I’ve only a moment, but I have to ask: Has Glenn Reynolds gone insane? “Everybody seems down on Kerrey’s posturing today . . .,” he writes. Well, if your definition of “everyone” is “some, but not all, Republican bloggers and certain people who e-mailed Glen,” perhaps this works. Otherwise, more grist for my theory:
All in all, Rice probably neither helped nor hurt Bush — partisans on both sides will find what they need in her testimony.
As for my own take on Kerrey: He grandstanded a bit, and his claim that Rice was “filibustering” him — after Kerrey himself opened with an off-topic speech on Iraq — was silly. But no one (save, again, Glenn and fellow travelers) would think that Rice won the “swatting flies” exchange. (Glenn’s quote of the exchange is so selective that it’s divested of meaning.) And Kerrey’s discussion of the PDB was the closest anyone got to scoring an actual point on Rice.
Again, Rice did well. But she didn’t exactly dominate the field.
Update: I should provide some context. I’m a pretty big InstaPundit fan, and have been for some time. That explains, perhaps, why I’m surprised that Professor Reynolds’ reaction is not merely partisan (for it frequently is), but stridently so.
Her discussion of the reasons behind not responding to the attack on the Cole certainly didn’t do her or the administration any favors.
And if we’re going to talk about “tactical” versus “strategic” plans, what’s the broader strategy involved in overthrowing the Taliban to get at Al Qaida? (Or rather, was the plan that we ended up implementing in the Fall of 01 _so_ much better than the options that Clarke delivered in January that it was worth the wait?). Invading Iraq, that’s part of a broader strategy, like it or not. But Afghanistan? Can someone explain this one to me?
Oh, and Von? This post (among others) neatly sums up one of the many reasons that I no longer read Glenn Reynolds. He’s spun himself way too far into a pro-Bush, partisan cocoon with no way to spin himself back out. (he definitely makes one give credit to Sunstein’s Republic.com).
I am not vengeful. I don’t read IP because I can name at least 150 better blogs off the top of my head, and there’s only so much time in the day. Hell, he doesn’t even rank very high on the list of amusing hacks anymore.
Mark — I updated in reaction to your posts.
Hell, he doesn’t even rank very high on the list of amusing hacks anymore.
Glad to know we’re still on that list — at least for the moment. 😉
Partisan? Hardly.
Partisan is when you have nothing but good to say about your side, and nothing but bad to say about the other. Think Josh Marshall or Markos Zuniga.
Glenn is quite critical of Bush and his administration, when he thinks he deserves it. On Glenn’s front page right now are articles:
Actually, Glenn’s been pretty gentle this week. The point is, Glenn frequently criticizes the Bush administration. He just thinks that they’re mostly right on the terrorism issue, and that’s what’s been in the news lately.
Glenn calls ’em like he sees ’em. Partisan, he is not.
Partisan? Hardly.
Partisan is when you have nothing but good to say about your side, and nothing but bad to say about the other. Think Josh Marshall or Markos Zuniga.
Glenn is quite critical of Bush and his administration, when he thinks he deserves it. On Glenn’s front page right now are articles:
Actually, Glenn’s been pretty gentle this week. The point is, Glenn frequently criticizes the Bush administration. He just thinks that they’re mostly right on the terrorism issue, and that’s what’s been in the news lately.
Glenn calls ’em like he sees ’em. Partisan, he is not.
Well, I’m happy to add that I think he is insane, in a nice sorta way. I once sent him an email remarking that Calpundit had spanked him pretty good on a comment he made. Glenn’s reply?
He should be so lucky.
Ahh, hubris. What does that come before?
“Partisan is when you have nothing but good to say about your side, and nothing but bad to say about the other. Think Josh Marshall or Markos Zuniga.”
Nice illustration.
Spoons: I don’t disagree. Note the caveat in my update (emphasis added):
“Professor Reynolds’ reaction is not merely partisan (for it frequently is), but stridently so.”
do the math. look at the timestamps.
it’s clear he barely reads what he posts about.
cases in point: the air america nation of islam flap, or the clinton 2000 national security document, or today’s rice testimony.
It’s not even a question of “partisan,” necessarily, though there is certainly an element of that. It’s that Reynolds can’t seem to admit that people on the other side (on any number of issues) may hold their opinions honestly for reasons that are worthy of respect and consideration. I stopped reading him regularly, during the run-up to the war last year, for just that reason.
I dont see it that way, Von. After reading Kerrey’s WSJ column, I was taken aback at his “performance” during todays testimony – I’d guess Prof. Reynolds was also. From the inquiries I’ve seen Sen. Kerrey has done quite well re being non-partisian. Some of his antics today were, well Ben-Venistesque.
What did you have in mind?
busybusybusy has the appropriate shorter Reynolds:
Never say anything that people like me can distort and run with, because if our misrepresentation of what you said comforts America’s enemies, it will have been your fault.
Yeah. Dunno where that
My main observation is that this thread treats Glenn as a Martian.
Who here has a record of e-mail correspondence with Glenn, in which he turns down this stuff?
Who has asked him to reply?
Sheesh, he’s not a frigging alien.
E-mail him, and then complain.
Otherwise, I have to wonder at the bizarreness at treating Glenn as if he had no e-mail, and had invaded earth from elsewhere.
(Yes, when you do so, say I said hello.)
My main observation is that this thread treats Glenn as a Martian.
Gary, to the extent that this is addressed to me, I think it’s within the bounds of discourse to publicly comment on a public post. Since InstaPundit doesn’t allow comments, there’s not an obvious alternative forum for such a critique. I’m not treating Glen as a Martian; I’m treating him as a guy with a blog.*
von
*My reference to Glen’s e-mails, btw, concern e-mails that Glen chose to quote in his post.
Von, I think it’s perfectly acceptable to attack Glenn on a blog.
I was simply, not very well, trying to suggest that e-mailing him with a criticism might actually have an effect; if not, blogging works as well as it did without trying to actually talk to the man.
I think many people tend to underestimate the degree to which others may take them seriously when people think they are “famous” or the like.