—and politically successful—tone that right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered"
I would take issue with this, Joe. It's not a one to one relationship. The left-wing blogosphere has sought to encourage discussion through the use of comments and linking. If someone makes something up, it can be fact checked and that person can be discredited pretty easily.
Limbaugh, The Weekly Standard, and other of their ilk on the right have a long history of trying to make up their own set of facts and transmit them through a one way conversation. Yet this has been largely accepted by the MSM and Beltway Washington specifically.
Joe, you might want to consider the possibility that the instead of it being "the left-wing blogosphere" saying you suck, that are actually do, in fact, suck.
I recounted not too long ago in a comment here that I heard Sean Hannity say you were an incompetent, as well.
And BTW, it's not just the bloggers who are pressuring the Democrats to figure out a solution to the mess Bush made in Iraq. It's the majority of the country.
"I would take issue with this, Joe. It's not a one to one relationship. The left-wing blogosphere has sought to encourage discussion through the use of comments and linking. If someone makes something up, it can be fact checked and that person can be discredited pretty easily."
more to the point, the left wing is perfectly capable of discussing issues on which there is significant disagreement without the kind of vilification that Klein invites. Indeed, there are lots of leftists who comment on Steven Clemons (who is just about as much of a slightly left of center DC insider as joe is) but Clemons doesn't get what Joe gets.
And there is a reason. Joe invites mockery and vilification because he often writes stuff that deserves vilification and mockery because there is absolutely no intelligence displayed. Among ourselves, we can manage to disagree without expressing fury because there is thought behind what is being said. And Clemems is the personification of the blogger who takes care with every word he writes. There are lots of leftists who comment on Greg Dejearian's site -- and while we often take issue with him, it remains polite.
This isn't about a problem with the left -- its about Joe Klein and the problem that he is, and represents. The fact that Klein refuses to take responsibility for his own statements, and goes so far as to rewrite history to make himself look good and his critics look bad, only makes things worse.
I'm certainly no leftie - in fact the Politico has somewhat incorrectly placed me in their "Font of Right-wing Bile" section - but if you and Wonkette tend to get heat perhaps part of the problem is with the two of you.
For instance, about a week ago you falsely stated that Tom Tancredo is "anti-immigrant", and you've smeared the base of the GOP in that article and in another one.
And, needless to say, Wonkette should be back at Wonkette. I even wrote this, which I unfortunately have since disabled: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/9113
Another reason why you might get some heat is because - like the rest of the MSM - you fail to ask politicians the questions that would make them sweat, apparently prefering instead to maintain your access.
OTOH, almost all bloggers aren't willing to do the job the MSM refuses to do, prefering instead to simply opine.
Agree completely with the column. The most shocking thing I discovered when I started visiting this blog is how similar liberal bloggers are to the guys over at Freerepublic.
>>Joe, you might want to consider the possibility that the instead of it being "the left-wing blogosphere" saying you suck, that are actually do, in fact, suck.>>
The grammar is off in the above comment, but left-wing bloggers (and certainly commenters here) may want to consider the possibility that, instead of Joe Klein saying they are angry and hysterical, they actually are in fact, angry and hysterical.
I used to really like the left-wing blogosphere, but lately it has gotten way too smug and angry and I find it far less fun to read. Even talkingpointsmemo, which has always been a very thoughtful site, occasionally falls victim to this, and it's a shame. It seems like last year's victory has gone to everyone's heads, and they are forgetting basic concepts like civility and treating others with respect, even if you disagree with them(if only to win them over to our side.) All this similarly afflicted conservatives in the 90s and look what happened to them. I'd be curious if others felt this way. Of course, if you complain about this on a blog, you are labeled a "concern troll" or some other idiotic expression.
It's funny no one complained about extremism until Liberals found a medium they are not shut out of.
However I can sympathize with those who find it difficult to put together a logical argument, and then back it up with facts. It must seem extremely demanding to deal with that for the first time, if one is used to spewing irrationality, without any outside resistance. The Freepers and "centrists" probably do see reason, and the scientific method, as extremist and radical, given their unfamiliarity with them.
Mr. Meta: If you're not outraged, as the bumper sticker says, you're not paying attention.
The volume you hear here is a direct result of us not being listened to when we speak at a normal volume. For Christ's sake, Time is trying to feed us warmed-over Reaganism by a paid corporate shill as cutting-edge commentary. Damn irhgt, it's infuriating.
If Time had given this blog an actual diversity of viewpoint, I can assure you, we wouldn't be screaming.
But Time and the rest of the MSM (and ever our own party) just does not get it.
There are a load of us, and we are pissed as hell. We're not going away. If you can't handle the tone, I politely suggest you visit a more "civil" site.
Yes, Liberals are the same as Limbaugh. We claim styrofoam is great for the environment and all sorts of other fun things.
We just want you to do your jobs Joe. That is all.
We are angry because you don't. That is all.
I speak I guess for the 99% of those on the left who are happy William Jefferson was indicted for his corruption and hope that he serves the sentence he deserves.
The right wing are screaming "Free Scooter".
Do you not see the difference Joe? Really?
I want facts. I believe the truth is on my side, so I beg for facts. That is all. We get angry when we are given crap. We are sick and tired of reading how the media is liberal then read Fred Hiatt's editorials.
We are sick and tired of hearing the media is liberal while they obsess on Edwards' hair cuts while ignoring Romneys.
We are sick and tired of the Clinton's sex life being obsessed on, while Giuliani's doesn't get 5% of the attention. We want balance and facts, and that makes us Rush Limbaugh's dopple gangers? Please.
I wonder if the thing Klein, Broder and the others engaged in the campaign to slander the blogosphere resent the most is the fact that the Left finally has a voice that they cannot control, or stamp out?
This medium is the great equalizer. The media is not liberal. Look at the guests on the talk shows. Look at who owns the media. Joe Klein is about as far left as it gets. To balance him, you get people like Krauthammer and Bill Kristol.
Joe refuses to address this fact. The reason Joe gets so much heat is because he is arrogant for sure, and he makes big mistakes, and sweeping generalizations about liberals while at the same time being "the liberal" representative.
It would be like having Michael Kinsley as the most far right person allowed ink, and he continually bashed the right.
PS centrism can be just as radical and unhealthy as liberalism or conservatism. Lieberman is a good case in point.
Let's save 7 of the 10 bill of rights. That's a nice compromise, eh eh?
"Agree completely with the column. The most shocking thing I discovered when I started visiting this blog is how similar liberal bloggers are to the guys over at Freerepublic."
One big difference Curtis, we were right about everything re: Bush, which of course means there are no similarities.
"Agree completely with the column. The most shocking thing I discovered when I started visiting this blog is how similar liberal bloggers are to the guys over at Freerepublic."
there is a key difference. Those of us here who get "angry" are capable of making the same arguments in a calm and rational manner.
At freerepublic, while they make be capable of making their arguments calmly, they're completely irrational.
"In the long term, however, kowtowing to extremists is exactly the opposite of what this country is looking for after the lethal radicalism of the Bush Administration. "
Joe, you are charactarizing the majority of Americans as "extremist" with that statement. Most Americans want out of Iraq, by several polls. We're in the middle of a civil war, and staying there or leaving will have no real effect on the security of this country.
Joe, you are so out of touch, so wrapped up in your Beltway bubble, that people get angry. You take the necessity of the war as an unexamined given - you START from an extreme position. Then you get annoyed people won't meet you halfway. You're the one on the limb, Joe. Reexamine your assumptions, and YOU working on coming back halfway to the majority opinion of the country.
JK: ""But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed"
Ah, to see how wrong this is, just look at this small sample of fair and balanced "liberal" responses:
"it's obvious you've learned nothing from the savaging you've rightfully -- rightfully -- received over the past few years and you never will. You're a pathetic, passive-aggressive crybaby, eager to strike the first blow (as long as you think your victim is helpless), and then whine about "fairness" and "civility" and "bullying" when someone hits back. You make me sick,"
"a paid corporate shill"
"ya pearl clutching concern troll"
"Your self pity crap is boring."
"You want to know why you are REALLY vilified Joe? This is why.... not only do you make incredibly stupid statements that deserve vilification, BUT YOU REWRITE HISTORY (IE YOU LIE) TO MAKE YOURSELF LOOK GOOD, AND MAKE OTHERS LOOK BAD.
disgusting."
"A douchebag does not realize he's a douchbag. Remember this whenever reading Joe Klein,"
This sort of Limbaugh-esque garbage doesn't contribute anything at all to any cause. It's childish precisely because it can be, like a fifth grader sticking out his tongue behind the back of the substitute teacher. It is also utterly counterproductive as far as advancing liberal causes: a Red Stater looking over here would feel right at home, knowing to his relief that those lefties didn't outclass or outsmart him in any way.
Like "Mr. Meta," I have been extremely disappointed to see how similar the tone, language, and level of accuracy are between here and, say, Little Green Footballs. I truly thought we were better. But then, as the previous poster "superfly" writes, displaying the same level of fairness and balance, "One big difference Curtis, we were right about everything " Oh, OK, that explains it.
At this intellectual level, why doesn't everyone here and at RedState and LGF just start a food fight?
Partly because they fear the power of the bloggers to set the debate and raise money against them. They may be right—in the short (primary election) term; Harman faced a challenge from the left in 2006.
Trust me, Joe, Harman will face another, well-funded challenge in 2008, hence her vote on this bill. Hoyer and Rahm and every other Democrat who continues to fund the Occupation of Iraq will as well. It's the only language they really understand. What part of "get us out of Iraq" did the midterm results make unclear?
Primary challenges for everyone who funds the Occupation, successful or not, should get us out of Iraq might quick.
Well, I just wrote Curtis a reply and tried to post it, but the hampsters ate it and said, "The owners of the blog were holding my comment for review."
Joe, while that column wasn't bad, I think you're missing the point. Bloggers aim "spitballs" at you because you're pompous, rash, and, whether you admit or not, a lapdog for the Bush administration for the past 5 years even if you've shaped up somewhat recently. That's not to say that you don't have your good point.
But need we remind you of this interview with Hugh Hewitt?
JK: Well, you know, I also run in the kind of faith based circle. In fact, one of Bush's nicknames for me is Mr. Faith Based.
HH: Well, that's good.
JK: And at the very end of the book, I acknowledge Bill Bennett as giving the best advice on how to judge a presidential candidate.
HH: At a Christian Coalition meeting. Yeah, it's a great anecdote.
JK: And Bill's a good friend of mine. But I've kind of got to give these guys cover. You don't want to be praised by what you call a traditional liberal, do you?
[...]
JK: But can I just say this about the President? You were saying this before the break. Let me say that of all the major politicians I've covered in presidential politics in the last two or three times around, he is the most likely to stick with an issue, even if the polls are bad, and to govern from the gut as you said. I don't always agree with the decisions that he makes, but I think he is an honorable man, and when I've criticized him, I've tried to criticize him on the substance, and certainly not on his personality, because I really like the guy.
The wingnuts are upset that we don't play dead like Klein and the other pathetic centrists who try to pass themselves off as Liberals. Gone are the glory days when wingnuts could scream their hatred with no response.
" a Red Stater looking over here would feel right at home, knowing to his relief that those lefties didn't outclass or outsmart him in any way."
So, in your mind, someone who uses naughty language in opposing Bush's war, defending the Constitution and speaking against torture is the moral equivalent of someone who uses naughty language while advocating a "kill'em all and let God sort'em out" foreign policy, defends torture because nineteen dead men attacked our country six years ago, and calls the Constitution a suicide pact?
I can think of some choice language for you, dear, but I'd break the filter on this blog. I'll just go out on a limb and guess you could never understand why people were so upset at that nice Joe Lieberman.
We crossed over thirty-five hundred dead military personnel today, and we have no idea how many Iraqis have been killed in the last four years, because the Bush administration works very hard to keep that number a secret, and I haven't noticed self-proclaimed journalist Joe Klein, or anyone at Time magazine knocking down any doors to find out.
But I do hope, Miss Muffet, that you managed to climb back on to your tuffet after having read the word c-r-*-p.
Good to know there are folks like you with such sound priorities.
I do have to agree with Joe Klein about the subject of this column. While I think the general thrust of the blogosphere's politics and criticism isn't of the mark regarding the direction of the US or indeed the failures of the media --there's nothing to gained from the name calling, question spamming, off topic aggressiveness, and gotcha attitudes. There's nothing to be gained from letting genuine policy and criticism descend to the level of personal invective.
Joe, you sound like a total weener when you write junk like this. There are good blogs, there are bad blogs, there are totally irrelevant blogs.
People can read them and decide for themselves.
When you write, "There are good blogs and then there are these bad blogs that, frankly, I don't care about, but I should warn you to watch out for!" you sound like a very small, overly sensitive, jerk, who very much cares what the blogs write about him.
And, beyond that, you sound just like the blogs you're supposedly warning people against--you sound like a guy saying, "This is what we're supposed to think and this other stuff is what we have to ignore!"
You sound like a guy trying to silence and discredit anyone who doesn't agree with what you think.
Be a big man. Write what you believe. And if you really believe it and if you're really satisfied with it, let it stand on its own.
But trying to discredit other peoples' opinions altogether by anecdote is something worthy of Rush Limbaugh.
You look like a jerk. And a small one, at that. And, in the end, all you do is discredit yourself.
"I wonder if the thing Klein, Broder and the others engaged in the campaign to slander the blogosphere resent the most is the fact that the Left finally has a voice that they cannot control, or stamp out?"
Klein is not engaged in a campaign to slander the blogosphere. He often links to bloggers and speaks favorably of them. He lashes out when he's criticized, but so most people.
It's not fear to lump Joe Klein in with David Broder. If Joe weren't so arrogant, touchy, anxious to seem centrist, and obsessed with the hippies that exist only in his head, he might be a very good columnist.
David Broder is completely hopeless. He's what's wrong with our media and, by extension, our entire political system.
It's grossly unfair to compare Joe Klein with David Broder.
Wait a minute - are you claiming that Harman actually spoke to you in the past tense about how she had voted on a vote that hadn't taken place yet? I'm confused. Do members of Congress normally speak this way?
And you're saying that you quoted this without checking to make sure that that was how she actually voted? Shame on you.
And now you're whining because readers were unforgiving about your sloppy work? Well, suck it up, buster, because you get paid to get it right, and if you can't do that, maybe you should step aside and let those bloggers take your paycheck.
The bloggers weren't be nearly as angry if there were at least a hint that the Mainstream news outlets would get off their lazy butts and look at the actual political dynamic that's taking place in this country instead of regurgitating tired caricatures.
Of course the "rude bloggers" fits the exact same narrative that's being recycled from the last unpopular war. You may remember it. I believe it was the scruffy bearded radicals then. Even though the world has changed in countless ways since then, it's always easier reach back into the old playbook. And of course the "reasonable" position calls for just more of the SOS.
Since Liberals are identical to Freepers, according to Mr. Meta and Curtis, perhaps they can show us some examples of the rampant racism and death threats the Free Republic is famous for, on the Left. In addition, show us some examples of Liberal Blogs where posters are deleted simply for being conservatives.
I assume this ought to be an easy task since they have put forth the hypothesis that the two groups are analogous.
"Ah, to see how wrong this is, just look at this small sample of fair and balanced "liberal" responses:"
honey, when someone like Joe deliberately lies about the facts in order to make himself look good and trash his critics, he deserves everything he gets.
Joe, what you get in the comments here is a lot of deservedly harsh criticism, and a lot of undeserved, gratuitous insults. While I wish that the commenters here would stay away from the latter, I also wish you would stop conflating the two.
trifecta: "We are sick and tired of hearing the media is liberal while they obsess on Edwards' hair cuts while ignoring Romneys."
Not only that, Joe, we are also sick and tired of media that goes into hysterical smear mode over "The Dean Scream" and "The Kerry Botched Joke" while ignoring a blatant lie from Romney re: the UN inspectors.
When are you gonna do a column about Romney's dishonesty, Joe?
Actually, the good thing is more Time readers will find out about Swampland, come here, and not understand what Joe is talking about.
"a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed—especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable. Some of this is understandable: the left-liberals in the blogosphere are merely aping the odious, disdainful—and politically successful—tone that right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered."
This is so obviously ridiculous that I really hope a lot of readers of the mag stop by to do some rubber-necking. I'm happy to have other folks come in and assess for themselves whether what goes on in these comments constitutes "free-range lunacy."
But, you know, the facts are simple. He ran a quote that inaccurately described what had happened. He didn't double check the vote (understandably, to my mind). He was very slow to make the correction, and then he blamed the source on a matter of public record.
And then he said that he was still right in his overall point. That even though his central piece of evidence--Harman's vote--was wrong.
But this is the part that gets me:
"Poison from the right-wing talk shows seeped into the Republican Party's bloodstream and sent that party off the deep end. Limbaugh's show—where Dick Cheney frequently expatiates—has become the voice of the Republican establishment."
First, he's wrong here. Poison didn't seep into the Republican party's bloodstream from Rush. What happened was a recognition by Rove and others that the small number of people delivering conservative messages could be managed to create an effective, on message, delivery system. They used Drudge and Rush and Dobson to dominate the media with their messaging. The infection was entirely self-injected. They used these tools to mobilize the base.
Second, the nature of the blogosphere is exactly the opposite of the Wurlitzer. It's not top down. There is no lockstep (read some DKos diary comments if you think there is). What is really happening is that individual citizens in an entirely meritocratic environment that should warm Armey's cockles are analyzing what is published.
And, when it comes up short, saying what is wrong about it and why. And just as Brain Williams finds it more effective to make an amusing remark about Vinny in the Bronx in his efficiency, the blogosphere does use humor, like Wanker of the Day, to convey the narrative. And, of course, while it is a vulgarism, it is meant in jest.
I can tell you one thing. atrios named himself Wanker of the Day for getting fooled by a "Joe Klein replies" segment posted by a commenter. You can be sure that Joe will never, ever do the equivalent.
So I hope Joe's page views have spiked up as people come by to see us Dirty Frickin' Hippies overturning the coffee table. They'll see that all the furniture is intact, and that Joe would benefit by paying attention.
I don't know how old that Hugh Hewitt interview is, but Joe, serious question:
Does the irony of a man who calls George W Bush "honorable" and likeable, complaining about "bullying" and "witless" critics escape you? really?
"Wait a minute - are you claiming that Harman actually spoke to you in the past tense about how she had voted on a vote that hadn't taken place yet? I'm confused. Do members of Congress normally speak this way?"
This really is not unreasonable. Congresspeople--heck regular people, I've been on projects where we did this--routinely issue press releases in advance of a vote or a speech that is cast in the past tense. The idea is that the more work you do for the reporter, the more likely the story is to run.
I do believe Joe's story here, and do believe that it is mostly Harman at fault. She should have realized she'd given Joe the wrong story, and corrected it after she had cast his vote. OTOH, a good journalist would double check the vote before going with this, but I think the mistake is understandable.
He would have had to rewrite his story at the last minute, given the actual vote--something along the lines of having to choose between what's right for the kids and representing your constituents, and how the constituents are all a bunch of DFHs or something like that. Not nearly as compelling a story as someone who votes her conscience because if she hadn't, those kids would have been reduced to throwing sand at a charging enemy because.....
It really irks me that this ridiculous idea--that cutting off funding would have meant soldiers dying needlessly. I heard a Biden strategist reiterating it on the Monday after the debate. And the absurd idea that Biden expressed--that nothing can be done without 67 votes in the senate also ticked me off. All they had to do was say, "Okay Mr President, we won't enact the emergency legislation unless you insert timelines." And when he said "No" then they say "Fine. No emergency legislation will be forthcoming."
But everybody was spouting this nonsense. The Congress doesn't have to take an affirmative act to cut off funding. All it has to do is refrain from enacting funding legislation. And that doesn't take 67 votes.
Now you may believe, on the merits, that the occupation should be funded. But that's a case you need to make. Saying that you had no choice because you couldn't override a veto is ridiculous. Much as Joe's initial position is. If the extended occupation is not funded, then bring them home. If you want it funded, then you'll have to agree to some conditions.
Joke, considering that the back rooms of pizza parlors across this nation have replaced madrassas as the primary source of anti-US terrorism, do you think it's time we make a deal w/ either the Sunni dominated Dominos chain or the Shia dominated Pizza Hut? What's you sense?
Joe - you are correct. Much of the blogosphere is angry. But that in itself is no vice and is also not necessarily counterproductive. I am more interested in knowing if the anger is misplaced on based on false perceptions of reality.
Yes atrios dumps on the media. Look what they did to Al Gore. Look at the consequences. These are real consequences to real human lives. Look what they did during the run-up to the war. Again, real consequences.
So, just maybe the anger is justified? Do you and others like you who are trying to see both sides and think independantly occassionally get unjustly (or disproportionately) dumped on? Sure. But don't take it so personally. The issues are much bigger than you. I'm glad Atrios and his like are out there working the refs. Sure, not every foul he bitches about is real, but without him, the game would surely begin to drift the other way...
"New Justice Department communications released tonight include an email from Monica Goodling, former counsel to Alberto Gonzales, directing another official to draw up a directive giving her unprecedented authority to hire and fire political staffers. Goodling tells the official, assistant attorney general Paul Corts, to “send [it] directly up to me, outside the system.”"
I don't know, is it really worth it for writers for a prestigious magazine -- or for that matter, anyone -- to have a dialog with people whose (apparent) idea of a clever retort is "be a good troll and go back to redstate." I mean, that's like arguing with a five year old ...
It's fascinating people's excuses for all the nastiness, stupidity name-calling.
- The war made me do it!
- Joe Klein is so horrible, he made me do it!
- They started it!
There are plenty of people who hate the Iraq war -- at this point there are millions of them, far more than people who approve of it. Not all of them go on the computer and write "Joke line." If you people really think you are helping things by doing that, well, I don't know what to say, but it goes without saying there are far better avenues for you to channel your passions.
If you engage in name-calling, particularly on this blog, at least be honest about why you do it. You do it for the same reason kids on the elementary school playground do it, because it's fun to be in a group of people who make fun of someone, especially if you have got him out-numbered. Nothing I've read makes me you people are any more noble than that.
Shorter Joe Klein:
"I preferred the good old days, when deciding which positions were 'extreme' and 'radical' and which were moderate and sensible was the exclusive province of people like me. We branded the Iraq War sensible and gun control radical, it didn't make any sense and goddammit, we liked it that way!"
Hear hear! Let's listen to 'dialogue with the blogosphere'.
Now, next on the discussion list, let's politely discuss all the deaths in Iraq, and why that might not put off a few people in Middle Eastern countries (over a good cup of tea, of course!)
Then, let's all calmly and quietly discuss our displeasure at the removal of Habeas Corpus, our use of torture methods, and things such as Extraordinary Rendition. With some great ham and cheese sandwiches!
Finally, we'll all politely disagree with the media who are leading this country to even greater stupidity. We will firmly shake our heads no and cluck at them when they sling their arrows at us from afar, protected as Mr. Klein is.
Sounds like a plan! After all, doesn't it say in the Bible that we should all suffer fools? I know it's SOMETHING like that, anyways.
"If you engage in name-calling, particularly on this blog, at least be honest about why you do it. "
Well, you seem a little misinformed/uninformed. We don't yell at Joe for supporting the idea of invading the war before 03/03, its that he continues to claim that he didn't even though there is video proof of him doing that very thing. We yell at Joe because he mis-reports facts and instead of correcting them, he attacks(including the dreaded name calling)those who point out his error. We yell at Joe because he writes that the discovery of the 'plot' of 6 guys dressed as pizza delivery boys storming a US military compound filled w/ soldiers and munitions is somehow 'proof' that the US is safer now thanx to Bush. We yell at Joke because somehow, despite the fact that he is a handsomely paid member of the media, he seems embarrassingly clueless about so much, that it makes you want to become a pizza delivery guy...just kidding?
Seriously Joke, should we send Karen Hughes to win the hearts and minds of pizza deliverypersons?
I meant to write '...just kidding!' The question mark was a mistake, I meant an exclamation point.
I want to assure anyone from Homeland Security who might be reading this, that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a pizza deliveryperson. Furthermore, if I had one in my family, I would turn them in to the proper authorities. Thank you.
"You do it for the same reason kids on the elementary school playground do it, because it's fun to be in a group of people who make fun of someone."
And this is more mature than "go back to Red State, concern troll"? Why is your name calling better than the name-calling you condemn? Because you call people "kids on the elementary school playground" rather than "trolls" or "shills"? I don't see the difference between what you're doing and what you're condemning.
Ditto for Joe, by the way. Why is it worse to call him a "pompous faux liberal" (which he is) than for him to call everyone who opposed the war an "America hater" (which they're not)?
I just don't get why some name-calling is serious and mature while other name-calling is "free-range lunacy"?
Could someone explain the difference to me? I'm serious.
"I don't know, is it really worth it for writers for a prestigious magazine -- or for that matter, anyone -- to have a dialog with people whose (apparent) idea of a clever retort is 'be a good troll and go back to redstate.' I mean, that's like arguing with a five year old ..."
I agree. GO AWAY, Dick. Clearly we're not in your league.
Credibility of JFK terror case questioned:
www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushype0606,0,6561947.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
"When U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf described the alleged terror plot to blow up Kennedy Airport as "one of the most chilling plots imaginable," which might have caused "unthinkable" devastation, one law enforcement official said he cringed."
Joke, since you used the above as 'proof' that the US is safer now from terrorist attack, does this mean your initial assertion is no longer operative?
I think that Joe felt we were more safe because we managed to get our FBI guy in there, offering to get them weapons, meeting with them, and pushing pushing pushing for action. Whew! Imagine what may have happened if the government hadn't done all that!
I think (as I wrote in the comments following the Harman vote gaffe) that it's entirely possible that Harman spoke about an impending vote in the past tense for an article to be published after the vote. Not checking the vote was a stupid mistake, inexcusable for an article, but not for a blog, considering what she had told him.
My problem with Klein (and that of Klein's hated lefty blogosphere) is his relentless centrism, particularly given that he's often the token liberal. No need to look further than him trying to find common ground on health care with Dick Armey just a few days ago. Armey wants the elimination of government involvement (no medicare, no regulation, no malpractice, etc) and Klein wants a mandatory, federally regulated and subsidized insurance. THERE IS NO F*)@ING MIDDLE GROUND! Why treat him as a reasonable opponent? He's a frickin' loon who has no interest in improving the lives of americans, he wants to test out the great libertarian experiment, with a bit of additional help for corporate america.
The sane move is ridicule, but after showing more backbone than previously seen in a post criticizing Armey's lies, Klein follows up with "I know, Dick, you're going to lean more to the side of rights than responsibilities, and I'm going to lean the other way. But we're playing between the 40-yard-lines here, aren't we?" Um. No, Joe. You're trying to play between the 40-yard-lines, Dick is well behind the goalposts trying to get you to lose track of the yard markers as his kind always does. And because you always want to stay between the 40's, you "reasonably" end up sliding in his direction.
I guess none of this is news to the mean lefties that Joe fears so much, but after Joe again complains about his harsh treatment (which in this one case may not be truly deserved), it's always good to update why he's still a wanker.
Civility for me and not for thee is the last refuge of someone who is losing the argument. The Civility Card is nothing but a club to keep us heathens in our place. But, for us, it is a loser's game, see? We've gone the Civility route with all those letters to the editor that were never published. All those phone calls to our Congress person. All those talk shows we were never invited to (or fired from.) All those "free speech zones" we were relegated to (sorry for the hanging preps.) All the while, you and your colleagues did nothing but reprint lies and smeared the best of us from your elite national platform. You and your colleagues continue to do that. Well, at what point do we say that we've had enough?
You were embarrassed about the errors you made and the weakness of your sourcing. Here, practice writing this:
~
Oops. Harman changed her vote at the last minute. I should have checked her final vote, but in my haste to post this up I didn't. My bad. (or Sorry, if "my bad" isn't your style.)
~
It's really not so bad to acknowledge error, in fact, it is liberating. As it is, you have been very Bush-like in your errors. (Think about that!) You really should try it; I'm certain that an acknowledgment of error like that would gain you tons of sympathy here. Heck! Even *I* have made mistakes in my posts!
"Like "Mr. Meta," I have been extremely disappointed to see how similar the tone, language, and level of accuracy are between here and, say, Little Green Footballs. I truly thought we were better. But then, as the previous poster "superfly" writes, displaying the same level of fairness and balance, "One big difference Curtis, we were right about everything " Oh, OK, that explains it."
So many pearl-clutchers here tonight...
Heather, if Joe's going to write a column about how people are mean to him, guess what's going to happen? Give up? People are going to be mean to him.Besides, if Joe can be smug when he's wrong, we can be smug when we're right, it's only fair.
You want substance, go to another thread, plenty of commenters here back up everything they say with facts, links, etc., whether they use naughty language or not (me, not so much, I don't do other people's homework for them).
And seriously, if you can't tell the difference between the level of accuracy of the commenters here and LGF, I don't know what to tell you.... well, I do, but it would be mean.
Perhaps we should look at this from another perspective: Joe, Tweety, Fineman and the MSNBC bimbos have a lot invested in King George. They all want to have a beer with him. They glossed over his incompetence, petulance and lies/distortions because they can't admit how badly they misjudged their man. And boy is he their man. He is THE man.
How to turn critical? They still like the guy but are confronted by dfh in the blogs about their man's collosal blunders so they bob and weave.
We ought to feel sorry for the MSM gang. They never shot straight, still can't shoot straight. So we, the dfh, are to blame because were are rude and noisy.
"He would have had to rewrite his story at the last minute, given the actual vote--"
I'm afraid this is not true. The final roll call vote occurred at 6:45 PM on May 24. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll425.xml
So joe had to have spoken to her before that time.
Yet his blog post was published at 9:37 the next day. In other words, there was nothing "last minute" about the blog post. But Joe wasn't being vilified about getting the vote wrong -- he was vilified for equating a vote against the bill as a vote IN FAVOR OF "precipitous withdrawal" and endangering the troops.
Within an hour or two of the post, "Mithras" stated that Harman had voted against the bill, and a link was provided.
Joes correction about Harman vote did not come until after 5PM that day, despite the fact that multiple commenters had noted that Harman had voted against the bill. Joe didn't bother to read the comments, or disregarded them, and waited until an "embarrassed" Harman staffer called him up about it. Joes lack of a timely correction lead to his additional vilifiction.
These details are important, because Joe falsifies the chronology. He writes:
"A strange thing happened to me the day the House of Representatives voted to pass the Iraq-war-funding bill. Congresswoman Jane Harman of California called as the debate was taking place. "Look, I would love to have cast a vote against Bush on this," she told me. "We need a new strategy, and I hope we can force one in September. But I flew into Baghdad [with 150 young soldiers recently]. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment... they need. I couldn't do that." I posted what Harman said on Swampland, the political blog at Time.com, along with my opinion that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had changed their positions and voted against the funding for the worst possible reason: presidential politics.
And then Harman changed her position. After we spoke, she voted against the funding. The next day, I was blasted by a number of left-wing bloggers: Klein screwed up! That was sloppy and... suspicious! Proof that you just can't trust the mainstream media. On Eschaton, a blog that specializes in media bashing, I was given the coveted "Wanker of the Day" award. Eventually, Harman got wind of this and called, unbidden, to apologize for misleading me, saying I had quoted her correctly but she had changed her mind to reflect the sentiments of her constituents. I published her statement and still got hammered by bloggers and Swampland commenters for "stalking" Harman into an apology, for not checking her vote in the Congressional Record, for being a "water boy for the right wing" and many other riffs unfit to print. "
So here is the chronology according to Joe... he talks to Harman before the vote. He posts want Harman says on Swampland....and then Harman changed her position, and the next day Joe get blasted. Harman "eventually" calls to apologize, and jay posts his apology, but is still criticised."
Here is the real chronology. Joes talks to Harman. Between the time that Joe talks to Harman and Harman votes, she hears from enough of her constituents to realize that the vote is going to cause her serious trouble, and Harman changes her mind. (Thus, we can assume that Joe talked to Harman well before the vote was taken.) 15 hours after the vote, Joe posts his blog with the misleading information, and some really stupid statements for which he is vilified (Harman is vilified as well, for her stated rationale.)
Joe's error is corrected by his commenters within two hours (The Blog Booman's tribute notes the discrepancy at 11:13, Atrios makes Joke "Wanker of the day at 12:53, linking to the 11:13 AM post.) At 5:18, Joe posts that he got a call from a Harman staffer "about an hour ago" abou the error. That evening, Harman leaves Joe a voicemail apologizing, which Joe posts about the next day, at 10:54. Joe continues to be vilified, but primarily within the context of the pattern of his shoddy journalism, of which this was only the latest example. Joe never acknowledges that he might have had a responsibility to check the actual vote before writing his original post.
**************
a couple of things of note -- while Joe concentrates on the nasty people who commented about him, he never once acknowledges that his commenters were attempting to get him to correct the record for about six hours before he finally did so. Nor does joe mention that a number of the commenters said that Joe's initial mistake was understandable, under the circumstances. Nor does joe mention that Harman and the Congressional leadership were also subject to vilification. Finally, Joe never acknowledges that the criticism of him for this mistake was made within the context of his previous work -- indeed, in his column he suggests that he was underserving of criticism because last February he wrote something negative about Bush.
One final note: In his column, Joe claims that "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had changed their positions and voted against the funding for the worst possible reason: presidential politics." This is false. Neither candidate took a position on the vote prior to casting it. Joe ASSUMED that they would vote for the bill because both had said that they were opposed to immediate withdrawal and Joe FLATLY ASSERTED that a vote against the bill was a vote in favor of immediate withdrawal. ("It's difficult, though, to have much respect for Clinton and Obama, who--when you hear them speak--are opposed to an immediate withdrawal, but voted for a measure which, if passed, would force one." )
Which bring us full circle -- Joe's entire premise is that a vote for against the bill was a vote for an immediate wihdrawal. That assumption is false, and demonstrably so, and it was was because Joe stated this false assumption as non-controvertible fact that Joe was vilified.
Joe presented a false chronology, and completely ignored the real reasons for the criticism of him -- instead accusing his critics of "free range lunacy" and a "fierce, bullying, almost witless tone of intolerance" and that those who dont "march in lockstep with the most extreme voices [are] savaged and ridiculed..and considered traitorously unreliable". But his critics here aren't extremists -- their views on the war in Iraq are consistent with the vast majority of the country. (
Of course, back when those of us who originally opposed this war for all the right reasons, we were considered "extremists" and thus given no access to the mainstream media. But history has show us that we were right, and that the Joe Kleins of the world were the extremists -- extremely stupid, extremely gullible -- and extremely insulting to those of us who opposed the war.
I thought the Harmon thing was an innocent mistake -- and frankly don't expect that you should be checking back on comments on the blog every second of the day. I expect that you -- like most of us -- actually have a life.
On the other hand, while I agree that Rush is vile, I don't understand why pundits like yourself don't examine the cesspool which constitutes the right wing blogosphere. Have you ever read Michelle Malkin, or Little Green Footballs (aka Little Green Racists) or even Powerline? The racism and hatred perpetuated there are far worse than any thing you read on the left.
I find it curious that people for instance talk about "Bush Derangement Syndrome" when people on the right seriously believe things like Clinton is a rapist, that Hillary personally killed Vince Foster, etc... Why is all that OK, but being mad at Bush wrong?
I would have thought that some of "Question Hillary's" comments on this blog alone would have clued you in to the nature of the right wing blogs. Instead, I expect that Bill O'Reilly et al. will be quoting you as proof of the "extremism" that exists on the left.
For the record, I agree with the proposition that we owe it to the Iraqis who have helped us to exit Iraq in a thoughtful, serious way and am very concerned about the possibility of mass genocide in that country without our presence.
If Klein, or any of the other Left blogosphere slanderers went and actually looked at the right-wing blogs they would be forced to reject all the straw men they have carefully constructed.
However, I imagine even the facts wouldn't hold them back in their campaign of hate and propaganda.
Klein was enraged. He launched into a blistering attack on Weisberg. Why hadn't New York -- where Klein once had been the political columnist -- called him, he yelled, for a comment? (A comment which, obviously, would have been a lie.) "Thanks, thanks, a lot, Jacob," he said with bitter sarcasm. "That was real nice." Klein's face was red. His eyes steely. He wouldn't let Weisberg talk. "And that bit about being obsessed about race -- I really liked that. Do you think being concerned about an important national issue is the same as being obsessed?" How could the magazine do this to him, he demanded to know, playing the wrongly accused to perfection.
Increasingly wound up, he charged Weisberg with possessing no class and making improper use of off-the-record information. Getting meaner, Klein said Weisberg was gaining a reputation in journalistic circles as an unlikeable fellow not worthy of a dinner-party invitation. (I know of no evidence of this and find Weisberg entirely likable.) When Weisberg tried to squeeze in a word, Klein shot him the look of daggers and hissed: "You don't understand. This is the very last time you and I will ever speak. The last time."
I had rarely seen such a display of unrelenting anger. Weisberg turned white. Finally, Klein huffed, "By the way, this is off-the- record. You do know what off-the-record is, Jake, don't you?" Then he stormed off. (Since I do not believe public outbursts can be placed off-the-record ex post facto, I do not feel bound by Klein's parting comment.)
OF COURSE THEY DO JOE, THAT'S WHY YOU WROTE THIS IN THE DEADTREE EDITION. God forbid that your print readers might see exactly what happened and not just get your revised side of the story, complete with misquotes from your posting.
In the end Joe,as far as your concerned, it's all about, and only about, you.
Many on the left and right are motivated by hatred born from the fear that the other is evil and they are righteous. This is harmful to the experiment that the fathers of this nation started. I too have noticed the venom in the postings. They are thoughtless and imature. Most have failed in life. I feel sorry for them. They are easy to manipulate and react without much thought, this is frustrating for them. The Government (Prez and Congress) of which they fear is using the media to manipulate the people while the media is using the people to manipulate the government. The more one reads into something the easier it is to see who is driving whom. The Bloggers are pawns and nothing more who feel that when they speak what they say matters.
There is a middle ground here. Klein is right that many of the comments here (and elsewhere) are vitriolic, and often puerile. On the other hand, I think it's a fair cop on Klein that he seems to find things "vitriolic" if they disagree with his "smart position" and even where comments are, if perhaps forceful, hardly savage.
As for those that do act vitriolic, I admit I read DailyKos far less lately because, frankly, it's predictable - and the tone (even when it is not "vitriolic") is just not my cup of tea. I also skip comments here that use childish phrases like "Joke Line" or are poorly written. But rather than give these people attention (which, any parent of a four year old will tell you is exactly what tantrums are supposed to garner), I just ignore them. I'm not saying you shouldn't condemn someone who clearly crosses a line, but generlized whining about "the angry blogosphere" just adds to the problem, it doesn't do anything.
Klein is right - there is some great work being done in the blogosphere - Josh Marshall is usually stop number one for me, and is properly singlked out. So rather than writing a column giving the tantrum tots what they want, in the future, why doesn't Klein focus on the good stuff? Whining about the whiners won't improve the level of discourse.
Just a little constructive criticism. Hope it's not too "vitriolic."
I'm sorry, Joe, that blog comments make you feel bad. Really. I enjoyed your Woody book and your Anonymous book, and I agree that you don't deserve any specific kind of physical punishment for ridiculous things that you may or may not say in your blog posts. But this very post of yours cements my desire to scream at you because you position yourself as the reasonable one and you position the angry members of the lefty blogosphere as crazed partisan drones without ever considering the possibility that the left's anger has been earned. We are at war against the wrong people. We've lost thousands of soldiers. We've lost credibility worldwide. We've violated constitutional prinicples to permit torture and suspension of habeus corpus, and we are told by our leaders that the biggest threats to our democracy are gay people and socialized medicine. Why shouldn't that make me angry? And why shouldn't I scream at the established members of the press who not only cheerleaded the early actions of the Bush administration, but also said nothing as dissenters were villified as traitors? It's just become too much to bear, so yeah, I go on blogs and call you names. It sucks, and it probably isn't fair, but until the war ends, I'm keeping my anger and I'm spraying it around.
"Heather" posted some evidence of what Joe was talking about. Then "Jim" took her to task with his little spoonfull of bile. I love it. There is nothing in the whole wide world that is as entertaining as watching frustrated people convince themselves that they are making progress by harping and wailing with like-minded people and snapping at anyone who tries to shine a light under their buzzing little rock. This is from someone who generally agrees with their political viewpoints. I said generally, of course, so I'm automatically a John Bircher, I guess.
Reader Comments (257)
Joe, why don't you just publish a picture of yourself with a big Kick Me sign, rather than write this kind of column.
I haven't read it yet, but I know you, and I know the blogosphere, so I KNOW what is going to happen next...
Posted by p_lukasiak | June 6, 2007 5:44 PM
i'll post it here:
One more thing about that piece--when something is the positon of the majority of Americans, calling us all "extremists" is ridiculous. America wants out of Iraq--period. It's not just extremists, and not just the leftwing, and not just those "angry bloggers".
The entire country has "bile" concerning this. Your marginalization attempts are laughable. Harmon and all other hawks have plenty to worry about, but not from "extremists"--from regular voters.
Posted by amberglow | June 6, 2007 5:47 PM
And, of course, equating bloggers with Limbaugh and that mighty noise machine continues to be laughable. They're no role models, except to you in the mainstream media. I think Bernard Shaw said it just the other day, how it's all become like Fox?
Posted by amberglow | June 6, 2007 5:51 PM
This is very relevant: "...Question: does Romney genuinely not know that both the IAEA and Hans Blix's team had hundreds of inspectors in Iraq prior to the war? And that those inspectors found nothing?
Or does he know it perfectly well and has simply calculated that no one in the media cares enough about this stuff to make a big deal out of a howler like this? In any sane world, this kind of thing would be enough to disqualify a candidate from running for dogcatcher, let alone president of the United States. ..." -- http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_06/011439.php
A media that no longer cares to tell America what the actual truth is gets a response--that response is not "bile", but the "reporting" usually is, lately.
Posted by amberglow | June 6, 2007 5:55 PM
Don't worry, Joe. I've called the waaaaahbulance for you.
Posted by Anonymous | June 6, 2007 5:57 PM
Well, i read it.
And its not merely worse than i thought -- it transcently provocative...and dead wrong.
Here is a clue, Joe. Most of the original vilification was based on your statement . "Voting against [the bill] means you're in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq." That was a stupid statement to make then, and it remains a supremely stupid statement today.
But you decided to rewrite history, and pretent THAT didn't happen.
And you are also rewriting history in terms of the chronology. You wrote that post AFTER the vote was taken -- and used the past tense that Harman HAD VOTED for the bill. But your column says that you (first) quoted Harman, then she changed her mind and voted for the bill.
Moveover, numerous commenters discovered your mistake regarding Harman's actual vote soon after you originally wrote about it. (someone named Mithras found it first.) You didn't make the correction until eight hours had passed....and the vote error had been mentioned in the comments to a host of other posts as well.
You want to know why you are REALLY vilified Joe? This is why.... not only do you make incredibly stupid statements that deserve vilification, BUT YOU REWRITE HISTORY (IE YOU LIE) TO MAKE YOURSELF LOOK GOOD, AND MAKE OTHERS LOOK BAD.
disgusting.
Posted by p_lukasiak | June 6, 2007 6:02 PM
"Fury begets fury. "
Well, organizationally speaking, that's more a problem for a top down system where a single point of vitriol will ultimatly flow down to the entire population.
When things are bottom up (and assuming a universal distain for trolls) those who would wish to propigrate anger will be mitgated. (Unless it truly is the majority that has been mobilized at which point, well, isn't it still a democracy?)
Yes, blogs are continously beset with the trolls and fringers, but that's the point. We've been dealing with that since the usenet days. It's part ofthe landscape, the trick is to remember that Sturgeon's Law is in full effect and act acccordingly. (What would happen if people told Rush that 90% of what he said was dismissed. Chances are he'd still say the same thing, just louder.)
In short: Single souce = very small amount of useful content, but very easy digestion by the consumer. Plurality of sources = Large amount of useful content, but some labor requred since there is a HUGE amount of junk to toss aside.
Posted by SpotWeld | June 6, 2007 6:08 PM
I know you're going to be bashed for this column and you are making a serious point -- but it should have gone in more depth, imho:
why not talk about *why* lefty bloggers like Atrios or others are so frustrated/angry with the media? I mean, sorry, but you watch much of cable news, read the columnists, etc... and how can one not be frustrated?
I think that's a story -- and while Atrios and TPM's frustration stems from the recount and Lewinsky, I think most of us are angry at the MSM for the bizarre, uncritical coverage of the Admin's claims in the leadup to war.
Just saying: there's a larger issue here and the lefty bloggers have a very legitimate point in becoming watchdogs/showing their disdain for many in the media.
Posted by Chris R | June 6, 2007 6:12 PM
I know you're going to be bashed for this column and you are making a serious point -- but it should have gone in more depth, imho:
why not talk about *why* lefty bloggers like Atrios or others are so frustrated/angry with the media? I mean, sorry, but you watch much of cable news, read the columnists, etc... and how can one not be frustrated?
I think that's a story -- and while Atrios and TPM's frustration stems from the recount and Lewinsky, I think most of us are angry at the MSM for the bizarre, uncritical coverage of the Admin's claims in the leadup to war.
Just saying: there's a larger issue here and the lefty bloggers have a very legitimate point in becoming watchdogs/showing their disdain for many in the media.
Posted by Chris R | June 6, 2007 6:12 PM
Joe -
Good piece. I don't read the comments to your blog very often, but I read this thread and you are right. If this is typical, you've attracted more than your share of wingnuts.
Hang in there. I agree with some of your pieces, I disagree with others, but I enjoy them all.
Posted by otey | June 6, 2007 6:17 PM
Chris R has it.
Atrios didn't just wake up on the wrong side of the bed one day.
Familliarize yourself with the concepts of the Friedman Unit, and of High Broderism, just as a start.
See, I supported the war. I thought that Daily Kos was a hotbed of extremism and bile. I thought that every serious person agreed that the war was necessary.
Trusting the media = being misinformed. Straight up, that simple.
If you fail to grapple with the empirical grounding of why people are frustrated, then you're doomed to irrelevance.
People were frustrated, as Paul_L explains, with your Harman column because you posited the old chestnut, "everyone to the left of me isn't serious about national security and they want to act precipitously."
This is NOT FRIGGIN TRUE.
It causes frustration.
Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 6, 2007 6:19 PM
Joe that's friggin it:
"But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed—especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable. Some of this is understandable: the left-liberals in the blogosphere are merely aping the odious, disdainful—and politically successful—tone that right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered. They are also justifiably furious at a Bush White House that has specialized in big lies and smear tactics."
To think I hadn't gotten snarky with you, but when you write something like this...how bout mention that at least on the left, there are voices across the spectrum from left of the center to the far left who are at least giving their opinion and disagreeing with YOU, let alone, all the windbags on Capital Hill. While those on the right are too cowardly to open the floodgates and let real opinion stand up against some of the blowhards like Limbaugh.
You read our anger, you hear our attacks, yet you only think its about YOU YOU YOU...well they are...they're about what you represent, an individual on a soapbox who throws out conjecture and posits opinions that rarely reflects the mixed bag of ideas, thoughts, opinions and perspectives that most of us on the blogosphere have.
You want us to walk lock step like many of the listeners of those right-wing talk-shows. Well no thanks...I'll exercise my First Amendment right, and maybe just maybe, someone who reads all these comments might get the idea..."We're Mad As Hell, and We're Not Going To Take It Any More"
Posted by YMM | June 6, 2007 6:21 PM
"Each knows, as Senator Jim Webb has said repeatedly, that we must be more careful getting out of Iraq than we were getting in."
and each knows that the first step in getting out of Iraq, of doing anything right in Iraq, is putting restraints on the halfwit lunatic in the White House. Voting against this bill would have been a first step in doing so. Voting for it was a continued free rein to a man who intellectually, tempermentally and psychologically unfit for the office. You know that, I know that, Webb, Harman, Clinton and Obama all know that. Probably a third of the Republican caucus knows that. They put their party before the country, and you and Biden and a great many others bought into a lie to justify your support of a continued blank check.
I may be angry, even furious, about that fact, but it is a fact. And dealing with any situation involves looking first at what it is, not at what Davids Broder and Ignatius and Brooks would like it to be.
Posted by Jim | June 6, 2007 6:21 PM
"But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere."
I'm sorry, what was that? I can't hear you over all the batshit insane wingnut crap being posted here on this blog.
Posted by NTodd | June 6, 2007 6:24 PM
Joe: OK I take your point. Some of the commenters here blown up out of frustration for the conventional wisdom that passes for probing political analysis. Some are rude. But you have made headway. I read your stuff and that of the rest of the Swampers and I try to respond without bile. Sometimes I get angry and often I am frustrated by the almost by rote output on issues from journalists who should know better.
Ultimately we both owe each honesty and integrity in the arguments we make and the conflicting views we express.
I begin with the assumption that you want to engage. And I want to do the same. Let us therefore remember that the blogs represent, at their best, tremendous resources which should better inform your journalism. By the same token your output should be helpful to us in understanding the working dynamics of politics as it is and not as some talking points from the political parties say they should be.
Let's keep at it.
Posted by Alan | June 6, 2007 6:28 PM
Still clinging to the notion that you are some misunderstood, persecuted good guy, attacked by people who disagree with your politics rather than your actions. "Look, I said George Bush would go down as one of the worst presidents in history, what do you want from me?" This, after 7 years of disastrous rule, about which you said next to nothing, while you were busy attacking the party that is out of power. I could go on, but it's obvious you've learned nothing from the savaging you've rightfully -- rightfully -- received over the past few years and you never will. You're a pathetic, passive-aggressive crybaby, eager to strike the first blow (as long as you think your victim is helpless), and then whine about "fairness" and "civility" and "bullying" when someone hits back. You make me sick, and it makes me sicker -- and frightened -- to realize that a specimen such as yourself was able to get near the top of American journalism.
Posted by Hoplite | June 6, 2007 6:28 PM
Umm, Joke Line, you do realize that we don't like it when you give us bulls--t because you're lazy (or worse), right? Ok, so Harman screwed you, fine, and I'm wondering why you're not critical of her 11th hour flip-flop, but whatever. Your problem, not mine.
But...that wasn't the first time you (or others at TIME) printed a falsehood. Or have you (and your editor Priscilla Painton) forgotten your error on Markos' position on short-leash funding? Or CarneyBarker's lame attempt to equate Bush's historic unpopularity with Clinton?
The lazy (and often false) Conventional Wisdom that infects the brains of the MSM is what gets people angry, not that whole "fury begets fury" crap. When you start prioritizing 'accurate information' above 'balanced reporting,' that's when I'll lighten up on you (although I probably still won't like you personally).
Until then, enjoy the spitballs, and quit bitching.
Posted by cfaller96 | June 6, 2007 6:28 PM
QUOTE: But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. UNQUOTE
Also known as criticism, and how dare we mere riff-raff, we dregs of society, we unkempt, unclean proles fact-check or deign to publicly disagree with the GREAT AND ALLSEEING KLEIN THE GREAT!
Posted by attaturk | June 6, 2007 6:32 PM
"the HATE AMERICA tendency of the [Democratic Party's] left wing"
- Joe Klein, civil, polite, morally superior writer for Time Magazine, and sometime blogger.
******************************
Posted by Culture of Truth | June 6, 2007 6:33 PM
Shorter Joe Klein:
I made a mistake, but it wasn't my fault, and even thought I fixed it people were still mean to me. They are nasty, nasty horrible people.
Shorter Reality.
Klein said something stupid. He got a lot of sh^t for it--and deservedly so. Then it was discovered that Klein was wrong on a key fact. But because he don't bother to read the comments, he didn't bother making a correction in a timely fashion. So for eight hours Klein got a lot of sh^t not for his (understandable) mistake, but for his failure to correct it, and deservedly so. Now Klein is completely rewriting history, and is going to get a lot of sh^t for it, and deservedly so. And there is nothing wrong with the people who give Joe sh^t, because 99% of the time he fully deserves it.
Posted by p_lukasiak | June 6, 2007 6:36 PM
Joe Klein discusses bloggers...caught on tape
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De6AkndwRpM
Posted by attaturk | June 6, 2007 6:39 PM
The real extremists in this country are the so-called "centrists" like Klein. They are the ones carrying water for the war criminal Bush.
Posted by Radical Internets Extremist | June 6, 2007 6:40 PM
Mr. Klein,
>In which the pros and cons of the blogosphere are discussed.
>>A reasonable reader might ask, Why are the left-wing bloggers attacking you?
The concern trollism, it burns.
>>They are also justifiably furious at a Bush White House that has specialized in big lies and smear tactics.
You buried the lede.
>>I love linking to smart work by others, something you just can't do in a print column.
That reminds me, I missed that link to identifiable, real - not strawmen - left-wing extremists.
Posted by bartkid | June 6, 2007 6:43 PM
Wow Joe, are you ASKING to get savaged? Really, this article BEGS for it.
Showign a sign of weakness? oh no no no.
I doubt your ability to come back from this one... what's sad is, most of the bloggers were RIGHT to question you. Sure, we found out it was a misunderstanding, but if Bush came out today and said that there were WMD's in Iran, and it turned out to be true, could you fault us for being skeptical?
Posted by LnGrrrR | June 6, 2007 6:46 PM
This is very disappointing. I thought Klein had graduated from the straw man and ad hominem. Apparently I was wrong. I'm not sure why he has tried to distance himself from the right-wing fanatics who do the same thing.
Posted by Derek | June 6, 2007 6:47 PM
oh, and insofar as Joe didn't bother to link to the post he is referring to (understandably, since it is all the proof you need to know that Joe is lying through his teeth in the column), as a public service, here is the link...
http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/05/the_iraq_vote.html
Posted by p_lukasiak | June 6, 2007 6:51 PM
Would it kill you to enable/accept trackbacks?
http://www.dohiyimir.org/2007/06/in_which_the_pr.html
Posted by NTodd | June 6, 2007 6:52 PM
C'mon, Joe. Get over it.
You have something to offer that is much above the level of this column.
Geez, look at blogging as a chance to learn, to share, to grow. I'm thinking of one of my Profs who said something like, the first that you will learn in this class is that you can't possibly know everything and what you know right now may change. What you will learn in this class is how to go find the knowledge that you need to address an issue.
Over time, it is fairly easy to read the commenters and give appropriate weight to what they are saying.
Posted by linda | June 6, 2007 6:53 PM
In which the pros and cons of the blogosphere are discussed.
**********
So Joe, do you want us all to go away and eat worms because you think some of us do NOT use Broder style discourse? Ain't gonna happen!
If ya didn't have us to squabble with, you'd just be drinking more Vodka and taking hits at Markos, Atrios, and that other guy ya like to fight with at parties (name escapes me).
Glad to see you taking on Armey, but he has over stayed his welcome. Could you kindly ask him to head over to Freeperville where his views would be more appreciated?
Posted by ama | June 6, 2007 6:54 PM
Joe, this is a quote from your original post, written the day *after* the vote -- and they are your words, not Jane Harmon's:
**Yesterday I spoke with Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Ca.) just back from Iraq, who voted for the bill**
Many of your critics were simply asking -- some with added bile, yes -- that you post an update with a sentence like the following:
"Before I wrote that post, I should have checked the Congressional Record to confirm Senator Harmon's vote."
Instead, you whine. I just don't get it.
Posted by Louise | June 6, 2007 7:02 PM
"Some of this is understandable: the left-liberals in the blogosphere are merely aping the odious, disdainful—and politically successful—tone that right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered"
I would take issue with this, Joe. It's not a one to one relationship. The left-wing blogosphere has sought to encourage discussion through the use of comments and linking. If someone makes something up, it can be fact checked and that person can be discredited pretty easily.
Limbaugh, The Weekly Standard, and other of their ilk on the right have a long history of trying to make up their own set of facts and transmit them through a one way conversation. Yet this has been largely accepted by the MSM and Beltway Washington specifically.
Posted by Florida | June 6, 2007 7:11 PM
Joe, you might want to consider the possibility that the instead of it being "the left-wing blogosphere" saying you suck, that are actually do, in fact, suck.
I recounted not too long ago in a comment here that I heard Sean Hannity say you were an incompetent, as well.
Posted by Theo | June 6, 2007 7:16 PM
And BTW, it's not just the bloggers who are pressuring the Democrats to figure out a solution to the mess Bush made in Iraq. It's the majority of the country.
Posted by Florida | June 6, 2007 7:16 PM
Shorter Joe Klein:
"I respond to fact checking by calling people witless. And bad for America. And I do it in the pages of a major newsweekly. Because I can. "
This site is hilarious.
Posted by annoyed, but amused | June 6, 2007 7:18 PM
Boo frickin' hoo.
WATB.
I see that you can't the dialogue of the blogosphere, and so, have to run back to the monologue of the magazine.
Predictable.
I notice that Karen and Ana Marie don't have the same level of woundedness you express from the blogosphere.
Grow up or quit blogging. Your self pity crap is boring.
Posted by CL Morris | June 6, 2007 7:19 PM
Just finished reading the column.
Joe, you do realize you're part of the blogosphere now, don't you?
In other words, when you complain about the blogosphere, you're complaining about yourself.
Posted by JGabriel | June 6, 2007 7:26 PM
"I would take issue with this, Joe. It's not a one to one relationship. The left-wing blogosphere has sought to encourage discussion through the use of comments and linking. If someone makes something up, it can be fact checked and that person can be discredited pretty easily."
more to the point, the left wing is perfectly capable of discussing issues on which there is significant disagreement without the kind of vilification that Klein invites. Indeed, there are lots of leftists who comment on Steven Clemons (who is just about as much of a slightly left of center DC insider as joe is) but Clemons doesn't get what Joe gets.
And there is a reason. Joe invites mockery and vilification because he often writes stuff that deserves vilification and mockery because there is absolutely no intelligence displayed. Among ourselves, we can manage to disagree without expressing fury because there is thought behind what is being said. And Clemems is the personification of the blogger who takes care with every word he writes. There are lots of leftists who comment on Greg Dejearian's site -- and while we often take issue with him, it remains polite.
This isn't about a problem with the left -- its about Joe Klein and the problem that he is, and represents. The fact that Klein refuses to take responsibility for his own statements, and goes so far as to rewrite history to make himself look good and his critics look bad, only makes things worse.
But its joe that is the problem.
Posted by p_lukasiak | June 6, 2007 7:31 PM
Joe Klein:
I'm certainly no leftie - in fact the Politico has somewhat incorrectly placed me in their "Font of Right-wing Bile" section - but if you and Wonkette tend to get heat perhaps part of the problem is with the two of you.
For instance, about a week ago you falsely stated that Tom Tancredo is "anti-immigrant", and you've smeared the base of the GOP in that article and in another one.
And, needless to say, Wonkette should be back at Wonkette. I even wrote this, which I unfortunately have since disabled: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/9113
Another reason why you might get some heat is because - like the rest of the MSM - you fail to ask politicians the questions that would make them sweat, apparently prefering instead to maintain your access.
OTOH, almost all bloggers aren't willing to do the job the MSM refuses to do, prefering instead to simply opine.
Posted by TLB | June 6, 2007 7:33 PM
A douchebag does not realize he's a douchbag. Remember this whenever reading Joe Klein, or watching Chris Mathews.
God I miss Mediawhoresonline.
Posted by joe | June 6, 2007 7:40 PM
Some people are just too sensitive for the blogosphere.
Posted by Susan Geldof | June 6, 2007 7:46 PM
Agree completely with the column. The most shocking thing I discovered when I started visiting this blog is how similar liberal bloggers are to the guys over at Freerepublic.
Posted by Curtis24 | June 6, 2007 7:46 PM
>>Joe, you might want to consider the possibility that the instead of it being "the left-wing blogosphere" saying you suck, that are actually do, in fact, suck.>>
The grammar is off in the above comment, but left-wing bloggers (and certainly commenters here) may want to consider the possibility that, instead of Joe Klein saying they are angry and hysterical, they actually are in fact, angry and hysterical.
I used to really like the left-wing blogosphere, but lately it has gotten way too smug and angry and I find it far less fun to read. Even talkingpointsmemo, which has always been a very thoughtful site, occasionally falls victim to this, and it's a shame. It seems like last year's victory has gone to everyone's heads, and they are forgetting basic concepts like civility and treating others with respect, even if you disagree with them(if only to win them over to our side.) All this similarly afflicted conservatives in the 90s and look what happened to them. I'd be curious if others felt this way. Of course, if you complain about this on a blog, you are labeled a "concern troll" or some other idiotic expression.
Posted by Mr. Meta | June 6, 2007 7:52 PM
It's funny no one complained about extremism until Liberals found a medium they are not shut out of.
However I can sympathize with those who find it difficult to put together a logical argument, and then back it up with facts. It must seem extremely demanding to deal with that for the first time, if one is used to spewing irrationality, without any outside resistance. The Freepers and "centrists" probably do see reason, and the scientific method, as extremist and radical, given their unfamiliarity with them.
Posted by Derek | June 6, 2007 7:56 PM
Mr Meta:
Don't forget "pearl-clutchter", ya pearl clutching concern troll
So gauche of people to get upset about an illegal war, 3,500 dead soldiers and an administration that hold the Constitution in contempt.
Posted by Anonymous | June 6, 2007 7:58 PM
Mr. Meta: If you're not outraged, as the bumper sticker says, you're not paying attention.
The volume you hear here is a direct result of us not being listened to when we speak at a normal volume. For Christ's sake, Time is trying to feed us warmed-over Reaganism by a paid corporate shill as cutting-edge commentary. Damn irhgt, it's infuriating.
If Time had given this blog an actual diversity of viewpoint, I can assure you, we wouldn't be screaming.
But Time and the rest of the MSM (and ever our own party) just does not get it.
There are a load of us, and we are pissed as hell. We're not going away. If you can't handle the tone, I politely suggest you visit a more "civil" site.
Posted by Anonymous | June 6, 2007 8:00 PM
P.S. Angry, sure. "Hysterical?" Well, that implies a non-existent disproportionality.
Posted by Anonymous | June 6, 2007 8:03 PM
Maybe it's the needless deaths and waste of over a half trillion dollars that are "not fun to read." Think about it.
Posted by Anonymous | June 6, 2007 8:05 PM
Yes, Liberals are the same as Limbaugh. We claim styrofoam is great for the environment and all sorts of other fun things.
We just want you to do your jobs Joe. That is all.
We are angry because you don't. That is all.
I speak I guess for the 99% of those on the left who are happy William Jefferson was indicted for his corruption and hope that he serves the sentence he deserves.
The right wing are screaming "Free Scooter".
Do you not see the difference Joe? Really?
I want facts. I believe the truth is on my side, so I beg for facts. That is all. We get angry when we are given crap. We are sick and tired of reading how the media is liberal then read Fred Hiatt's editorials.
We are sick and tired of hearing the media is liberal while they obsess on Edwards' hair cuts while ignoring Romneys.
We are sick and tired of the Clinton's sex life being obsessed on, while Giuliani's doesn't get 5% of the attention. We want balance and facts, and that makes us Rush Limbaugh's dopple gangers? Please.
Posted by trifecta | June 6, 2007 8:09 PM
Don't forget the racist ditties we so love.
Posted by Anonymous | June 6, 2007 8:13 PM
I wonder if the thing Klein, Broder and the others engaged in the campaign to slander the blogosphere resent the most is the fact that the Left finally has a voice that they cannot control, or stamp out?
Posted by Derek | June 6, 2007 8:15 PM
This medium is the great equalizer. The media is not liberal. Look at the guests on the talk shows. Look at who owns the media. Joe Klein is about as far left as it gets. To balance him, you get people like Krauthammer and Bill Kristol.
Joe refuses to address this fact. The reason Joe gets so much heat is because he is arrogant for sure, and he makes big mistakes, and sweeping generalizations about liberals while at the same time being "the liberal" representative.
It would be like having Michael Kinsley as the most far right person allowed ink, and he continually bashed the right.
PS centrism can be just as radical and unhealthy as liberalism or conservatism. Lieberman is a good case in point.
Let's save 7 of the 10 bill of rights. That's a nice compromise, eh eh?
Posted by trifecta | June 6, 2007 8:21 PM
You know, Joe, there's a reason you're known far and wide as JOKE LINE.
Get a clue, pally...
Posted by dave | June 6, 2007 8:48 PM
Posted by Curtis24 June 6, 2007
"Agree completely with the column. The most shocking thing I discovered when I started visiting this blog is how similar liberal bloggers are to the guys over at Freerepublic."
One big difference Curtis, we were right about everything re: Bush, which of course means there are no similarities.
Deal with it.
Posted by superfly | June 6, 2007 8:54 PM
"Agree completely with the column. The most shocking thing I discovered when I started visiting this blog is how similar liberal bloggers are to the guys over at Freerepublic."
there is a key difference. Those of us here who get "angry" are capable of making the same arguments in a calm and rational manner.
At freerepublic, while they make be capable of making their arguments calmly, they're completely irrational.
Posted by p_lukasiak | June 6, 2007 9:09 PM
"In the long term, however, kowtowing to extremists is exactly the opposite of what this country is looking for after the lethal radicalism of the Bush Administration. "
Joe, you are charactarizing the majority of Americans as "extremist" with that statement. Most Americans want out of Iraq, by several polls. We're in the middle of a civil war, and staying there or leaving will have no real effect on the security of this country.
Joe, you are so out of touch, so wrapped up in your Beltway bubble, that people get angry. You take the necessity of the war as an unexamined given - you START from an extreme position. Then you get annoyed people won't meet you halfway. You're the one on the limb, Joe. Reexamine your assumptions, and YOU working on coming back halfway to the majority opinion of the country.
Posted by LittlePig | June 6, 2007 9:10 PM
JK: ""But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed"
Ah, to see how wrong this is, just look at this small sample of fair and balanced "liberal" responses:
"it's obvious you've learned nothing from the savaging you've rightfully -- rightfully -- received over the past few years and you never will. You're a pathetic, passive-aggressive crybaby, eager to strike the first blow (as long as you think your victim is helpless), and then whine about "fairness" and "civility" and "bullying" when someone hits back. You make me sick,"
"a paid corporate shill"
"ya pearl clutching concern troll"
"Your self pity crap is boring."
"You want to know why you are REALLY vilified Joe? This is why.... not only do you make incredibly stupid statements that deserve vilification, BUT YOU REWRITE HISTORY (IE YOU LIE) TO MAKE YOURSELF LOOK GOOD, AND MAKE OTHERS LOOK BAD.
disgusting."
"A douchebag does not realize he's a douchbag. Remember this whenever reading Joe Klein,"
This sort of Limbaugh-esque garbage doesn't contribute anything at all to any cause. It's childish precisely because it can be, like a fifth grader sticking out his tongue behind the back of the substitute teacher. It is also utterly counterproductive as far as advancing liberal causes: a Red Stater looking over here would feel right at home, knowing to his relief that those lefties didn't outclass or outsmart him in any way.
Like "Mr. Meta," I have been extremely disappointed to see how similar the tone, language, and level of accuracy are between here and, say, Little Green Footballs. I truly thought we were better. But then, as the previous poster "superfly" writes, displaying the same level of fairness and balance, "One big difference Curtis, we were right about everything " Oh, OK, that explains it.
At this intellectual level, why doesn't everyone here and at RedState and LGF just start a food fight?
Posted by Heather Angus | June 6, 2007 9:11 PM
Partly because they fear the power of the bloggers to set the debate and raise money against them. They may be right—in the short (primary election) term; Harman faced a challenge from the left in 2006.
Trust me, Joe, Harman will face another, well-funded challenge in 2008, hence her vote on this bill. Hoyer and Rahm and every other Democrat who continues to fund the Occupation of Iraq will as well. It's the only language they really understand. What part of "get us out of Iraq" did the midterm results make unclear?
Primary challenges for everyone who funds the Occupation, successful or not, should get us out of Iraq might quick.
Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | June 6, 2007 9:12 PM
Well, I just wrote Curtis a reply and tried to post it, but the hampsters ate it and said, "The owners of the blog were holding my comment for review."
Hey you little hampsters, has ama been bad again?
Posted by ama | June 6, 2007 9:13 PM
Joe, while that column wasn't bad, I think you're missing the point. Bloggers aim "spitballs" at you because you're pompous, rash, and, whether you admit or not, a lapdog for the Bush administration for the past 5 years even if you've shaped up somewhat recently. That's not to say that you don't have your good point.
But need we remind you of this interview with Hugh Hewitt?
JK: Well, you know, I also run in the kind of faith based circle. In fact, one of Bush's nicknames for me is Mr. Faith Based.
HH: Well, that's good.
JK: And at the very end of the book, I acknowledge Bill Bennett as giving the best advice on how to judge a presidential candidate.
HH: At a Christian Coalition meeting. Yeah, it's a great anecdote.
JK: And Bill's a good friend of mine. But I've kind of got to give these guys cover. You don't want to be praised by what you call a traditional liberal, do you?
[...]
JK: But can I just say this about the President? You were saying this before the break. Let me say that of all the major politicians I've covered in presidential politics in the last two or three times around, he is the most likely to stick with an issue, even if the polls are bad, and to govern from the gut as you said. I don't always agree with the decisions that he makes, but I think he is an honorable man, and when I've criticized him, I've tried to criticize him on the substance, and certainly not on his personality, because I really like the guy.
Posted by TomT | June 6, 2007 9:20 PM
The wingnuts are upset that we don't play dead like Klein and the other pathetic centrists who try to pass themselves off as Liberals. Gone are the glory days when wingnuts could scream their hatred with no response.
Posted by Radical Internets Extremist | June 6, 2007 9:21 PM
" a Red Stater looking over here would feel right at home, knowing to his relief that those lefties didn't outclass or outsmart him in any way."
So, in your mind, someone who uses naughty language in opposing Bush's war, defending the Constitution and speaking against torture is the moral equivalent of someone who uses naughty language while advocating a "kill'em all and let God sort'em out" foreign policy, defends torture because nineteen dead men attacked our country six years ago, and calls the Constitution a suicide pact?
I can think of some choice language for you, dear, but I'd break the filter on this blog. I'll just go out on a limb and guess you could never understand why people were so upset at that nice Joe Lieberman.
We crossed over thirty-five hundred dead military personnel today, and we have no idea how many Iraqis have been killed in the last four years, because the Bush administration works very hard to keep that number a secret, and I haven't noticed self-proclaimed journalist Joe Klein, or anyone at Time magazine knocking down any doors to find out.
But I do hope, Miss Muffet, that you managed to climb back on to your tuffet after having read the word c-r-*-p.
Good to know there are folks like you with such sound priorities.
Posted by Jim | June 6, 2007 9:21 PM
I do have to agree with Joe Klein about the subject of this column. While I think the general thrust of the blogosphere's politics and criticism isn't of the mark regarding the direction of the US or indeed the failures of the media --there's nothing to gained from the name calling, question spamming, off topic aggressiveness, and gotcha attitudes. There's nothing to be gained from letting genuine policy and criticism descend to the level of personal invective.
Posted by Kevin Sutton | June 6, 2007 9:23 PM
Joe, you sound like a total weener when you write junk like this. There are good blogs, there are bad blogs, there are totally irrelevant blogs.
People can read them and decide for themselves.
When you write, "There are good blogs and then there are these bad blogs that, frankly, I don't care about, but I should warn you to watch out for!" you sound like a very small, overly sensitive, jerk, who very much cares what the blogs write about him.
And, beyond that, you sound just like the blogs you're supposedly warning people against--you sound like a guy saying, "This is what we're supposed to think and this other stuff is what we have to ignore!"
You sound like a guy trying to silence and discredit anyone who doesn't agree with what you think.
Be a big man. Write what you believe. And if you really believe it and if you're really satisfied with it, let it stand on its own.
But trying to discredit other peoples' opinions altogether by anecdote is something worthy of Rush Limbaugh.
You look like a jerk. And a small one, at that. And, in the end, all you do is discredit yourself.
Posted by ricky | June 6, 2007 9:24 PM
Joe, This is embarrassing too.
BTW, Trolling for relevance is not a sound long term strategy for a blog. You will earn a cute name like Joke Line . . . oh wait never mind.
Posted by skeeenah | June 6, 2007 9:27 PM
"I wonder if the thing Klein, Broder and the others engaged in the campaign to slander the blogosphere resent the most is the fact that the Left finally has a voice that they cannot control, or stamp out?"
Klein is not engaged in a campaign to slander the blogosphere. He often links to bloggers and speaks favorably of them. He lashes out when he's criticized, but so most people.
It's not fear to lump Joe Klein in with David Broder. If Joe weren't so arrogant, touchy, anxious to seem centrist, and obsessed with the hippies that exist only in his head, he might be a very good columnist.
David Broder is completely hopeless. He's what's wrong with our media and, by extension, our entire political system.
It's grossly unfair to compare Joe Klein with David Broder.
Posted by TomT | June 6, 2007 9:47 PM
Wait a minute - are you claiming that Harman actually spoke to you in the past tense about how she had voted on a vote that hadn't taken place yet? I'm confused. Do members of Congress normally speak this way?
And you're saying that you quoted this without checking to make sure that that was how she actually voted? Shame on you.
And now you're whining because readers were unforgiving about your sloppy work? Well, suck it up, buster, because you get paid to get it right, and if you can't do that, maybe you should step aside and let those bloggers take your paycheck.
Posted by Avedon | June 6, 2007 9:49 PM
The bloggers weren't be nearly as angry if there were at least a hint that the Mainstream news outlets would get off their lazy butts and look at the actual political dynamic that's taking place in this country instead of regurgitating tired caricatures.
Of course the "rude bloggers" fits the exact same narrative that's being recycled from the last unpopular war. You may remember it. I believe it was the scruffy bearded radicals then. Even though the world has changed in countless ways since then, it's always easier reach back into the old playbook. And of course the "reasonable" position calls for just more of the SOS.
Posted by Paul Dirks | June 6, 2007 9:55 PM
Since Liberals are identical to Freepers, according to Mr. Meta and Curtis, perhaps they can show us some examples of the rampant racism and death threats the Free Republic is famous for, on the Left. In addition, show us some examples of Liberal Blogs where posters are deleted simply for being conservatives.
I assume this ought to be an easy task since they have put forth the hypothesis that the two groups are analogous.
Posted by Derek | June 6, 2007 9:55 PM
"Ah, to see how wrong this is, just look at this small sample of fair and balanced "liberal" responses:"
honey, when someone like Joe deliberately lies about the facts in order to make himself look good and trash his critics, he deserves everything he gets.
now be a nice troll, and go back to Red State.
Posted by p_lukasiak | June 6, 2007 9:58 PM
Joe, what you get in the comments here is a lot of deservedly harsh criticism, and a lot of undeserved, gratuitous insults. While I wish that the commenters here would stay away from the latter, I also wish you would stop conflating the two.
Posted by kth | June 6, 2007 10:00 PM
trifecta: "We are sick and tired of hearing the media is liberal while they obsess on Edwards' hair cuts while ignoring Romneys."
Not only that, Joe, we are also sick and tired of media that goes into hysterical smear mode over "The Dean Scream" and "The Kerry Botched Joke" while ignoring a blatant lie from Romney re: the UN inspectors.
When are you gonna do a column about Romney's dishonesty, Joe?
- crickets chirping -
Posted by monchie b. monchum | June 6, 2007 10:16 PM
Actually, the good thing is more Time readers will find out about Swampland, come here, and not understand what Joe is talking about.
"a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed—especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable. Some of this is understandable: the left-liberals in the blogosphere are merely aping the odious, disdainful—and politically successful—tone that right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered."
This is so obviously ridiculous that I really hope a lot of readers of the mag stop by to do some rubber-necking. I'm happy to have other folks come in and assess for themselves whether what goes on in these comments constitutes "free-range lunacy."
But, you know, the facts are simple. He ran a quote that inaccurately described what had happened. He didn't double check the vote (understandably, to my mind). He was very slow to make the correction, and then he blamed the source on a matter of public record.
And then he said that he was still right in his overall point. That even though his central piece of evidence--Harman's vote--was wrong.
But this is the part that gets me:
"Poison from the right-wing talk shows seeped into the Republican Party's bloodstream and sent that party off the deep end. Limbaugh's show—where Dick Cheney frequently expatiates—has become the voice of the Republican establishment."
First, he's wrong here. Poison didn't seep into the Republican party's bloodstream from Rush. What happened was a recognition by Rove and others that the small number of people delivering conservative messages could be managed to create an effective, on message, delivery system. They used Drudge and Rush and Dobson to dominate the media with their messaging. The infection was entirely self-injected. They used these tools to mobilize the base.
Second, the nature of the blogosphere is exactly the opposite of the Wurlitzer. It's not top down. There is no lockstep (read some DKos diary comments if you think there is). What is really happening is that individual citizens in an entirely meritocratic environment that should warm Armey's cockles are analyzing what is published.
And, when it comes up short, saying what is wrong about it and why. And just as Brain Williams finds it more effective to make an amusing remark about Vinny in the Bronx in his efficiency, the blogosphere does use humor, like Wanker of the Day, to convey the narrative. And, of course, while it is a vulgarism, it is meant in jest.
I can tell you one thing. atrios named himself Wanker of the Day for getting fooled by a "Joe Klein replies" segment posted by a commenter. You can be sure that Joe will never, ever do the equivalent.
So I hope Joe's page views have spiked up as people come by to see us Dirty Frickin' Hippies overturning the coffee table. They'll see that all the furniture is intact, and that Joe would benefit by paying attention.
Posted by jayackroyd | June 6, 2007 10:16 PM
I don't know how old that Hugh Hewitt interview is, but Joe, serious question:
Does the irony of a man who calls George W Bush "honorable" and likeable, complaining about "bullying" and "witless" critics escape you? really?
Posted by Anonymous | June 6, 2007 10:21 PM
Avedon:
"Wait a minute - are you claiming that Harman actually spoke to you in the past tense about how she had voted on a vote that hadn't taken place yet? I'm confused. Do members of Congress normally speak this way?"
This really is not unreasonable. Congresspeople--heck regular people, I've been on projects where we did this--routinely issue press releases in advance of a vote or a speech that is cast in the past tense. The idea is that the more work you do for the reporter, the more likely the story is to run.
I do believe Joe's story here, and do believe that it is mostly Harman at fault. She should have realized she'd given Joe the wrong story, and corrected it after she had cast his vote. OTOH, a good journalist would double check the vote before going with this, but I think the mistake is understandable.
He would have had to rewrite his story at the last minute, given the actual vote--something along the lines of having to choose between what's right for the kids and representing your constituents, and how the constituents are all a bunch of DFHs or something like that. Not nearly as compelling a story as someone who votes her conscience because if she hadn't, those kids would have been reduced to throwing sand at a charging enemy because.....
It really irks me that this ridiculous idea--that cutting off funding would have meant soldiers dying needlessly. I heard a Biden strategist reiterating it on the Monday after the debate. And the absurd idea that Biden expressed--that nothing can be done without 67 votes in the senate also ticked me off. All they had to do was say, "Okay Mr President, we won't enact the emergency legislation unless you insert timelines." And when he said "No" then they say "Fine. No emergency legislation will be forthcoming."
But everybody was spouting this nonsense. The Congress doesn't have to take an affirmative act to cut off funding. All it has to do is refrain from enacting funding legislation. And that doesn't take 67 votes.
Now you may believe, on the merits, that the occupation should be funded. But that's a case you need to make. Saying that you had no choice because you couldn't override a veto is ridiculous. Much as Joe's initial position is. If the extended occupation is not funded, then bring them home. If you want it funded, then you'll have to agree to some conditions.
Posted by jayackroyd | June 6, 2007 10:29 PM
Joke, considering that the back rooms of pizza parlors across this nation have replaced madrassas as the primary source of anti-US terrorism, do you think it's time we make a deal w/ either the Sunni dominated Dominos chain or the Shia dominated Pizza Hut? What's you sense?
Posted by arch stanton | June 6, 2007 10:44 PM
Joe - you are correct. Much of the blogosphere is angry. But that in itself is no vice and is also not necessarily counterproductive. I am more interested in knowing if the anger is misplaced on based on false perceptions of reality.
Yes atrios dumps on the media. Look what they did to Al Gore. Look at the consequences. These are real consequences to real human lives. Look what they did during the run-up to the war. Again, real consequences.
So, just maybe the anger is justified? Do you and others like you who are trying to see both sides and think independantly occassionally get unjustly (or disproportionately) dumped on? Sure. But don't take it so personally. The issues are much bigger than you. I'm glad Atrios and his like are out there working the refs. Sure, not every foul he bitches about is real, but without him, the game would surely begin to drift the other way...
Much Appreciated,
Dennis
Posted by Dennis Denuto | June 6, 2007 10:45 PM
BTW, p_lukasiak, hows that dialogue w/ the MSM thing goin'?
Posted by arch stanton | June 6, 2007 10:45 PM
Please commenters please, before you post... think of the children!
Posted by LnGrrrR | June 6, 2007 11:01 PM
Big Goodling break?
"New Justice Department communications released tonight include an email from Monica Goodling, former counsel to Alberto Gonzales, directing another official to draw up a directive giving her unprecedented authority to hire and fire political staffers. Goodling tells the official, assistant attorney general Paul Corts, to “send [it] directly up to me, outside the system.”"
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/06/goodling-email/
Posted by TomT | June 6, 2007 11:06 PM
"BTW, p_lukasiak, hows that dialogue w/ the MSM thing goin'?"...
damn, arch, your timing sucks! :D
Posted by p_lukasiak | June 6, 2007 11:07 PM
I don't know, is it really worth it for writers for a prestigious magazine -- or for that matter, anyone -- to have a dialog with people whose (apparent) idea of a clever retort is "be a good troll and go back to redstate." I mean, that's like arguing with a five year old ...
It's fascinating people's excuses for all the nastiness, stupidity name-calling.
- The war made me do it!
- Joe Klein is so horrible, he made me do it!
- They started it!
There are plenty of people who hate the Iraq war -- at this point there are millions of them, far more than people who approve of it. Not all of them go on the computer and write "Joke line." If you people really think you are helping things by doing that, well, I don't know what to say, but it goes without saying there are far better avenues for you to channel your passions.
If you engage in name-calling, particularly on this blog, at least be honest about why you do it. You do it for the same reason kids on the elementary school playground do it, because it's fun to be in a group of people who make fun of someone, especially if you have got him out-numbered. Nothing I've read makes me you people are any more noble than that.
Posted by dialogue with the blogosphere! | June 6, 2007 11:09 PM
Shorter Joe Klein:
"I preferred the good old days, when deciding which positions were 'extreme' and 'radical' and which were moderate and sensible was the exclusive province of people like me. We branded the Iraq War sensible and gun control radical, it didn't make any sense and goddammit, we liked it that way!"
Posted by fatty | June 6, 2007 11:14 PM
Hear hear! Let's listen to 'dialogue with the blogosphere'.
Now, next on the discussion list, let's politely discuss all the deaths in Iraq, and why that might not put off a few people in Middle Eastern countries (over a good cup of tea, of course!)
Then, let's all calmly and quietly discuss our displeasure at the removal of Habeas Corpus, our use of torture methods, and things such as Extraordinary Rendition. With some great ham and cheese sandwiches!
Finally, we'll all politely disagree with the media who are leading this country to even greater stupidity. We will firmly shake our heads no and cluck at them when they sling their arrows at us from afar, protected as Mr. Klein is.
Sounds like a plan! After all, doesn't it say in the Bible that we should all suffer fools? I know it's SOMETHING like that, anyways.
Posted by LnGrrrR | June 6, 2007 11:15 PM
"If you engage in name-calling, particularly on this blog, at least be honest about why you do it. "
Well, you seem a little misinformed/uninformed. We don't yell at Joe for supporting the idea of invading the war before 03/03, its that he continues to claim that he didn't even though there is video proof of him doing that very thing. We yell at Joe because he mis-reports facts and instead of correcting them, he attacks(including the dreaded name calling)those who point out his error. We yell at Joe because he writes that the discovery of the 'plot' of 6 guys dressed as pizza delivery boys storming a US military compound filled w/ soldiers and munitions is somehow 'proof' that the US is safer now thanx to Bush. We yell at Joke because somehow, despite the fact that he is a handsomely paid member of the media, he seems embarrassingly clueless about so much, that it makes you want to become a pizza delivery guy...just kidding?
Seriously Joke, should we send Karen Hughes to win the hearts and minds of pizza deliverypersons?
Posted by arch stanton | June 6, 2007 11:20 PM
I meant to write '...just kidding!' The question mark was a mistake, I meant an exclamation point.
I want to assure anyone from Homeland Security who might be reading this, that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a pizza deliveryperson. Furthermore, if I had one in my family, I would turn them in to the proper authorities. Thank you.
Posted by arch stanton | June 6, 2007 11:25 PM
Posted by dialogue with the blogosphere!
June 6, 2007
What?
Posted by Jim | June 6, 2007 11:34 PM
"You do it for the same reason kids on the elementary school playground do it, because it's fun to be in a group of people who make fun of someone."
And this is more mature than "go back to Red State, concern troll"? Why is your name calling better than the name-calling you condemn? Because you call people "kids on the elementary school playground" rather than "trolls" or "shills"? I don't see the difference between what you're doing and what you're condemning.
Ditto for Joe, by the way. Why is it worse to call him a "pompous faux liberal" (which he is) than for him to call everyone who opposed the war an "America hater" (which they're not)?
I just don't get why some name-calling is serious and mature while other name-calling is "free-range lunacy"?
Could someone explain the difference to me? I'm serious.
Posted by TomT | June 6, 2007 11:36 PM
"I don't know, is it really worth it for writers for a prestigious magazine -- or for that matter, anyone -- to have a dialog with people whose (apparent) idea of a clever retort is 'be a good troll and go back to redstate.' I mean, that's like arguing with a five year old ..."
I agree. GO AWAY, Dick. Clearly we're not in your league.
Posted by Anonymous | June 6, 2007 11:42 PM
Credibility of JFK terror case questioned:
www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushype0606,0,6561947.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
"When U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf described the alleged terror plot to blow up Kennedy Airport as "one of the most chilling plots imaginable," which might have caused "unthinkable" devastation, one law enforcement official said he cringed."
Joke, since you used the above as 'proof' that the US is safer now from terrorist attack, does this mean your initial assertion is no longer operative?
Posted by arch stanton | June 6, 2007 11:45 PM
I think that Joe felt we were more safe because we managed to get our FBI guy in there, offering to get them weapons, meeting with them, and pushing pushing pushing for action. Whew! Imagine what may have happened if the government hadn't done all that!
Posted by Anonymous | June 6, 2007 11:49 PM
Avedon,
I think (as I wrote in the comments following the Harman vote gaffe) that it's entirely possible that Harman spoke about an impending vote in the past tense for an article to be published after the vote. Not checking the vote was a stupid mistake, inexcusable for an article, but not for a blog, considering what she had told him.
My problem with Klein (and that of Klein's hated lefty blogosphere) is his relentless centrism, particularly given that he's often the token liberal. No need to look further than him trying to find common ground on health care with Dick Armey just a few days ago. Armey wants the elimination of government involvement (no medicare, no regulation, no malpractice, etc) and Klein wants a mandatory, federally regulated and subsidized insurance. THERE IS NO F*)@ING MIDDLE GROUND! Why treat him as a reasonable opponent? He's a frickin' loon who has no interest in improving the lives of americans, he wants to test out the great libertarian experiment, with a bit of additional help for corporate america.
The sane move is ridicule, but after showing more backbone than previously seen in a post criticizing Armey's lies, Klein follows up with "I know, Dick, you're going to lean more to the side of rights than responsibilities, and I'm going to lean the other way. But we're playing between the 40-yard-lines here, aren't we?" Um. No, Joe. You're trying to play between the 40-yard-lines, Dick is well behind the goalposts trying to get you to lose track of the yard markers as his kind always does. And because you always want to stay between the 40's, you "reasonably" end up sliding in his direction.
I guess none of this is news to the mean lefties that Joe fears so much, but after Joe again complains about his harsh treatment (which in this one case may not be truly deserved), it's always good to update why he's still a wanker.
Posted by Crusty Dem | June 6, 2007 11:53 PM
Mr. Klein,
Civility for me and not for thee is the last refuge of someone who is losing the argument. The Civility Card is nothing but a club to keep us heathens in our place. But, for us, it is a loser's game, see? We've gone the Civility route with all those letters to the editor that were never published. All those phone calls to our Congress person. All those talk shows we were never invited to (or fired from.) All those "free speech zones" we were relegated to (sorry for the hanging preps.) All the while, you and your colleagues did nothing but reprint lies and smeared the best of us from your elite national platform. You and your colleagues continue to do that. Well, at what point do we say that we've had enough?
You were embarrassed about the errors you made and the weakness of your sourcing. Here, practice writing this:
~
Oops. Harman changed her vote at the last minute. I should have checked her final vote, but in my haste to post this up I didn't. My bad. (or Sorry, if "my bad" isn't your style.)
~
It's really not so bad to acknowledge error, in fact, it is liberating. As it is, you have been very Bush-like in your errors. (Think about that!) You really should try it; I'm certain that an acknowledgment of error like that would gain you tons of sympathy here. Heck! Even *I* have made mistakes in my posts!
Posted by James, Los Angeles | June 7, 2007 3:48 AM
"Like "Mr. Meta," I have been extremely disappointed to see how similar the tone, language, and level of accuracy are between here and, say, Little Green Footballs. I truly thought we were better. But then, as the previous poster "superfly" writes, displaying the same level of fairness and balance, "One big difference Curtis, we were right about everything " Oh, OK, that explains it."
So many pearl-clutchers here tonight...
Heather, if Joe's going to write a column about how people are mean to him, guess what's going to happen? Give up? People are going to be mean to him.Besides, if Joe can be smug when he's wrong, we can be smug when we're right, it's only fair.
You want substance, go to another thread, plenty of commenters here back up everything they say with facts, links, etc., whether they use naughty language or not (me, not so much, I don't do other people's homework for them).
And seriously, if you can't tell the difference between the level of accuracy of the commenters here and LGF, I don't know what to tell you.... well, I do, but it would be mean.
Posted by superfly | June 7, 2007 4:46 AM
Perhaps we should look at this from another perspective: Joe, Tweety, Fineman and the MSNBC bimbos have a lot invested in King George. They all want to have a beer with him. They glossed over his incompetence, petulance and lies/distortions because they can't admit how badly they misjudged their man. And boy is he their man. He is THE man.
How to turn critical? They still like the guy but are confronted by dfh in the blogs about their man's collosal blunders so they bob and weave.
We ought to feel sorry for the MSM gang. They never shot straight, still can't shoot straight. So we, the dfh, are to blame because were are rude and noisy.
Posted by David N Fox | June 7, 2007 5:48 AM
"He would have had to rewrite his story at the last minute, given the actual vote--"
I'm afraid this is not true. The final roll call vote occurred at 6:45 PM on May 24. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll425.xml
So joe had to have spoken to her before that time.
Yet his blog post was published at 9:37 the next day. In other words, there was nothing "last minute" about the blog post. But Joe wasn't being vilified about getting the vote wrong -- he was vilified for equating a vote against the bill as a vote IN FAVOR OF "precipitous withdrawal" and endangering the troops.
Within an hour or two of the post, "Mithras" stated that Harman had voted against the bill, and a link was provided.
Joes correction about Harman vote did not come until after 5PM that day, despite the fact that multiple commenters had noted that Harman had voted against the bill. Joe didn't bother to read the comments, or disregarded them, and waited until an "embarrassed" Harman staffer called him up about it. Joes lack of a timely correction lead to his additional vilifiction.
These details are important, because Joe falsifies the chronology. He writes:
"A strange thing happened to me the day the House of Representatives voted to pass the Iraq-war-funding bill. Congresswoman Jane Harman of California called as the debate was taking place. "Look, I would love to have cast a vote against Bush on this," she told me. "We need a new strategy, and I hope we can force one in September. But I flew into Baghdad [with 150 young soldiers recently]. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment... they need. I couldn't do that." I posted what Harman said on Swampland, the political blog at Time.com, along with my opinion that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had changed their positions and voted against the funding for the worst possible reason: presidential politics.
And then Harman changed her position. After we spoke, she voted against the funding. The next day, I was blasted by a number of left-wing bloggers: Klein screwed up! That was sloppy and... suspicious! Proof that you just can't trust the mainstream media. On Eschaton, a blog that specializes in media bashing, I was given the coveted "Wanker of the Day" award. Eventually, Harman got wind of this and called, unbidden, to apologize for misleading me, saying I had quoted her correctly but she had changed her mind to reflect the sentiments of her constituents. I published her statement and still got hammered by bloggers and Swampland commenters for "stalking" Harman into an apology, for not checking her vote in the Congressional Record, for being a "water boy for the right wing" and many other riffs unfit to print. "
So here is the chronology according to Joe... he talks to Harman before the vote. He posts want Harman says on Swampland....and then Harman changed her position, and the next day Joe get blasted. Harman "eventually" calls to apologize, and jay posts his apology, but is still criticised."
Here is the real chronology. Joes talks to Harman. Between the time that Joe talks to Harman and Harman votes, she hears from enough of her constituents to realize that the vote is going to cause her serious trouble, and Harman changes her mind. (Thus, we can assume that Joe talked to Harman well before the vote was taken.) 15 hours after the vote, Joe posts his blog with the misleading information, and some really stupid statements for which he is vilified (Harman is vilified as well, for her stated rationale.)
Joe's error is corrected by his commenters within two hours (The Blog Booman's tribute notes the discrepancy at 11:13, Atrios makes Joke "Wanker of the day at 12:53, linking to the 11:13 AM post.) At 5:18, Joe posts that he got a call from a Harman staffer "about an hour ago" abou the error. That evening, Harman leaves Joe a voicemail apologizing, which Joe posts about the next day, at 10:54. Joe continues to be vilified, but primarily within the context of the pattern of his shoddy journalism, of which this was only the latest example. Joe never acknowledges that he might have had a responsibility to check the actual vote before writing his original post.
**************
a couple of things of note -- while Joe concentrates on the nasty people who commented about him, he never once acknowledges that his commenters were attempting to get him to correct the record for about six hours before he finally did so. Nor does joe mention that a number of the commenters said that Joe's initial mistake was understandable, under the circumstances. Nor does joe mention that Harman and the Congressional leadership were also subject to vilification. Finally, Joe never acknowledges that the criticism of him for this mistake was made within the context of his previous work -- indeed, in his column he suggests that he was underserving of criticism because last February he wrote something negative about Bush.
One final note: In his column, Joe claims that "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had changed their positions and voted against the funding for the worst possible reason: presidential politics." This is false. Neither candidate took a position on the vote prior to casting it. Joe ASSUMED that they would vote for the bill because both had said that they were opposed to immediate withdrawal and Joe FLATLY ASSERTED that a vote against the bill was a vote in favor of immediate withdrawal. ("It's difficult, though, to have much respect for Clinton and Obama, who--when you hear them speak--are opposed to an immediate withdrawal, but voted for a measure which, if passed, would force one." )
Which bring us full circle -- Joe's entire premise is that a vote for against the bill was a vote for an immediate wihdrawal. That assumption is false, and demonstrably so, and it was was because Joe stated this false assumption as non-controvertible fact that Joe was vilified.
Joe presented a false chronology, and completely ignored the real reasons for the criticism of him -- instead accusing his critics of "free range lunacy" and a "fierce, bullying, almost witless tone of intolerance" and that those who dont "march in lockstep with the most extreme voices [are] savaged and ridiculed..and considered traitorously unreliable". But his critics here aren't extremists -- their views on the war in Iraq are consistent with the vast majority of the country. (
Of course, back when those of us who originally opposed this war for all the right reasons, we were considered "extremists" and thus given no access to the mainstream media. But history has show us that we were right, and that the Joe Kleins of the world were the extremists -- extremely stupid, extremely gullible -- and extremely insulting to those of us who opposed the war.
Posted by p_lukasiak | June 7, 2007 6:05 AM
I thought the Harmon thing was an innocent mistake -- and frankly don't expect that you should be checking back on comments on the blog every second of the day. I expect that you -- like most of us -- actually have a life.
On the other hand, while I agree that Rush is vile, I don't understand why pundits like yourself don't examine the cesspool which constitutes the right wing blogosphere. Have you ever read Michelle Malkin, or Little Green Footballs (aka Little Green Racists) or even Powerline? The racism and hatred perpetuated there are far worse than any thing you read on the left.
I find it curious that people for instance talk about "Bush Derangement Syndrome" when people on the right seriously believe things like Clinton is a rapist, that Hillary personally killed Vince Foster, etc... Why is all that OK, but being mad at Bush wrong?
I would have thought that some of "Question Hillary's" comments on this blog alone would have clued you in to the nature of the right wing blogs. Instead, I expect that Bill O'Reilly et al. will be quoting you as proof of the "extremism" that exists on the left.
For the record, I agree with the proposition that we owe it to the Iraqis who have helped us to exit Iraq in a thoughtful, serious way and am very concerned about the possibility of mass genocide in that country without our presence.
Posted by Teresa | June 7, 2007 7:56 AM
If Klein, or any of the other Left blogosphere slanderers went and actually looked at the right-wing blogs they would be forced to reject all the straw men they have carefully constructed.
However, I imagine even the facts wouldn't hold them back in their campaign of hate and propaganda.
Posted by Derek | June 7, 2007 8:18 AM
Dang, dood. This article is nuts and seems in keeping with Joe's obsession with Joe:
http://www.salon.com/media/media960718.html
Klein was enraged. He launched into a blistering attack on Weisberg. Why hadn't New York -- where Klein once had been the political columnist -- called him, he yelled, for a comment? (A comment which, obviously, would have been a lie.) "Thanks, thanks, a lot, Jacob," he said with bitter sarcasm. "That was real nice." Klein's face was red. His eyes steely. He wouldn't let Weisberg talk. "And that bit about being obsessed about race -- I really liked that. Do you think being concerned about an important national issue is the same as being obsessed?" How could the magazine do this to him, he demanded to know, playing the wrongly accused to perfection.
Increasingly wound up, he charged Weisberg with possessing no class and making improper use of off-the-record information. Getting meaner, Klein said Weisberg was gaining a reputation in journalistic circles as an unlikeable fellow not worthy of a dinner-party invitation. (I know of no evidence of this and find Weisberg entirely likable.) When Weisberg tried to squeeze in a word, Klein shot him the look of daggers and hissed: "You don't understand. This is the very last time you and I will ever speak. The last time."
I had rarely seen such a display of unrelenting anger. Weisberg turned white. Finally, Klein huffed, "By the way, this is off-the- record. You do know what off-the-record is, Jake, don't you?" Then he stormed off. (Since I do not believe public outbursts can be placed off-the-record ex post facto, I do not feel bound by Klein's parting comment.)
Posted by Florida | June 7, 2007 9:13 AM
WARNING: Shameless self promotion ahead
I just posted a long piece on Joe's column at TPM Cafe
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/p_lukasiak/2007/jun/07/joe_kleins_big_lie
I'd really appreciate it if people went over there and gave it a positive rating so it makes the "front page" :)
Posted by p_lukasiak | June 7, 2007 9:30 AM
Best laugh of the column:
"The spitballs aimed at me don't matter much."
OF COURSE THEY DO JOE, THAT'S WHY YOU WROTE THIS IN THE DEADTREE EDITION. God forbid that your print readers might see exactly what happened and not just get your revised side of the story, complete with misquotes from your posting.
In the end Joe,as far as your concerned, it's all about, and only about, you.
Posted by dratty | June 7, 2007 9:43 AM
Many on the left and right are motivated by hatred born from the fear that the other is evil and they are righteous. This is harmful to the experiment that the fathers of this nation started. I too have noticed the venom in the postings. They are thoughtless and imature. Most have failed in life. I feel sorry for them. They are easy to manipulate and react without much thought, this is frustrating for them. The Government (Prez and Congress) of which they fear is using the media to manipulate the people while the media is using the people to manipulate the government. The more one reads into something the easier it is to see who is driving whom. The Bloggers are pawns and nothing more who feel that when they speak what they say matters.
I't matters not.
Posted by dribble | June 7, 2007 9:49 AM
There is a middle ground here. Klein is right that many of the comments here (and elsewhere) are vitriolic, and often puerile. On the other hand, I think it's a fair cop on Klein that he seems to find things "vitriolic" if they disagree with his "smart position" and even where comments are, if perhaps forceful, hardly savage.
As for those that do act vitriolic, I admit I read DailyKos far less lately because, frankly, it's predictable - and the tone (even when it is not "vitriolic") is just not my cup of tea. I also skip comments here that use childish phrases like "Joke Line" or are poorly written. But rather than give these people attention (which, any parent of a four year old will tell you is exactly what tantrums are supposed to garner), I just ignore them. I'm not saying you shouldn't condemn someone who clearly crosses a line, but generlized whining about "the angry blogosphere" just adds to the problem, it doesn't do anything.
Klein is right - there is some great work being done in the blogosphere - Josh Marshall is usually stop number one for me, and is properly singlked out. So rather than writing a column giving the tantrum tots what they want, in the future, why doesn't Klein focus on the good stuff? Whining about the whiners won't improve the level of discourse.
Just a little constructive criticism. Hope it's not too "vitriolic."
Posted by Niccolo | June 7, 2007 9:51 AM
Well, I would give it a positive rating, paul, if I knew how. :<
Posted by ama | June 7, 2007 9:52 AM
I'm sorry, Joe, that blog comments make you feel bad. Really. I enjoyed your Woody book and your Anonymous book, and I agree that you don't deserve any specific kind of physical punishment for ridiculous things that you may or may not say in your blog posts. But this very post of yours cements my desire to scream at you because you position yourself as the reasonable one and you position the angry members of the lefty blogosphere as crazed partisan drones without ever considering the possibility that the left's anger has been earned. We are at war against the wrong people. We've lost thousands of soldiers. We've lost credibility worldwide. We've violated constitutional prinicples to permit torture and suspension of habeus corpus, and we are told by our leaders that the biggest threats to our democracy are gay people and socialized medicine. Why shouldn't that make me angry? And why shouldn't I scream at the established members of the press who not only cheerleaded the early actions of the Bush administration, but also said nothing as dissenters were villified as traitors? It's just become too much to bear, so yeah, I go on blogs and call you names. It sucks, and it probably isn't fair, but until the war ends, I'm keeping my anger and I'm spraying it around.
Posted by winer | June 7, 2007 9:56 AM
"The Bloggers are pawns and nothing more who feel that when they speak what they say matters.
"I't matters not."
Must. Control. The. Irony.
Posted by Florida | June 7, 2007 9:56 AM
"Heather" posted some evidence of what Joe was talking about. Then "Jim" took her to task with his little spoonfull of bile. I love it. There is nothing in the whole wide world that is as entertaining as watching frustrated people convince themselves that they are making progress by harping and wailing with like-minded people and snapping at anyone who tries to shine a light under their buzzing little rock. This is from someone who generally agrees with their political viewpoints. I said generally, of course, so I'm automatically a John Bircher, I guess.
Posted by ThatGuy | June 7, 2007 9:59 AM