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

August 8, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

YES, LANNY, THE WORLD IS FULL OF CRACKPOTS....I'm sure the Wall Street Journal was delighted to run a piece by Lanny Davis, Bill Clinton's former special counsel, informing its readers that he's recently discovered that "The far right does not have a monopoly on bigotry and hatred and sanctimony." It ought to be good for years of quote mining by the Journal's crack staff of editorial writers.

And what is Davis's evidence? It's that old standby: noticing that crackpots often leave crackpotty comments on blogs and that those same people often write crackpotty email in ALL CAPS. This is news? Frankly, if that's how deep Davis had to dig to find people saying nasty things about Joe Lieberman, the 2006 Connecticut primary must be a remarkably civil affair.

Comparing this kind of nearly anonymous ranting to Rush Limbaugh (audience: in the millions) and Ann Coulter (audience: in the millions) is the work of a useful idiot, and I'm sure the Journal editors were cackling in their beers when they received it. But still, since he insists, here it is: I denounce all crackpots everywhere. Happy, Lanny?

Kevin Drum 11:47 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (75)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

You can tell by comments
that I am a crackpot.
I can tell by your comments
that you're a crackpot, too.
You can tell by our comments
that we are both crackpots.
Why don't you leave a comment
and be a crackpot too?

Posted by: Darryl Pearce on August 8, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

I'm a crackpot
He's a crackpot
Wouldn't you like to be a crackpot too?

Posted by: Reprobate on August 8, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

LOL! Thanks, Darryl!

Posted by: David B. on August 8, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

I AM NOT A CRACKPOT!

Ned

Posted by: Anthony Trollope on August 8, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

I also denounce all crackpots everywhere. Also, Hitler! And canker sores! And people who park illegally in handicapped spaces! Why has Lanny Davis chosen to remain silent on these issues?

Posted by: Paul on August 8, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

That's an insult to me. How rude!

Posted by: nut on August 8, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

Lanny Davis is a cunt.

Posted by: Hostile on August 8, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

Crackpots, huh? I went antiquing down in New York state a few years ago and this guy had a store in a barn on a farm. There was this nut Limbaugh on the radio yammering away, just making the whole thing unpleasant as anything.

I had to flee. But what kind of person has a nutbar yammer show playing loudly in his store in the middle of nowhere? I thought Americans knew how to serve the customer and all that.

Now I would just ask if his name was Al. :-) Or Slim. Or Karl.

Posted by: Bob M on August 8, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Lenny should be forced to listen to Michael Savage for a week.

Posted by: nut on August 8, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

McCarthy wasn't a problem just because he was a paranoid (or lying) nutcase, he was a problem because he was a paranoid (or lying) nutcase US Senator!

Posted by: jefff on August 8, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

For years afterwards the WSJ and their fellow wingnuts will be able to begin sentences with "Even liberal Clinton defender Lanny Davis...."

Posted by: Stefan on August 8, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

Why is it that so many former Clinton adminstration people are turning into Right-wing flacks? Even the Big Dog seems to spend more time sniffing GHWB's behind than leading his party into a new Congressinal majority. Were we wrong about Clinton being a Democrat?

Posted by: beb on August 8, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan nails it!

Posted by: brewmn on August 8, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

When I went out to the wilds of blogworld
When I went out to the blogworld one day
I saw a wise pundit
wrapped up in his paycheck
wrapped up in his paycheck
but gassy and gray.

"I see by your paycheck
that you are a pundit"
these words I did type
as I slowly blogged by
"Since you are a wise man,
perhaps you can tell me,
why you held your tongue
when you heard Georgie lie."

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on August 8, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Why is it that so many former Clinton adminstration people are turning into Right-wing flacks?

$$$,$$$.

Posted by: Darryl Pearce on August 8, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews

I think it's hard to pass judgement without assessing non-verbal clues that accompany such "crackpot" statements. It's notoriously easy to take email and blog comments out of context.

In real life we would see a drunk Mel Gibson, with his belly flab hanging over his tighty-whities, cackling to himself by the light of a flickering CRT monitor. We'd probably not even bother to read what he was typing, except perhaps in hopes of improving the story.

Posted by: B on August 8, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

Main Entry: crackpot
Pronunciation: 'krak-"pt
Function: noun
: one given to eccentric or lunatic notions

Posted by: Robert on August 8, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Lanny is completely dishonest when he says that it is bloggers saying these things. He doesn't cite a single blogger. These quotes come from crackpot commenters to the blogs, not the bloggers themselves.

Posted by: Bob N on August 8, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Why is it that so many former Clinton adminstration people are turning into Right-wing flacks?

In a word? Money.

Posted by: Stefan on August 8, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Lanny is completely dishonest when he says that it is bloggers saying these things. He doesn't cite a single blogger. These quotes come from crackpot commenters to the blogs, not the bloggers themselves.

It's akin to citing a letter to the editor from a reader of the Wall Street Journal as evidence of what the WSJ editors themselves believe.

Even worse, it's like citing a post here by "Jay" or "slim" as evidence of what Kevin Drum believes.

Posted by: Stefan on August 8, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

And what is Davis's evidence? It's that old standby: noticing that crackpots often leave crackpotty comments on blogs and that those same people often write crackpotty email in ALL CAPS.

Let's see, the bigot Jane Hamsher runs one of the biggest left-wing blogs around. She's filmed Lamont's commericals and raised tons of money for Lamont. So her bigotry it just another crackpot?

Hamsher = lefty blogs = bigots.

It's as simple as that.

Posted by: Al on August 8, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

"The far right does not have a monopoly on bigotry and hatred and sanctimony."

Maybe not, but they sure seem to have the monopoly of mass-marketing it in the media.

Chalk Lanny's crackpottery up to the ongoing GOP effort to rule criticism of them out of bounds.

Posted by: Gregory on August 8, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

Calling Lanny Davis "a useful idiot" does not advance the discussion. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: steve on August 8, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

True. If you're a simple-minded idiot.

Posted by: Doug on August 8, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Day after day alone on the hill
The man with the foolish grin
is keeping perfectly still
But nobody wants to know him
They can see that he's just a fool
And he never gives an answer

But the fool on the hill
sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning round

— Paul McCartney

Where would we be without crackpots?

Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on August 8, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

My above comment was intended to respond to Al, but I guess it could've worked just as well in response to Steve, too.

The "discussion" is advanced by ridding it of unhelpful flacks who would rather whine about unfair treatment than give any sort of logical argument for their position. Lanny seems to fall into that category, unless he came up with some radically trenchant defense of Lieberman I just missed.

Posted by: Doug on August 8, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Death to all fanatics!

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on August 8, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Were we wrong about Clinton being a Democrat?
Posted by: beb on August 8, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

Yes.

And Lieberman too.

Where have you been for the past 10 years?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on August 8, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

"The far right does not have a monopoly on bigotry and hatred and sanctimony."

Multiply hours of big-time right-wing media hatred spewed times their audience size, and compare to hate-spew from the left.

Mt. St. Helens vs. backyard barbecue.

Posted by: ferd on August 8, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

YOU CONSERVATIVE ASSHOLES, HOW DARE YOU EXIST ! GEORGE BUSH IS A MONKEY PUPPET AND THE ILL-GOTTEN LOVE CHILD OF PETROFASCISTS, NEW ENGLAND ELITISTS AND A BOWL OF MELTED ICE CREAM. HEAR ME ROAR ABOUT THE SMALL, DAILY INJUSTICES OF LIVING IN AN AMERIKKKA WITHOUT ENOUGH SOGGY BITS TO GO AROUND. THE GOP IS A A BIG, UGLY, OOZING BLOB OF ... WELL, GOP. THAT'S, IN FACT, PRECISELY WHY THEY CALL THEMSELVES THAT.

GOP.

THINK ABOUT IT.

IT'S OOZING RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER ! LOOK OUT !

Posted by: KARL K. KRAKPOT on August 8, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

It's actually even worse than that. The worst quote Davis cites is from one 'tomjones' on Kos on Dec. 7, 2005. I was sufficiently curious to look up the original comment, which can be found in context here. Tomjones was being sarcastic; he was reacting in anger against an earlier comment by 'greenskeeper' which claimed Lieberman didn't care about non-Jewish casualties of the war. One can also search through tomjones' other comments here and discover that he is not anti-Semitic; in fact is more than a little pro-Israel.

In other words, Davis isn't merely cherrypicking the most offensive comments; he's actually taking them out of context and twisting them.

Posted by: tyronen on August 8, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

"wrong about Clinton being a democrat"
A Democrat or a Politician claiming to represent Democratics? I believe that Democrats (rank and file) still believe in a party that represents the average Joe. Unfortunately Democratic Politicians that don't represent corporate interests seem to be in the minority. Clinton was deep in the corporate pocket. That being said at least the Dems throw the people a bone once in a while, unlike the Republicans that would like to turn us all in to corporate fodder.

Posted by: bushburner on August 8, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

I hearby denounce and thoroughly repudiate the comments of Karl K. Krakpot, posted above.

Kevin, can you ban this person from your site and give his IP to the DoJ while you're at it? Maybe google him and if you can find his address, perhaps order 25 pizzas to his home? Just, you know ... to teach him a well-deserved lesson?

Thanks ever so much,

Bob (a genuine center-left commenter and eminently sane person)

Posted by: rmck1 on August 8, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

I hearby = I hereby

shortstop: That's a hominym mistake, so it doesn't count as a mere typo :)

Posted by: rmck1 on August 8, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

hominym = homonym

shortstop: pbbbbt !

Posted by: rmck1 on August 8, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

What a complete waste of space. It's bad enough that the Journal editorial board gleefully provides a podium to corporate shills who spout lies about economics, labor, and the environment. Now they're wasting their readers' time with complete fluff that would be laughed out of a freshman civics class. I can go see crackpots talking to themselves at the bus stop near my house. Is it really such a penetrating observation to declare that, yes, unbalanced people exist, and, yes, they sometimes blather on about politics? Great job, Margaret Mead. Looks like you got yourself an anthropology dissertation there.

Of course, the corporate media moguls have handed a lot of unbalanced right wing personalities a megaphone to spout their fringe rantings. I don't see too many Ward Churchills being asked to appear on Air America. The left, it would seem, is rightly embarassed when an unhinged nitwit appropriates its politics and lanuage and starts spewing deranged nonsense. The right, meanwhile, seems to prefer to give their Frankenstein monsters their own talk shows on Fox.

Posted by: Andrew Wyatt on August 8, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Here is a fun idea. Everyone go to your favorite conservative blog that allows comments and, posing as a winger, post some totally insane comment about Hillary, dems, abortionists, etc. Then come back to WM and quote or link to that comment to PROVE that the right is totally insane. Instant truth!

Posted by: ecoboz on August 8, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

The left, it would seem, is rightly embarassed when an unhinged nitwit appropriates its politics and lanuage and starts spewing deranged nonsense. The right, meanwhile, seems to prefer to give their Frankenstein monsters their own talk shows on Fox.
Posted by: Andrew Wyatt on August 8, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

The result of 30 years of Karl Rove-style Information Warfare in the American newsmedia. The learned from how McCarthy was taken down, and turned it against the left. Now the left bends over backwards to distance themselves from the wackjobs. To the point where the Democratic Party embraces fascists like Lieberman. And they still paint everyone left of Hitler as a "dirty tree-hugging hairy hippy Stalin lover commie".

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on August 8, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

"The far right does not have a monopoly on bigotry and hatred and sanctimony." It ought to be good for years of quote mining by the Journal's crack staff of editorial writers.

He's right. We're morphing into the mirror image of those we despise. How is that constructive?

Your assertion that Davis' op-ed piece provides cannon fodder to the WSJ is comparable to the tedious but common GOP belief that media coverage of the war is decreasing our odds of success. Wikiality at its best!

Posted by: fembot on August 8, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

SLIM

Posted by: klyde on August 8, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

tyronen says:

It's actually even worse than that. The worst quote Davis cites is from one 'tomjones' on Kos on Dec. 7, 2005. I was sufficiently curious to look up the original comment, which can be found in context here. Tomjones was being sarcastic; he was reacting in anger against an earlier comment by 'greenskeeper' which claimed Lieberman didn't care about non-Jewish casualties of the war.

It's even worse than that. The comment that tomjones responded to was rated 0.67. Davis certainly can't claim that this is representative of Kossack opinion.

I have noticed that the MSM cannot seem to distinguish between bloggers and commenters. Willful ignorance?

Posted by: JayAckroyd on August 8, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

I'm going to assume that 'steve' was being ignorant rather than willfully obtuse when he said: Calling Lanny Davis "a useful idiot" does not advance the discussion. You should be ashamed of yourself.

'steve', the term "useful idiot" has a specific meaning in American political discourse. The person being referred to may or may not be an idiot. What is actually being said when one refers to them as a "useful idiot" is that they are unwittingly or perversely advancing a cause that they would not normally support.

It's a good and useful term, and perfectly apropos to in this instance. Just as Kevin states, comparing the incivility on a blog's comment section to the vituperative ranting of Limbaugh or Coulter is precisely the work of a useful idiot. And since Lanny Davis has done precisely that, stating as much does in fact 'advance the discussion', and Kevin ought to be agreed with for calling a spade a spade, rather than 'ashamed of himself'.

For more on the term and its history, see the wikipedia page.

Posted by: S Ra on August 8, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Why all the hullabaloo about crock pots? I smell a plot by the Dutch oven lobby...

Posted by: zeeeej on August 8, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Lanny Davis probably planted all those crackpot comments in CAPS, so he could later find them & write about them.

Posted by: eCAHNomics on August 8, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Al,

Let's see, the bigot Jane Hamsher runs one of the biggest left-wing blogs around.

nice assertion there. Project much? how about linking to several of her posts which support your assertion? No? I thought not.

Posted by: Edo on August 8, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Davis certainly went in with an agenda - the Tom Jones comment he posted being a particularly egregious example. I spent about 2 minutes looking it up and found exactly what the other posters found; that Tom Jones is hardly anti-semitic, that he was posting a sarcastic response to a troll-rated poster.

I honestly wonder if Davis was merely being lazy, or whether he was being outright dishonest. Anyone have a feel for which way he tends to err?

Davis is right about one thing: we on the left do have our bigots and our haters. The difference is, we disavow them, deny them platforms, and troll rate them even when they're just anonymous posters on DKos who are in other ways apparently sympathetic to left wing causes. On the right, the hateful commentator would have been given his own Fox News show, or at least a book contract.

Posted by: Fides on August 8, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK
I'm sure the Wall Street Journal was delighted to run a piece by Lanny Davis, Bill Clinton's former special counsel,...

Lanny Davis's most recentcurrent, in factpublic appointment was in the administration of George W. Bush, who appointed him to a position, serving at the pleasure of the President, on the amusingly named Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (amusing because all the members of this "oversight" board are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the President; the idea that this is oversight rather than rubberstamping and defending administration policy is ludicrous.)

He was clearly perceived by both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush as someone whose experience showed them to be an effective advocate for whoever employed them. And he's doing that job for Bush more than in just rubberstamping "antiterrorism" measures, it appears.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 8, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

This is nothing new. Lanny Davis has been auditioning for Alan Colmes' job for many years now.

To call him a "useful idiot" is too kind, in that it presupposes that he is not aware of the effect of his actions.

Posted by: Disputo on August 8, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK
I honestly wonder if Davis was merely being lazy, or whether he was being outright dishonest.

We works for George W. Bush. He is doing his utmost, perhaps staying within the bounds of technical truth, to serve his boss's interest. I doubt if he would have had the appointments he's had in both of the last two administration if he was lazy when it came to advocacy in his employer's interest.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 8, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK
'steve', the term "useful idiot" has a specific meaning in American political discourse. The person being referred to may or may not be an idiot. What is actually being said when one refers to them as a "useful idiot" is that they are unwittingly or perversely advancing a cause that they would not normally support.

And its misleading in this case, because there is nothing unusual about high-powered lawyers supporting the causes of the people that pay them to do just that.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 8, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

It is interesting, though, that Davis current employer is not listed in the blurb at the end of his op-ed. You'd almost think the WSJ was trying to conceal that he is a paid employee of the Bush White House.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 8, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

And its misleading in this case, because there is nothing unusual about high-powered lawyers supporting the causes of the people that pay them to do just that.

It's not misleading at all if the lawyer in question claims to be a liberal, and to be speaking for himself and not for his client.

Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) on August 8, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Nothing to add except that this thread is a hoot.

Posted by: shortstop on August 8, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

So, with Lieberman and Lanny attacking the Democrats in print and in televised interviews, what use are the blog trolls anymore?

Posted by: Eric Paulsen on August 8, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

in the minds of Lanny Davis and cohorts, any rational, sane and evenhanded positions regarding Middle East issues are 'crackpot' ideas.

Posted by: no name on August 8, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK
It's not misleading at all if the lawyer in question claims to be a liberal, and to be speaking for himself and not for his client.

Insofar as Lanny Davis has been playing this game for a while now, I don't see how its an example of him "unwittingly or perversely advancing a cause that [he] would not normally support."

He support the right-wingers on Schiavo, before he was on the White House payroll. Hewhile on the Bush payroll, though Fox, like WSJ, highlighted his former rather than current White House positioncriticized Al Gore's speech in Saudi Arabia on O'Reilly earlier this year.

There's nothing out of character, unusual, or against established trends about Davis' statement here.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 8, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

The vast majority of bigotry, hatred, and sanctimony being posted re Lieberman is being posted by conservatives posing as liberals to falsely tar liberalism, just like similar conservatives posed as anti-war protesters during the Vietnam era and committed criminal acts in order to falsely tar the anti-war movement.

Dirty tricks (such as Rove ordering his staff to disseminate false allegations of pedaphilia or creating fraudulent chain e-mails about any number of issues, e-mails supposedly written by persons who turn out to be non-existent or that mix fact with defamatory allegations presented as fact) are conservative SOP and MO.

Posted by: Advocate for God on August 8, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Is it just me or there something about Lenny's so-called proof that smacks of total ignorance about the workings of the blogosphere in general? It's as if he poked around for all of 5 minutes and just lazily grabbed the first thing he found remotely offensive just so he could say "here, see, they're just the same!"

The blogosphere is a huge public space, sort of like a bathroom wall. It's a place that anyone can write whatever they want with little risk of repurcussions. Of course there are liberal assholes/crackpots who comment on blogs, no one is immune to being an asshole with explicit, repugnant fantasies. Not to mention that a lot of people vent and express themselves on blogs in a way that they would never do so in real life. Duh.

But if you want to compare, say, influential political professionals, I'd be happy to do so. Michael Moore on his worst day can't hold a candle to the vile, vitriolic spewings of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Family Research Council, etc. Actually, go higher than that, some of the wackiest winger comments come from right wingers who were elected to their offices, standing on the floor of congress.

Posted by: zoe kentucky on August 8, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Didya ever notice that white guys have names like Lanny, and black guys have names like Carl?

Posted by: de stijl on August 8, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Why are you all talking about me?

I AM NOT A CRACKPOT!

Ned

Posted by: Anthony Trollope on August 8, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK
Is it just me or there something about Lenny's so-called proof that smacks of total ignorance about the workings of the blogosphere in general?

Someone could not be as ignorant as Davis acts and have done the digging to find the quotes he pulls; its not ignorance its deliberate distortion, that he hopes to get away with it because his target audience is largely ignorant.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 8, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

So, with Lieberman and Lanny attacking the Democrats in print and in televised interviews, what use are the blog trolls anymore?

What use were they ever?

In all honesty, I've always wondered what purpose posting such transparent GOP talking points, distortions, straw men, long-debunked factoids, outright bullshit and other assorted intellectual dishonesty serves. Relying on such phony talking points is as much as admitting one has a hand full of nothing.

Of course, some merely gloat that the GOP succeeds despite -- or because of -- its underhanded tactics. Such a position I can understand, if not admire.

Posted by: Gregory on August 8, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

So the general consensus seems to be that he's not actually a useful idiot, he's a slimy mercenary posing as a useful idiot.

But the real question is, am I the only one strongly tempted to write "an useful idiot"? To cling to rules of grammar society has left on the roadside?

Posted by: S Ra on August 8, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of crackpots, whatever happened to Ned Flanders, also known as tbrosz? Did he flounce off in a huff, moustache twitching in unrighteous indignation?

Posted by: Stefan on August 8, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK
But the real question is, am I the only one strongly tempted to write "an useful idiot"? To cling to rules of grammar society has left on the roadside?

The initial "u" in "useful" is pronounced with as having a semivowel /y/ sound preceding the vowel sound //, and therefore is usually preceded by "a" as with most words starting with a consonant (incl. semi-vowel) sound.

But there has never been a consistently, firmly observed, hard-and-fast rulere here (its not a "left on the roadside" rule, at all).

Posted by: cmdicely on August 8, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

Did he flounce off in a huff, moustache twitching in unrighteous indignation?

Really, who cares? Good riddance. It isn't as if these boards lack for GOP straw men and deranged contrafactual "analysis."

That said, I've always given tbrosz his due -- he did show that he was capable of debating honestly. To his shame, much of the time, he chose not to, but he was at least able to overcome his contempt for the posters here to be real every now and then. In that, he was unique, and I'll even go so far as to say will be missed.

Posted by: Gregory on August 8, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

In all honesty, I've always wondered what purpose posting such transparent GOP talking points, distortions, straw men, long-debunked factoids, outright bullshit and other assorted intellectual dishonesty serves.

Besides drawing a paycheck for "services rendered?" Not much.

Posted by: Thumb on August 8, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

In that, he was unique, and I'll even go so far as to say will be missed.

Well, I won't go that far. But I did enjoy him as a punching bag, because with his puffed-up self-regard you could always tell when the mockery and contempt really got to him.

Posted by: Stefan on August 8, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder how Lanny will like it when the Wall Street Journal editorial page starts its series: "Who is Lanny Davis?"

Then he'll learn how the pros do personal smears.

Posted by: Pug on August 8, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

Loyal Democrat Lanny Davis has written an article attempting to wake up liberals to a practice that's hurting their cause. The liberals here respond to his useful advice with anger and denial. "We don't want to be awakened!" they cry.

I thought the Republicans would lose big time in the November elections, but this thread suggests that we still have a chance.

Posted by: ex-liberal on August 8, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

Crackpots? I thought it was our right under the first amendement of the Constitution? Oh well. Back to Yale and sucking off George Bush, Lanny.

Posted by: Pechorin on August 8, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

Lanny Davis -- who has occasionally taken paychecks from Democrats before currently taking them from Republicans (although as I'm sure "ex-liberal" knows, that's all you need in GOP circles to be considered "loyal") writes an article chock full of cliches and -- at best -- extremely lazy sourcing.

The liberals here respond to his useless advice by noting his divided loyalties -- including who currently writes his check.

And "ex-liberal" comes along with a dishonest summary of the whole matter. This last part, of course, is no surprise.

Posted by: Gregory on August 8, 2006 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

If Lanny Davis really wanted to appeal to Democrats and 'liberals,' he would not write editorials in the newspaper that represents the radicals of the extreme right. He was probably paid by the Bush regime to write this 'opinion.'

Posted by: Hostile on August 8, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK
Loyal Democrat Lanny Davis

Political appointees within the Bush Administration are, ipso facto, not "loyal Democrats"; they might by not-strongly-partisan, or they might be hired guns that are loyal to whoever the paycheck comes from, but they aren't solid, loyal members of the opposition party.

Media organizations that publish op-eds by Bush Administration political appointees identifying them only as former employees of the Clinton Administration, but ignoring their rather relevant current status, are entirely without integrity. In the specific case of Lanny Davis, that includes CNN, FoxNews, and WSJ, at least.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 8, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

Good evening. Working hard, in this busy time for you called. This is my friend and the Boke,just established, the time is not long. The issue here isthat everybody can see my Boke, Ha-ha, raising some visibility, which caused trouble to ask your forgiveness! We all hope to see. Please! 如烟往事博客 记忆深处博客 漠北孤烟博客 天涯无悔博客 月光城市博客 寂寞如烟博客 三国演义博客 江南记忆博客 青海日光博客 月复西斜博客 马帮茶道 雨天下雨博客 秋日私语博客 苍凉世界博客 把酒问天博客 逍遥过客 铿锵玫瑰 寂寞雨夜 乡下孩子博客 天上人间博客 我心飞翔 尘封往事博客 岁月如歌博客 庐山之恋 三间茅屋博客 wanqiudaocao

Posted by: fheuio on August 9, 2006 at 4:08 AM | 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