Decision ‘08

Greenwald Picks The Wrong Fight

Well, I’m working up my long-promised review of How Would A Patriot Act?, but Glenn Greenwald is not making it any easier. The book is good; alas, it is far better than his blogging has been of late. Glenn makes quite a show in his book and on his blog about how he is not a liberal partisan, but a rather apolitical person thrown into activism by an imperial presidency.

I’m not buying it. Not when Greenwald hops to whenever Kos says jump. I realize Glenn owes much of his notoriety and traffic and his book contract to Huff’n'Puff and Kos, but really, this is a bit much. Greenwald gets all in a ‘fabricated’ huff about a completely irrelevant tangent to the Kosola story (which, remember, is based on the premise that when accused stock manipulator Jerome Armstrong, still employed, inexplicably, by the Mark Warner campaign, gets paid by a candidate, Kos gets Kozy) about whether a minor e-mail is ‘authentic’, then gets contradicted by the e-mail’s author himself, and THEN (get this) has the nerve to reject the author’s own characterization - all of which begs the question of why a nonpartisan ‘concerned’ citizen would spend so much time defending two quite obvious partisan hacks…or why, for that matter, he would participate in an email group dedicated to manufacturing the ‘progressive’ take…

Read all about it from the MinuteMan and the Commissar; and, for extra bonus points, be sure and get acquainted with Jerome’s prior life as an astrology buff…this gets better by the day…

UPDATE 10:22 a.m.: A clarification here…

8 Responses to “Greenwald Picks The Wrong Fight”

1 mtl Says:
June 24th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
This ‘bleeding’ of the left is hysterical.

Each effort to staunch the flow, expose a new wound, but Kos’ ’silent tx’ is a prescription of doing nothing.

Can’t tell which plan is better. They are equally hopeless.
2 Dennis Says:
June 24th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
Wow, that “double-down” talk the other day is even more apropos now.

So, given that Glenn some time back decided that conservatives are just robots for Bush, has he made any public comments on Kos’ declaration that TNR is part of the VRWC for daring to cross the Mighty Man himself?
3 Glenn Greenwald Says:
June 25th, 2006 at 7:51 am
You’ve been making some rather serious accusations lately that, I would suggest, reflect far more on your own integrity than on those who are the target of your accusations. The idea that I receive anything of value from Kos — advertising revene, substantial portions of my traffic, or anything else — is simply false. I have never been part of Advertising Liberally or any other advertising network that he has anything to do with, and I’d estimate that 3-4% of my traffic overall, at most, comes from Daily Kos.

For you to believe — based on nothing — that someone would change what they write on their blog or express political views that they don’t really hold really does suggest that the world you inhabit is integrity-free. That’s the only thing that could account for your willingness to believe that others are that base and craven. I haven’t responded - and almost certainly won’t respond - to insinutations that I write what Kos tells me to write because it’s too stupid to merit a response and, as I said, reveals far more about how people operate who make the accusation than it does about anyone else.

As for your claim that you’re “not buying” what I described in my book about my background — i.e., that I lied in what I wrote — I’d suggest that this, too, reflects a lot more about you than me. I have been extremely clear about the fact that I think the Bush administration poses a genuine threat to the core constitutional principles which have always defined and distinguished our country. As a result, I am more than happy to make common cause with anyone devoted to the goal of removing the one-party rule under which our country is suffering. Bob Barr obviously thinks the same, which is why he agreed to introduce Al Gore’s speech on the threats to liberty posed by the Bush Administration. Bruce Fein obviously thinks the same as he worked with Sen. Feingold to urge a censure of the President.

If opposing the adminsitration and working with those devoted to defeating it makes me a “liberal” in your eyes, so be it. I can’t think of many things less important. But the accusation that I now lied in my book because this all proves that I’m some sort of doctrainnaire liberal who subscribes to the liberal view on political issues is as irrational as it is reckless.

You should ask why it is that you are so willing to believe that people lie and are for sale and are subject to having their vulnerability so easily corrupted. Something about your experiences and behavior has led you to that view.
4 Mark Says:
June 25th, 2006 at 8:37 am
Come now, Glenn, I’m not saying that you’re on Markos’s payroll or anything sinister like that - just that it’s natural to want to defend those who have done so much for your standing in the blog world. Glenn Reynolds helped me get this blog off the ground with a few early links; I wouldn’t be particularly enthusiastic about criticizing him.

Nevertheless, for you to call Jason Zengerle the new Stephen Glass and then come around here all high and mighty takes brass cajones; I salute you.

Three questions: why are you so concerned to defend Jerome Armstrong and Kos from the accusation that Jerome gets paid and Kos comes along? It seems pretty apparent that Mark Warner is the kind of politician Kos would hate in other circumstances - look at how he castigates other centrists. Yet you attack Zengerle - why?

2. On what do you base your belief that I have no integrity? Why not address the questions and avoid sliming me? You’re the one that called Zengerle Stephen Glass; you’re the one who calls Bush supporters mindless automatons who are engaged in a cult of personality; you’re the one who says that George Bush has manufactured a climate of fear in order to - well, in order to help protect us, I guess. Keep me out of it.

3. Why are you focusing on the Advertising Liberally angle, which is a sidebar to the broader story? Since you feel free to say that I have no integrity for merely criticizing you, why not share with us how you feel about Jerome Armstrong’s consent decree and what that says about him and his integrity?
5 Mark Says:
June 25th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Glenn, also interesting that you say you’ll make common cause with anyone interested in removing the one-party rule our country suffers under - umm…democracy, anyone? As in, elections conducted under our constitutional form of government? As in, win an election, and you won’t have to suffer…but then, you’re not a partisan, right? Because I had no integrity, remember, for suggesting that I didn’t buy that…
6 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » A Clarification Says:
June 25th, 2006 at 9:11 am
[…] Gleen Greenwald took great umbrage at my post yesterday regarding his attack on Jason Zengerle; he seemed to feel that I implied he had no integrity and was a liar. Perhaps I did; I believe neither. Let me clarify to Glenn and to my readers what I meant by the two offending statements. […]
7 dmac Says:
June 25th, 2006 at 10:30 am
“Bob Barr obviously thinks the same…”

Well, gee, I guess that settles it. A retired demagogue agrees with another retired demogogue (Gore). Birds of a feather…
8 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Gilliard-Gate: The New Stephen Glass Responds Says:
June 25th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
[…] Okay, Glenn Greenwald (wow, how did I spend so much of my weekend blogging about him?) was right; Steve Gilliard did not compose the third email quoted by Jason Zengerle in his expose of the ‘Townhouse’ request by Kos to keep mum on Jerome Armstrong’s troubles with the SEC (if you’re completely confused, refreshers are here and here): Steve Gilliard claims that he did not write the email I attributed to him in this post. After doing some further investigating, I’m afraid to say that he is correct. He did not write that email. I apologize to Gilliard for not checking with him before publishing my post, and I regret the error. […]