Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 24, 2005
By: Kevin Drum

CONSERVATIVE BLOGS....Tis the season to be what? Charitable toward ones sparring partners, I suppose. With that in mind, I periodically get email asking me for a list of good conservative blogs. In fact, I got another one just yesterday. Around these parts, we consider "good" and "conservative" to be oxymorons for most of the year, but today I'm going to make an exception. For a variety of reasons some are entertaining, some I learn things from, some are mainly anthropological excursions there are several non-liberal blogs that I read daily or almost daily. Here they are:

DISCLAIMER: I'm not recommending any of these blogs. I'm not giving any of them a seal of approval. I disagree with 90% of what they say. But I do read them regularly. If you check them out for a few days, you might find one or two that you enjoy reading too.

And one more thing: in the spirit of the Christmas etc. season, keep it clean in comments, OK? I already know you guys don't like conservatives, so you won't be telling me anything new by explaining in detail why one or more of these folks are fit only for worm food. Let's play nice today.

On the other hand, further recommendations in comments are welcome.

Kevin Drum 4:24 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (134)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

So much for the liberal academia.

There are more academics in this roll than one would find in a similar list of liberal blogs.

Posted by: lib on December 24, 2005 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

i don't think tennessee positions count as "academic."

Posted by: Nads on December 24, 2005 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

I just noticed a site the other day called Donklephant. I haven't read it enough to give a recommendation but with a name like that, and the great graphic at the top, I think it's worth a mention.

http://donklephant.com/

Posted by: Craig on December 24, 2005 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Jane Galt - www.janegalt.net - has some insights now and then. At first I didn't know she was a "conservative blog". Still not sure...

Posted by: scottfree on December 24, 2005 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sampled about a third of these blogs, and the only one that isn't an ideological moron is the guy who runs Belgravia Dispatch. Yeah, "Volkohv" and Tom at Just One Minute aren't consistently morons, but they lapse into ideological moron mode with startling regularity.

PS: John Cole at Balloon Juice probably belongs on your list -- and he's got a good crew of commenters there as well.

Posted by: p.lukasiak on December 24, 2005 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

What, no Pajamas Media?? :D

Posted by: ihateemo on December 24, 2005 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with p. Lukasiak.
Volokh---how can you read a guy who writes with relish about hands-on torture? The guy is a throwback to the Iron Age... scary.
Belgraviadispatch is good, but how can someone that smart be giving Bush any more chances now? I don't get it. Lots of interesting stuff there about nuts and bolts of the Iraq war.
I think Drezner is fine, but man is he full of himself. His topics don't particularly interest me either.
Tom Maguire must have improved if anyone finds him readable---his comments on blogs used to be mostly tendentious rot.
Bull Moose... *shudder*. That guy does NOT have a way with words, and he has the biggest ego around, as well as being a supreme prick.

Posted by: marky on December 24, 2005 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

I guess somebody without rabies needs to read them. My blood pressure is pretty borderline already. I can't afford it.
Thanks for reading them so we don't have to. Maybe you earn that living of yours after all.

Posted by: jussumbody on December 24, 2005 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Volokh also is a brilliant example of the difference between analytical intelligence and good judgment. He reads like a precocious teenager to me---which btw is my problem with Yglesias as well; he's smart, but boy does he make whopping errors of judgment based on his lack of experience.

Posted by: marky on December 24, 2005 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

I note Peter Daou now also puts the Bull Moose on his list of conservative blogs.

Posted by: jerry on December 24, 2005 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

Instahack really doesn't belong on any list of marginally acceptable reading material.

Printing out his blog on soft paper & using it to wipe my ass is being too kind to his output.

Posted by: J on December 24, 2005 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, I'd add John Cole's Balloon Juice as well.

Posted by: Tad Brennan on December 24, 2005 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

I have to agree with marky: I know you wanted to keep it clean, but Marshall Whitman is a prick. I was going to say asshole, but prick works too. I used to read him regularly, but his creeping Liebermanism sickens me.

Andrew Sullivan is another one that pisses me off. He wavers betweenly lucidity and a Tweety-like infatuation with Preznit Flyboy. And his "you're welcome" column to the Iraqis, nobly accepting the little brown people's gratitude for his sacrifices as a proud member of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, is an even bigger blot on his record than his just infamous, but still not famous enough, fifth columnists of the coasts, or whatever that idiocy was.

Other than that, I don't read rightwing blogs cause I get their opinions from the "objective reporting" of the mainstream media--Kitty Pilgrim, the O'Brien bobsy twins on CNN, Katie Couric, Tim "exactly right" Russert, the Professor and Maryann...

And with that, I have to wrap presents. Now that one or tow of my grievances have been aired: Merry Festivus to all!!

Posted by: jim on December 24, 2005 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

America is so rightist compared to the rest of the world, nearly every one of these guys is an extremist by global standards.

Posted by: Gary Sugar on December 24, 2005 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

I consider this to be one of the "conservative" blogs I visit.

Kevin sounds more like a Rockefeller Republican than a real Democrat.

Posted by: aginghippie on December 24, 2005 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

Another vote for John Cole's Balloon Juice.

Jim, "creeping Liebermanism"? Hasn't Wittman been like that from the beginning?

Posted by: KCinDC on December 24, 2005 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

A conservative's blog that I read regularly is The Cunning Realist:

http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Kevin on December 24, 2005 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

One of the lesser publicized conservative blogs that I find provides informative counter to media slants on news data is:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

Posted by: pencarrow on December 24, 2005 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Ok. So I don't want to read any of those in enough detail to decide which would be worth adding to my regular blog checkin'. Who can just recommend two from Kevin's list (aside from instapundit) that I should definitely look in to?


thanks!

Posted by: alexander on December 24, 2005 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

On the problem of linking the word "good" with "conservative," yes there is a linkage to be made.

To make it more clear, I think you need to separate "Bush supporter" from "conservative." By this definition none of Fox news is conservative, nor is Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by: alan on December 24, 2005 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Ditto to the pseudonymous Cunning Realist and John Cole's Balloonjuice. Other commenters left the address.

Posted by: mike on December 24, 2005 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Who can just recommend two from Kevin's list (aside from instapundit) that I should definitely look in to?

I can only recommend one...Belgravia Dispatch, but please don't go there. One of its charms is that it doesn't attract a very wide audience :)

Posted by: p.lukasiak on December 24, 2005 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

What's so awful about Instapundit? He seems pretty reaonable to me. Belmont Club, Belgravia Dispatch, and Balloon Juice are worthwhile as well.

I have to say I find it amusing that so many on either side of the left/right divide see those on the other side as drooling imbeciles. It's hard to take that opinion (or its holders) seriously.

Posted by: Brian on December 24, 2005 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

This is the single silliest blog post I have ever read. Words fail me. But Merry Christmas to you too.

Posted by: JJF on December 24, 2005 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

The Unqualified Offerings author may be a libertarian but I'd hardly call him a "conservative" in the conventional sense, since he's very hostile to the Bush administration and the bloggers who defend him.

Posted by: Matt Stevens on December 24, 2005 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

www.Powerlineblog.com

It's the best conservative blog. Written by 3 lawyers, all of whom write well and have a good sense of humor.

Kevin Drum still hasn't gotten over TIME awarding PowerLineBog the "Blog of the Year" for 2004.

But don't let that stop you from enjoying this blog!

Posted by: GOPGregory on December 24, 2005 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

I'd be surprised if you really disagreed with 90% of what Winds of Change presents. Ditto for The Volokh Conspiracy (which has debates among participants representing diverse viewpoints -- how could you possibly disagree with 90% of the total?)

This is just another example of your presentation of empty sentences, at least one in nearly every post.

Posted by: papageno on December 24, 2005 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

A third recommendation for balloon-juice as honest a conservative blog as I have found. John Cole is what I imagined tbrosz was like until his dark side was revealed.

Posted by: LW Phil on December 24, 2005 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Powerline proves that going to school in the New Hampshire outback can so radically twist one's perspective that the world forever looks like a tree.

Posted by: TJM on December 24, 2005 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK
What's so awful about Instapundit? He seems pretty reaonable to me.

What's awful is his selective application of principles. He'll decry Kos as hateful for withholding his sympathy from US mercenaries killed in Iraq, while keeping Lennie Green Footballs -- who celebrated the death of a 22-year-old girl by naming her their idiot of the year -- on his blogroll.

Posted by: Mike on December 24, 2005 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

Volokh himself is not a moron, but I do think I smell a guy who is trying desperately hard to keep alive his candidacy for a Federal judgeship (memo to Volokh: relax, it ain't gonna happen).

The George Mason crowd seems to have got itself into a competitive slush match to see who can be the most outlandish or mean-spirited. Must be some kind of tenure requirement.

Posted by: BUCE on December 24, 2005 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

"What's awful is his selective application of principles. He'll decry Kos as hateful for withholding his sympathy from US mercenaries killed in Iraq, while keeping Lennie Green Footballs -- who celebrated the death of a 22-year-old girl by naming her their idiot of the year -- on his blogroll."
-Mike

I think I remeber the Kos post you mention - and it was hateful. However, I don't read LGF often. Are you talking about Rachel Corrie?

Posted by: Brian on December 24, 2005 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

How 'bout something worth reading, Kevin. I recommend a list of good Liberal/Progressive blogs?

Liberal/Progressive blogs that know what they stand for and advance the arguments and agenda from that particular point of view.

Posted by: bedobe on December 24, 2005 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, if Google can decorate for Christmas, why can't Political Animal?

Posted by: cld on December 24, 2005 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

I actually like reading The Dawn Patrol semi-regularly. I know that every liberal's favorite right-wing blogger is supposed to be an "honest libertarian" or "traditional conservative," but the truth is that I like the conservative Catholic right-wing blogging from time to time. (though her blog seems to be on Christmas hiatus to remind us that -- gasp! -- there are more important things this evening and tomorrow than blogging)

Posted by: Constantine on December 24, 2005 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK
I think I remeber the Kos post you mention - and it was hateful. However, I don't read [Lennie Green Footballs] often. Are you talking about Rachel Corrie?

Dude, how do you remember that name?

Posted by: Mike on December 24, 2005 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

LW Phil:

John Cole is what I imagined tbrosz was like until his dark side was revealed.

I find your lack of faith disturbing...

Posted by: tbrosz on December 24, 2005 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

Personally, I can't forget that name.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 24, 2005 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you for this list, Kevin. I can wrap it up and give it to someone else next Christmas.

Posted by: regifter on December 24, 2005 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't Volokh the one who's always going on about homosexual anal sex? He's insane.

OK I did a quick google - that is Volokh. He's also the one who argued for getting rid of the cruel and unusual punishment clause because he thinks we should be torturing criminals.

I particularly like the involvement of the victims' relatives in the killing of the monster; I think that if he'd killed one of my relatives, I would have wanted to play a role in killing him. Also, though for many instances I would prefer less painful forms of execution, I am especially pleased that the killing — and, yes, I am happy to call it a killing, a perfectly proper term for a perfectly proper act — was a slow throttling, and was preceded by a flogging.

I am being perfectly serious, by the way. I like civilization, but some forms of savagery deserve to be met not just with cold, bloodless justice but with the deliberate infliction of pain, with cruel vengeance rather than with supposed humaneness or squeamishness.

By disgusting American standards, this is called conservative. In every other democracy in the world, it would be called psychopathic.

Posted by: Gary Sugar on December 24, 2005 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

As a moderate liberal (almost exactly correlated
with Kevin and Josh Marshall) I still find Radley
Balko (www.theagitator.com) to be worthwhile
reading. He's very libertarian, but he's fair and not
partisan and is as likely to find fault with Republicans
as Democrats. Plus, if you believe in an active
government (as I do), it's still important to have the
guys who are pointing out where government goes
too far or screws up.

Posted by: Matt on December 24, 2005 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone who is for giving unchecked power to the President, as all these guys appear to be, is not a conservative. Words like fascists are more appropriate, especially given their unalloyed support for corpoorations over individuals.

Posted by: lib on December 24, 2005 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

I am being perfectly serious, by the way. I like civilization, but some forms of savagery deserve to be met not just with cold, bloodless justice but with the deliberate infliction of pain, with cruel vengeance rather than with supposed humaneness or squeamishness.

And with each deliberate act of premeditated violence, we surrender a little bit more of our own humanity. Excellent notion, that. Now I know of at least one site that I will not fail to miss.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 24, 2005 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK
Personally, I can't forget that name.

Well, when you remember that name, be sure to remember instapundit's selective application of principles that go along with it (ie. what gets labeled hate for Kos keeps Lennie Green Footballs on his blogroll).

Posted by: Mike on December 24, 2005 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

be sure to remember instapundit's selective application of principles that go along with it

You mean the SOP for the neocon movement?

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 24, 2005 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

Obviously, had anyone regularly read Volokh, they would have followed up on his change of views on this.

It seems like a lot of the posts here could be shortened to "Go away, Kevin. We LIKE our echo chambers."

Posted by: tbrosz on December 24, 2005 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

If I were asked for a list of reasonable conservative blogs, I surely wouldn't include Instapundit. Insta is neither intellectually honest nor actually provocative. He's a small step below Powerline in terms of being pure Republican hackery and Bush haigiography.

Posted by: NBarnes on December 24, 2005 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

"If I were asked for a list of reasonable conservative blogs, I surely wouldn't include Instapundit. Insta is neither intellectually honest nor actually provocative. He's a small step below Powerline in terms of being pure Republican hackery and Bush haigiography."
-NBarnes

So what you're saying is that don't actually read Instapundit, huh?

Posted by: Brian on December 24, 2005 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sure there are reasonable conservative blogs, but there are no moral ones.

Posted by: Michael on December 24, 2005 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

Hehe, I did see that Volokh changed his mind about that. If he was eight years old at the time, the whole thing might be understandable.

Anyway, I admit, it is true that I have no interest in anything Republicans have to say about anything. I wish the Republicans at this site would go away.

Posted by: Gary Sugar on December 24, 2005 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe I've missed previous opinions on the site, but I've been giving Redstate.org a try for the last month or so. I must have hit the anomalies the first few times I was on; it seemed like there were some actual discussions. However, repeated exposure has shown this to be yet another echo chamber, so I don't recommend it. Also, it's amazing how many topics get overlooked. They pick nits to make liberals look bad and miss some really big things.

My bad.

Posted by: klaus on December 24, 2005 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Instahack is a fucking quack.

Sorry, Kevin.

Posted by: Gore/Obama '08 on December 24, 2005 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

Any that are conservative and funny? (I mean, intentionally)


I thought so...

Posted by: craigie on December 24, 2005 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

Gary, posting Volokh's old view while knowing he had repudiated it, is not good form.

Posted by: Brian S. on December 24, 2005 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

e.g. -- "Oh, this Plame affair is just too confusing for me, so I'll just say it is all OK." -Instaquack.

Posted by: Gore/Obama '08 on December 24, 2005 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

conservative and funny

Conservatives think liberals have no sense of humor.

Because we insist on taking those racist jokes seriously.

Posted by: Gary Sugar on December 24, 2005 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

Excellent, Kevin!

You've already spit on the workers today, let's be nice to the man. Been living on your knees long?

That said, Ann's Bughouse is a decent blog if you're stoned.

Wait, I think it's Althouse.

Posted by: sixteenwords on December 24, 2005 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

Hate to incline too serious or analytical here, but, just now reading Volokh's "retraction", as well as Kleiman's original counterargument, it strikes me that neither one of them seems to get it when it comes to the moral issues raised by torture. In both cases, the case against torture rests really entirely on institutional considerations that are really accidental to the reasons evolved societies have moved away from torture.

Neither accounts for the felt need civilized governments have exhibited to make, say, executions as humane as possible (or simply to eliminate them). Whence this impulse? Why should death even by a means as quick and effective as a firing squad strike so many as barbaric? Clearly, it has to do with the very fact that it is our government, in its most serious and deliberate mode, choosing to do something so bloody and mutilating to a human being, in a context well outside of war or immediate self-defense.

I don't think most people have to justify their aversion to such an a form of execution in terms of some externality, such as whether juries will buy into the concept. The real question is, if juries, ordinary human beings, DON'T buy into the concept, well, why not? What is the direct objection that THEY have? Why is not their very moral disgust at the act the real problem that act raises?

Anyway, returning to the question of blogs, I personally would recommend Dan Drezner. He respects argument, and he's not deranged.

Posted by: frankly0 on December 24, 2005 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

franklynO beat me to it! I was going to recommend Dan Drezner as far as conservatives go.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 24, 2005 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

Another vote for Balloon-Juice. I don't always agree with the guy but he's not part of the vast right-wing echo chamber either.

Posted by: easyfrag on December 24, 2005 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

However, repeated exposure has shown this to be yet another echo chamber, so I don't recommend it. Also, it's amazing how many topics get overlooked.

That could describe every blog. To avoid echo chambers and look over all topics you need to spend your time in libraries and book stores.

Posted by: papageno on December 24, 2005 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

I wish the Republicans at this site would go away.

Wouldn't that make it one of the dreaded "echo chambers"?

Posted by: papageno on December 24, 2005 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

I haven't complained about echo chambers. I've complained that the American right is too extreme for me.

Maybe I should say it this way. If someone defends torture, I don't want anything to do with them again.

Posted by: Gary Sugar on December 24, 2005 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

If you are dealing with that issue, I don't think you can ignore the fact that Andrew Sullivan has argued long and hard against torture, citing it as a moral atrocity.

I agree that he can be over emotional, but that is part of what makes him intresting to read and he is generally willing to acknowledge his own errors, which I see as integral to any attempt at intellectual honesty.

Posted by: Rachel on December 24, 2005 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

Gary Sugar sez:
Because we insist on taking those racist jokes seriously.

Yeah, as long as they're made by conservatives. Liberals get a pass on this.

Posted by: jb on December 24, 2005 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINK

I like Goldstein over at Protein Wisdom. He is funny, yet never seems too hateful and has always welcomed my dissent in his comments and still hasn't banned me. http://proteinwisdom.com

Posted by: jess @ losli.mu.nu on December 24, 2005 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

Rachel, I agree that Sullivan is an eloquent writer. I know they're not bloggers, but I think Krauthammer and Pat Buchanan are also eloquent writers.

Posted by: Gary Sugar on December 24, 2005 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

GOP Gregory,

You're quite brave in recommending PowerLine to a pack of die-hard liberals. To me Powerline is Bush hagiography at its most extreme- their blog wouldn't be out of place in a cult-of-personality dictatorship.

Anyway- this is a good list by Kevin, as most of the blog he cites provide more light than heat. I especially recommend Belgravia Dispatch, Balloon Juice, Cathy Young, Unqualified Offerings, Daniel Drezner, and Andrew Sullivan.

As liberals, I think it's important that we step out of the echo chamber once in awhile and engage in discussion with serious conservative argument. One of our weaknesses is that we tend to think everyone- or at least all reasonable people- think like us. Contrary to popular belief, not all Bush supporters and conservatives are religious nuts and warmongerers.

Posted by: Matt on December 24, 2005 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

Since John Cole brought on a lib coblogger (me) and went full RINO over Schiavo and Abu Ghraib his blog (Balloon Juice) brealy qualifies as conservative anymore. But many, many thanks for the commenter nominations. At least, John's conservatism demands people to clarify whether one means Movement Conservatism or the old-school philosophy that Bob Dole and Bob Barr sort of made an effort to keep alive. Most of what we call 'conservative' today has practically nothing to do with conservatism as we once knew it.

Posted by: Tim F on December 24, 2005 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

I actually share a problem that some conservatives do with Instapundit -- he doesn't actually write much of anything. He resembles Drudge more than he resembles, say, Little Green Footballs. Mind you, Drudge and Reynolds are better than the Chuckie Johnson mob, but they are more a collection of links to raving lunatics who wrote something suitably messed up, while Chuckie Johnson is the raving lunatic who wrote the messed up diatrabe.

Posted by: Diamond LeGrande on December 24, 2005 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

"So much for the liberal academia."

Maybe you can find someone to explain the difference between "anecdote" and "data," neither of which is the plural of the other.

Posted by: YetAnotherRick on December 24, 2005 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK

Eddie and I enjoy Jeff Gannon's *blog*

Posted by: clyde tolson on December 24, 2005 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

Jon Henke writing at QandO blog may be the last sane Conservative pundit. His co-bloggers are sycophants but Jon often gets it right. He's agin torture of any kind and had this to say on Snoopgate:

How do free societies become unfree societies? One step at a time...Naturally, many people will jump to defend the administration, pointing out that, "you know, terrorists and evildoers and national security and what're you, some kind of traitor who wants another 9/11?" They'll continue making that argument until, say, Hillary Clinton ascends to the White House and it occurs to them that, hey, maybe giving the Executive Branch near-unlimited power to reinterpret and/or flaunt the laws might not be such a great idea after all.

He's worth a read on occasion.

As for the rest? If it was revealed that Bush ate infants, Malkin and the rest would have "favourite" BBQ Baby-ribs recipes posted next day and all would swear they had been eating babies for years.

Regards, C

Posted by: Cernig on December 24, 2005 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

Tim F, Balloon Juice is still quite a bit more conservative than Obsidian Wings on average, and ObWi is on Kevin's list.

Posted by: KCinDC on December 24, 2005 at 11:25 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not so sure that "conservative" is the right adjective to hang on those blogs. We do the radical right a favor every time we call them conservatives. This isn't just a superficial semantic issue-- it's a great big deal, and progressive bloggers are amazingly clueless about it.

Posted by: owl on December 24, 2005 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

I did a quick check, and to my surprise, of the 19 blogs listed here, only 4 don't have comments. This totally unscientific survey could be explained a few ways:

1. The conventional wisdom, that liberal blogs all welcome comments while conservative ones don't, is wrong.
2. Kevin selected a list of "reasonable" or "moderate" conservatives, so of course they mainly have comments.
3. This list is atypical in some other way - for example, how would comments correlate to popularity (measured by hits)? All the big liberal blogs have comments, while Instanitwit and Sullivan and The Corner, who must be high in the top 10 in conservoworld, do not have comments.
4. Something else I can't think of right now.

Oh well. Merry Christmas! I mean, Happy Festivus!

Posted by: craigie on December 25, 2005 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

If you are dealing with that issue, I don't think you can ignore the fact that Andrew Sullivan has argued long and hard against torture, citing it as a moral atrocity.

As far as I can tell, Andrew Sullivan and Marty Lederman have been the most important campaigners against torture by the US military. Sullivan also could not be considered an "echo chamber" blog, nor a Bush sycophant. He's a great writer, a gay rights hero, and a senior editor at the New Republic. But everyone still seems to find him annoying. Go figure. Frankly, I don't see the problem with getting emotional about politics -- as long as you are still rational, which I think Sullivan is.

Positive Liberty is my favorite libertarian blog. In the Agora is a pretty good conservative blog as well.

Posted by: worm eater on December 25, 2005 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

Oh well. Merry Christmas! I mean, Happy Festivus

Merry Christmas craigie, dream of Mrs. craigie in cape and boots.

Posted by: LW Phil on December 25, 2005 at 12:08 AM | PERMALINK

Personally, I spend more time in conservative blogspace than anywhere else. Where else to hone your arguments?

Having said that, Obisidian Wings is a favorite mostly because I agree with Hilzoy so much. And John Cole is, in spite of how often he gets really pissed, one of the most reasonable conservatives out there. But it is so much more fun reading Powertools or Red State and disagreeing with them so much. It forces me to come up with good arguments for why they are nuts.

Posted by: platosearwax on December 25, 2005 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

Jane Galt Assymetrical Information is a Libertarian blog. She is a former liberal and reminds me of an ex-smoker, she cant make enough disparaging remarks about liberals. But shes introspective and informed and often puts a perspective on things that make me think. Her strength is economics and in that sphere she is usually right on the money.

Posted by: spacecaptain on December 25, 2005 at 6:49 AM | PERMALINK

No one has mentioned soxblog.

Posted by: Noumignon on December 25, 2005 at 7:16 AM | PERMALINK

The true meaning of the word 'libertarian' is something along the lines of, I don't understand the implications of the existence of other people.

Posted by: obscure on December 25, 2005 at 7:38 AM | PERMALINK

I like Balloon Juice:

www.balloon-juice.com

Posted by: searp on December 25, 2005 at 8:26 AM | PERMALINK

My blood pressure is pretty borderline already. I can't afford it.

Posted by: Dorethy on December 25, 2005 at 8:26 AM | PERMALINK

Are there any blogs that take a world/national view that;s more based in class than in ideology -- in other words, an anti-elite blog? We need leadership from a different perspective, not someone shaped by the usual sheltered Ivy League upper-class environment, whether they be on the left or right.

Posted by: Vincent on December 25, 2005 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINK

Vincent, you could take a look at Ed Kilgore's blog, NewDonkey.com. Ed went to the University of Georgia, loves football, and espouses faith, though he is a Democrat whose politics line are pretty Clintonesque.

Of course, he's still college-educated. Since blogging involves a lot of reading and writing, it's going to be hard to find someone who does it a lot who isn't college-educated.

Posted by: Doctor Jay on December 25, 2005 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

No conservative list is complete without National Review Online, Powerline, Polipundit, Michelle Malkin, Victor Davis Hansen, Mark Steyn, Opinionjournalonline, townhall and hughhewitt.

If you wish to know what real conservatives are thinking try the top sites.


Posted by: rdw on December 25, 2005 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

Sure, rdw, but Kevin was trying to list good conservative blogs.

Posted by: KCinDC on December 25, 2005 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

Agree with adding Balloon Juice. I read that one daily. He's on the right, but with some independence of thought, willing to look at the evidence.

Posted by: ellen on December 25, 2005 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Must commend rdw's list - Fox News and their online blogs by their commentators as well.

Keep up the good work Wootten - My boss is very proud of you.

Sieg and Frohe Weisomething or other.

Posted by: Joseph Goebbels on December 25, 2005 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

KC,

Then shouldn't you want a good conservative site as a conservative would define good?

Posted by: rdw on December 25, 2005 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

I believe in LOVE.
Tortilla Chip is my friend.
Love. Love.
David Brooks is guiding my every breath.
I am not alone anymore. I miss you.

Posted by: Coca Cola Cowboy on December 25, 2005 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

So far as conservative blogs go, I love balloon-juice, and one of the reasons I love it is the knock-down drag-outs that flare up in the comments section. It gets very lively there, but (with a few notable exceptions) nobody holds a grudge. The commenters seem to have a real affection for one another, even when they're going at it hammer and tongs.

I think we (yes, I do comment there) take our cue from The Proprietor, John Cole, who can go off the deep end with the best of them, but without turning into a barking loon.

Posted by: CaseyL on December 25, 2005 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

...John Cole, who can go off the deep end with the best of them, but without turning into a barking loon.

That's walking a very fine line.

Posted by: Dave Ruddell on December 25, 2005 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

Merry Christmas!

Fuck Bush!

Kick out the jams and IMPEACH that motherfucker!

Merry Christmas!

Posted by: The Fool on December 25, 2005 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Vincent,

My opinion, right-left is roughly equivalent to elite-common. It's the common righties who carry the banner of ignorance and inadvertently level the playing field for the economic elite.

Posted by: obscure on December 25, 2005 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Gee, thanks to everyone for all the sites to check out. I agree about balloon-juice; especially about how "lively" some of the reparte can be. OMG.

Am looking forward to checking out Andrew Sullivan and Dan Drezner (and a few others that are now duly bookmarked) as soon as something other than a slow news day occurs.

Thanks, again!!!!! :)

Posted by: rainyday on December 25, 2005 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

I like to read http://patterico.com/ and argue with the lawyers there (although I am not a lawyer). Patterico and Angry Clam have a good sense of humor too. It is a good idea to find out what the right is thinking.

Posted by: Tillman on December 25, 2005 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

rdw

Then shouldn't you want a good conservative site as a conservative would define good?

I think a good site is one that respects facts. ie. one's worldview is constructed on the basis of all available facts and all facts have to be accounted for for it to be true (well the current closest proximity to truth; we're human, we struggle). Though I disagree with him and he does seem to have somewhat homoerotic urges towards Mr. Bush that cloud his judgement I can respect Andrew Sullivan for this. If facts are just picked up to buttress pre-existing views (and contrary facts pushed away) I have no interest in the site (I guess Instapundit falls in here). Of course I suppose it depends if your interest is philosophic or political (in which case reading Instapundit might be worthwhile).

What I want to see are signs of a struggle to truth. I never trust those who claim to know (hence my sometimes snarky responses to your bluff assertions, rdw, but it's Christmas so I'll try and be nice). A lot of conservative sites are just about tribal bellowing, American nativism. ie. about as interesting to me (and as enlightening) as reading about Marxist-Leninist dogma (by the way, as China rises, you'll get a lot of chance to be on the outside looking in on a lot of loudly expressed nativism; it'll be interesting to hear your perspective on this).

A Merry Christmas,

Posted by: snicker-snack on December 25, 2005 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

I'm as liberal as they come, but I actually read Balloon Juice and Obsidian Wings more than any other blogs by a *wide* margin these days. Echo chambers can be effective advocates, but they're just not interesting.

Posted by: carpeicthus on December 25, 2005 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

Many thanks to Kevin for his continued support of our little group blog. We're probably more liberal/moderate than conservative these days, as our conservatives (including myself) seem to be having a bit of political burnout these days. Our readership also tends to lean liberal/moderate as well, so we're certainly not a place to go if you want to keep your finger on the pulse of the conservatives. But we do have some pretty lively discussions now and then.

I've also enjoyed reading through these comments. It confirms what I've known for a long time (i.e., that John Cole's blog is the conservative blog of choice for liberals--as well as a good blog--and that liberals tend to like conservatives who are closest to themselves.)

Posted by: BTD Greg on December 26, 2005 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINK

Excellent choices all -- I'd like to add Ed_Driscoll.com to the mix. Good writing on politics and technology/consumer electronics.

Posted by: minion of rove on December 26, 2005 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK

I'm a moderate, registered independent, usually voting democrat for the past ten years.

I love Kevin's blog. Been a reader from day one.

I think Obsidian Wings is a really good place to get a feel for what folks outside the echo chamber (whatever your personal chamber is) are thinking. The blog attracts both right and left commentors. Most are fairly rational and engage in a meaningful dialogue.

Some of the blogs on Kevin's list are only good for getting a feel for the deranged extremist hard right wing POV. I would say that Winds of Change is definitely of this category.

The bloggers are all heavily pro-zionist. They have a strong classic neocon agenda. They barely mask their hatred of all things Arab (Arabs will either "convert to democracy" or be exterminated. The ensuing genocide will, thus, be of their own doing............)

Debate is non-existant. If you disagree with the bloggers you will be shouted down, called names, etc. Again, the post authors have an agenda. Propaganda is the goal, not enlightenment. Dishonesty is the rule in discussions.

On the plus side, characters like Michael Ledeen actually read the blog and sometimes leave comments (generally assinine) - which gives you an excellent opportunity to let such prominent neocons know what you think of them and their ideas.

Posted by: avedis on December 26, 2005 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

In T-bird, I keep my political blog feeds classified in folders of center, left, right, and libertarian. Like some others here, I'd argue for filing Megan McArdle (Jane Galt) as a libertarian. Same goes, most of the time, for Cathy Young, and nearly all of the time for Jim Henley at Unqualified Offerings. I also agree with all of the plugs for John Cole.

How about the OxBlog?

Posted by: Dave Straub on December 26, 2005 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

MERRY CHRISTMAS to you all. Its funny in a way and somewhat sad to realize how bad it is with liberals who hate ,really hate those of us on the right. Especially from the group that is so "all inclusive" and poli correct. Just shows me the true face of the lefties. No real debate can continue without truth and ideals from both sides so clogging the issues with BLACK HELICOPTERS and conspiracy is pointless. Hatred or mental shortcomings can only send libs down the path they are taking at an accelerated rate. You are running out of track HAPPY NEW YEAR good hunting please run Hillary in 08 PLEASE!!!!

Posted by: Glyn Lockhart on December 26, 2005 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know that Eric Alterman would consider Cathy Young a liberal blogger.

Posted by: skip on December 26, 2005 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Who needs republican sites other than this one? Here, one is exposed to all the latest talking points from the likes of Al, Patton, Tbrosz, vogelfinder, cheney, gopgregory, rdw, ad nauseam.

Posted by: Mike on December 26, 2005 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

snicker-snack,

ALL of the sites I listed are extremely reliable and balanced. Certaintly more than CBS news. By balanced I don't mean coverge without a point of view. I mean inviting of criticism and dialogue from a wide range of sources. The MSM outlets who pretend to objectivity take their audience for fools and they're mostly correct.

Powerline was instrumental in proving the fraud of Dan Rather and the MSM in realtime as well as so many other media frauds. Very recently they were able to engage one of the writers of the NYTs articles on the NSA is a way that wasn't even a little bit complementary of the NYTs but was very informative.

I think the blogs work best when they are covering the coverage of the news. For example the most interesting aspect of the Dan Rather coverage was in how the MSM covered it and the lefty blogs. 98% of those watching knew in less than 6 hours the letters were crayon quality frauds. The fun part was in watching the MSM keeping the 'truth of the story' going. If I remember correctly CBS kept this story going weeks by pretending there was nothing to it and now 18 months later we have the pleaure of Mary Mapes doing a book tour and clowns like Jonothan Alter STILL pretending there's somthing there. It's a good feeling to be conservative in 2005 and to know there will not be any more Dan Rathers. Think back to Uncle Walter. It wasn't that long ago he reigned unquestioned. Today he'd just be another talking head. Public opinion of the MSM is in the toilet.

Such is the power of the conservative blogs you don't read.

More recenty the great story has been the analysis of the legality of the NSA's activity. Pre-powerline we'd know next to knowing except that GWB was making Tricky Dick look like the patron aint of civil rights. But in 2005 I knew within 24 hours that Clinton and Carter held exactly the same opinion of FISA AND aothrized many warrentless searches. Further we know the courts have ruled at least 4 times in favor of the Presidency.

The only commentator/writer to engage Powerline even slightly was the previously mentioned columnist for the NYTs and in fact he did not actively disagree with any of his points (on the NYTs egregiously misleaidng coverage of the law). Kevin's coverage of the legality has been decent for a lefty but still ignored the level of legal support for GWBs position on the constitutionality of FISA vs the Executive. He let his hair get caught on fire with impeachment fever.

Powerline is not perfect but they print their corrections as prominately as the original error which makes them far superior to newspapers and magazines (as do the lefty blogs I've seen just as much to their credit). I much prefer any blog for this reason, as well as their upfront disclosure of a point of view, to almost ANY newspaper or magazine.

CBS, NBC, ABC, the NYTs, Time Magazine, Newsweek, etc. are frauds. I'll take Kevin Drum over them anyday. Kevin is honest in stating his point of view and will admit errors.

I'd recomend libs read these sites everyday for your own sanity. One of the reasons libs are so depressed and frustrated is you've been so clueless politically. Every year the DNC tells you they're getting Congress back and every year they're wrong. You were certain Kerry was going to win. You has no idea how badly the SBVs destroyed his credibility. You were the last to learn Kerry lied about EVERY aspect of Xmas in Cambodia. Had you been reading powerline and the rest you'd have been aware Kerry was even worse than Gore when it came to self-aggrandizement and not an attractive candidate. There was no excuse for being surprised. Get out of the liberal bubble.

Posted by: rdw on December 26, 2005 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

The Agitator is my first read every morning, followed by this site and then Coyote Blog. I would recommend Coyote Blog over anything else if you want to get a Libertarian point of view or primer.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/

Posted by: Jeff on December 26, 2005 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

"The true meaning of the word 'libertarian' is something along the lines of, I don't understand the implications of the existence of other people."

Posted by: obscure on December 25, 2005 at 7:38 AM | PERMALINK

Obscure:
That is an excellent description. Libertarianism always seemed like a good political philosophy for 25 year old, white, single, healthy, egocentric males with good jobs and good prospects, with well-off parents etc.

Reminds me pf a true story: My friend's girlfriend ordered eggs "sunny side up" in a restaurant once. My friend said you won't like them, but she insisted. When they came, she said " I don't like them runny like this". To which my friend said: "You only like the way it sounds, not the way it really is".

Posted by: DK2 on December 26, 2005 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

sincker-snack,

Not sure what you mean by American Nativism. I assumed you meant immigration or rather anti-immigration, but the reference to China is very confusing.

Liberals generally think China is the next threat to our dominance but I'd caution them from getting too excited. If China presents any danger to the US it's only if they botch the coming transition to a more capitalistic and democratic society as they must evolve. GWB has both brilliantly engaged and encircled the Chinese economically, diplomatically and militarily.

We are engaged in the Asian-Pacific partnership with China, India, Japan, Korea and Australia to plan the replacement for Kyoto and the future model for dealing with global enviromental issues. We are engaged with China, Japan,South Korea and Russia on the containment of North Korea which presents a much greater regional threat and should have a regional solution.

We have also been actively and successfully engaging regional player with much to fear for China such as South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, India and Pakistan among others. Relations with all of these nations have improved under Bush especially India, Pakistan and Japan. Look for continuing improvements with Japan especially strong support for them to re-write their constitution to allow for much higher defense spending and an offensive focus. The USA-JAPAN-UK will form the most powerful naval coalition ever seen.

GWB has also been very active in pursuing trade deals which serve to benefit everyone. In addition to free trade with the CAFTA nations, Chile, Singapore and Australia there have been smaller deals and advancing talks with mcuh of Asia as well as the undeveloped world. The further integrated the global economy becomes the less likely for military frictions. The Chinese would suffer a great deal if the USA suffered a recession. It's in our vested interests for the other to do well economically.

I doubt I've addressed nativism but you should be able to see I don't fear China even a little bit. I see them as a bigger asset and potentially closer ally than France and Germany. Note that almost everyhing George has done he's done outside the UN and EU. We live in a different world. There's no going back.

Posted by: rdw on December 26, 2005 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

"The true meaning of the word 'libertarian' is something along the lines of, I don't understand the implications of the existence of other people."

Funny, that's what the religious right says about both civil libertarians and without-the-adjective libertarians.

Posted by: Roger Sweeny on December 26, 2005 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Ann Althouse is almost as good a blogger as Altmouse.

Posted by: Thers on December 26, 2005 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

"You only like the way it sounds, not the way it really is"

Ain't it the exasperating truth, DK2.

rdw: One of the reasons libs are so depressed and frustrated is you've been so clueless politically.

'Kay, you've got a point, rdw. We haven't quite made our peace with the fact that lies are effective campaign tactics.

The more bald-faced & vicious, the better. Chuckleheads like yourself eat 'em up.

Posted by: obscure on December 26, 2005 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

obscure,

Explain Dan Rather and John Kerry.

One tried to defame a sitting President a month before an election using the absolute worst forgery in the history of civilization and the other told us of his moving 'ephinany' when he decided to dedicate his life to politics and fighting for the common man when in Cambodia on Xmas Eve listening to President Dick Nixon in 1968. Aside from the fact Dick Nixon wasn't President in 1968, it wasn't xmas eve and he was never in Cambodia it was a compelling story.

You've got to get out of the echo chamber that is the MSM.

Posted by: rdw on December 26, 2005 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you! http://www.dirfor.com/India/ business yellowpages. international directory: yellow pages of many countries, add your firm, business organization directory. Also [url]http://www.dirfor.com/China/[/url] and [link=http://www.dirfor.com]companies of the world[/link] from yellow pages .

Posted by: yellow pages main on December 26, 2005 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the kind shout out, Kevin; and thanks for the kind words in comments, commentators.

von of ObWi.

Posted by: von on December 26, 2005 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

rdw,

Dan Rather was wrong and he resigned his job because of it. But stop there, OK? He didn't try to "defame" GWB. Far from it. The substance of the forged documents was true. OK? On the subject of TANG, Bush has a LOT to cover up. The man is a liar, a coward, a former drug-abuser, a priviledged son of an influential family who cut to the front of the line to avoid fighting in Vietnam. He went AWOL and lied about it. He is a pathetic excuse for a human being, much less a president. If middle America wasn't so brain-addled by religious ignorance Bush would be in the private sector ruining another perfectly good business.

Kerry? I don't know the details, but based on what you wrote I can say with confidence that there was no material falsehood involved. I mean, of what consequence is it whether Kerry was in Cambodia or not? Did he go close to the border? Apparently so. Could he have been mistaken about his location, or perhaps could he have exaggerated for dramatic effect? That's possible. And WHO FUCKING CARES? Only wingnuts like yourself who would be equally impressed if it was found that Kerry lied about what his favorite flavor of ice cream is.

You're in inconsequential fool, old boy. If poweful business interests hadn't installed GWB in the White House, the man would be just as inconsequential.

Unfortunately, that's not the way it turned out. Ignorant people often shape history. It's part of the human condition.

Posted by: obscure on December 26, 2005 at 11:01 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah.

I forgot to include in my listy, GWB is the only president in US history with a criminal record.

Posted by: obscure on December 26, 2005 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

obscure,

You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. Rather tried to pull off one of the dumbest hoaxes in history. Many in CBS news participated. There is zero evidence to support any of your assertions regarding GWB and TANG. This story was classic MSM. Don't you just chuckle when they try to trash the blogs on accuracy? MSM credibility is in the toilet because that's where it belongs. The good news is ratings and employment are collapsing as well. The NYTs had not one but two downsizings last year.


John Kerry lied about EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the Xmas in Cambodia story. Considering this is when he had his self-described life changing 'ephinany' you'd think he'd get at least one fact correct? Don't ya? Just one!

My favorite part of that story isn't that it provided the financial windfall the SBVs needed but it took the MSM out almost completely. How bad is it that Kerry had been running that lame story by them for 20 years and not a single one even listened closely. Think about it. It seems laughable no one questioned him on listening to President Nixon on Xmas eve in 1968. How could they have been so inept as to let that obvious lie slide. If just one of them said, "Yo, John, better revise that story the next time out, Tricky Dick wasn't President in 1968", Kerry might be President. The simple bastard didn't even bother to read his own log which showed him to be 50 miles away at the time.

Instead he became Al Gore, a serial exaggerator and fundamentally dishonest man. The good news is he trashed the credibility of the MSM as well as his own.

Posted by: rdw on December 27, 2005 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

Fred Reed's blog, Fred On Everything, isn't exactly conservative or liberal. It's cynical, provocative , and entertaining. I find many of his columns worth reading.

I also like a little read blog called
Solar Rhino. It's not updated very often, but the few posts it does have offer unique and thoughtful perspectives.

Posted by: hottub on December 27, 2005 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

What a pack of flakes you have here!

Posted by: Mr. Buzzcut on December 27, 2005 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Andrew Sullivan Conservative? I don't think so. A couple of years ago maybe, but not now.

Posted by: Kyle Stedman on December 27, 2005 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

For great conservative thought and intelligence I recommend Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, Paternico's Pontifications, Red State, Southern Appeal, Little Green Footballs, and Captains Quarters.

If you're into infantile comments and irrational conspiracies, check out the Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, and Huffington Post. Good laughs abound!

Posted by: Kevin on December 27, 2005 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, two points for you. On the value of PowerLineBlog: Even if you think its media criticism is valuable, as in the Rather case, its policy analysis has been more or less invariably pro-Bush, regardless of the issue, which makes it seem partisan, not thoughtful. On the NSA under Bush, Clinton, and Carter, see this short article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102253_pf.html. Unlike his predecessors, Bush (apparently) violated FISA.

Posted by: oliver on December 27, 2005 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

"Any that are conservative and funny? (I mean, intentionally)


I thought so..."

scrappleface.com
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/

Posted by: lake on December 27, 2005 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

"Any that are conservative and funny? (I mean, intentionally)


I thought so..."

scrappleface.com
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/

Posted by: lake on December 27, 2005 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

"Any that are conservative and funny? (I mean, intentionally)


I thought so..."

scrappleface.com
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/

Posted by: lake on December 27, 2005 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone that thinks Andrew Sullivan is conservative is taking crazy pills.

Ace of Spades is the best conservative site on the web. And Ace is very funny.

Posted by: fugazi on December 27, 2005 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Here's one worth reading... Thoughtsonline.

Posted by: steve sturm on December 27, 2005 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Powerline is as conservative as Kevin Drum is liberal. That's fine. We know this. It's the MSM frauds I find thoroughly dishonest. Their pretensions toward objectivity are laughable. I know Kevin or Powerline won't be perfect but I know if either makes an error it's corrected immediately and it's visible. The MSM rarely admits errors and when they do they hide it.

I'll take the bloggers over the MSM anyday.

Regarding the FISA I am not a lawyer and have no intention of getting in the weeks on this and acting as if I am. It's quite obvious GWB is anxious to have this fight and confident of winning. The conventional wisdom is the Executive has been losing power since the Nixon administration and Bush would love to reverse that. It would be another distinguishing characteristic between Bush and Clinton. Bush did not start this project blindly. The professional lawyers in the justice dept did their homework. This will not be settled by partisan lawyers but by the Supreme Court, if it makes it that far.

Posted by: rdw on December 27, 2005 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

rdw wrote: ed. There is zero evidence to support any of your assertions regarding GWB and TANG.

OK. Then let's get serious, shall we?

How much would you like to wager that there is zero evidence to support any of my assertions regarding GWB & TANG?

Shall we start the bidding at $10,000?

I kind of need the money.

Posted by: obscure on December 27, 2005 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

obscure wrote: I kind of need the money.

I'll bet you do, if you through money like that. Unless you're an idiot, or were living in a cave at the time, you or anyone else who had evidence of GWB TANG wrongdoing would have sold it to CBS for a lot more than 10k.

Posted by: YeahRight on December 27, 2005 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly