Asymmetrical Information

MT Blacklist, call your office.

Josh Marshall has been following this story in some detail since it started.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_12_12.php#004244

You state you're uninterested in debate (gasp?) over this story and do a half-assed job in getting the details and you expect a bunch of libertarian leaning posters to not call you on it? You painted a big target when you brought back the easy partisan shill of attacking Clinton when you make the Kerik nomination solely an issue of a "lovenest?" His nomination tanked long before that story ever came up.

I agree with you that the lovenest is a nonissue, but really, you could have made sure you were right about everything else before making a cheap shot at Clinton's love life. Oh wait...you don't give a @#$@#$.

A cheap shot? What, exactly, about Clinton's love life rises above "cheap shot"?

Not that I had any interest in his love life. It was, if anything, a cheap shot about the hypocrisy of many of his Democratic supporters.

Jane, I started reading because you sounded like you knew what you were talking about. Now every post seems to devolve into a right/wrong, democrat/republican screed. Why the shift from thoughtful toward mindless pandering?

why do you keep posting about it if you don't care?

I disagree that it is "mindless pandering" to comment on hypocrisy. Recently a poster to the Solosez lawyers' list complained bitterly about the amount of our taxpayer money Bush was spending to decorate the White House. Another attorney commented, "Where was the complaining when Clinton decorated the White House and held Easter egg hunts?"

And of course there is hypocrisy on the Right too.

Perhaps I am naive to think that if a man cannot be trusted by his wife, he probably should not be trusted by others. Irrespective of his political views. I did not respect Bill Clinton as a man; nor do I Kerik.

Is there a ploy more annoying than "Ooh, touched a nerve there, didn't I?"

Jane: listen up.

There are many occasions on your blog when you gently step in to warn Democrats that they sound silly, or too shrill, or are making arguments that only make themselves look bad. You do this to steer Democrats back onto the path of rationality and dignity.

Please consider the favor returned. If you don't want to debate this subject, you need to stop discussing it and replying to comments, NOW. Otherwise the hole only gets deeper.

Jane:

Some of the heat being brought by the commenters is way out of line for a joke. But I think the irritation is understandable, for a couple reasons.

First, no one is sure that you're joking. Pubs aren't particularly known for their sense of humor. But y'all are known for a fairly rigid earnestness about the evils of this modern world. Let's be honest - the point of the joke is to force us to admit that we too think that extramarital sex is "eveeel," despite our pretences of "sophistication." But we really don't care about extramarital sex, in general. In particular, we like it when Republicans have sex (any kind of sex), because a Republican having sex is a Democrat. (That's a joke...sort of).

Second, what irritates most Dems (I'd guess) is that this is a fairly standard Republican move: do something stupid and egregious (worry about a policymaker's sex life), and then blame the Democrats when it becomes self-evident that its stupid and egregious. We've seen it here, where any mau-mauing of Kerik for extramarital sex is almost certainly comming from Pubs. We've seen it on civil rights: Republicans claim that opposition to civil rights came from the Democrats without acknowledging that they all-but-immediately coopted all of the Southern segregationists (whose lineal decendents are now the Southern backbone of the party). In a decade, the Weekly Standard will be running a piece entitled, "How the Democrats tricked Bush into going into Iraq."

Whatever. That's my stab at an explanation. But, again, I think some of the heat of the commenters is out of line. Personally, I think you've made much more insipid arguments before. (That, too, is a joke, Republicans).

Neither Mr. Clinton or Mr. Kerik can be condemned for doing what is natural for an Alpha-male. The fact that a bunch of envious Betas and snivelling Gammas and crawing Deltas are snipping at the heals of these Alpha leaders only shows how pathetic the weaker forms of males are. This is not confined to humans. How often have I laughed while watching a mighty Silver Back swat some little pretender aside and further establish his dominance in the tribe. To Clinton and Kerik: be the mighty lions you are and sit in the shade while the females fetch your dinner and the lower males sulk about the edges.

Not "cheif". Chief.

Get a spell checker.

P.S. You don't care about Kerik. What exactly do you care about? And why don't you write about that instead?

Isn't it hypocritical to be defending Kerik for sex when you attack Clinton for the same thing?

Ya should have just apologized for your stupidity, instead of attacking Democrats further. And now you don't want to debate?

Typical coward, personally attack people and then run away. Just apologize for your stupid remark and be done, ok?

When you look around and realize you're in a hole... STOP DIGGING!

"When you look around and realize you're in a hole... STOP DIGGING!"

Steve4Clark,
Properly speaking, that's Jane's line to *you*. What amuses me is that you guys are flailing about on the subject so desperately that you are proving her point. That's OK, you liberals can go ahead and keep digging your hole. I'll just stand back and snicker. ^_~

- S.P.M.

SomeCallMeTim, good post.

The funniest thing about this was seeing jane splutter in comments, after getting owned across the blogosphere (and her own blog).

Kerik should have read "Bonfire of the Vanities!"

Jane: "I really don't give a [insert expletive here]."

Cheney?

If you don't want criticism, don't issue idiotic, dishonest, and misinformed challenges.

You were empirically W-R-O-N-G on this one.

You're spewing hypocricy, not observing it.

Jane, your characterization of Yglesias's comment is wildly incorrect. Go back and read it. He quotes a paragraph of Kevin Drum's listing five much better reasons for persecuting Kerik, admits that he hasn't been following the story, comments that he's under the impression that there were "financial improprieties associated with" the acquisition of the "love nest", and then immediately says that he doesn't know how big a deal that in given the other issues. He most certainly did not give that -- or any other one thing -- as "the reason" for persecuting Kerik.

And then you have the nerve to complain about Democrats supposedly mis-reading your tone.

At least Ms. Galt has the courage to acknowledge the issue of Kerik's scandal--unlike most wingnuts.

Of course, she loses points for lying and being vituperative in doing so.

Jane, your take on this Kerik mess is surprisingly offbase. The lovenest really is the least of it. The Kerik that has emerged in the reporting since his nomination was scuttled is breathtakingly corrupt, and that he was nominated at all is a travesty. Is the "this" you don't want to debate your straw-man lovenest foofooraw, or is it the entire issue of such a stunningly unqualified nominee being tapped to head the third-largest department of the United States government?

Why the hell is everyone being so mean to Megan? She made some throw-away remark, comparing people's reaction to Clinton vs. Kerik. I'm sure that if she sat down and analyzed the situation, she'd freely admit that there are a number of reasons to be critical of Kerik other than the "love nest". Yeah, maybe she didn't think through it as well as she might, but it seems like folks are really going over the top in their criticisms. Calling her an 'idiot' when she very clearly is not strikes me as incredibly vindictive and unfair. For God's sake, just chill out.

There are many occasions on your blog when you gently step in to warn Democrats that they sound silly, or too shrill, or are making arguments that only make themselves look bad. You do this to steer Democrats back onto the path of rationality and dignity.

Please consider the favor returned. If you don't want to debate this subject, you need to stop discussing it and replying to comments, NOW. Otherwise the hole only gets deeper.

"Favor returned?" Oh, do get over yourself, chap. We here at the Insitute have reviewed our records, and frankly, we can't find any instance where you responded to the alleged gentle chiding with anything other than protestation. Your continuing protests now will be held aloft only by the level of character you have displayed in the past over such matters, which goes a long way toward explaining that loud clattering sound.

If Jane's comment was meaningless tripe, then the Principles of Logical Reasoning (we consulted every one of them, except for Dale, who is on vacation this week) are clear in their judgement: It should have been pretty easy to laugh at it. The fact that you cannot suggests that either it burned for a very good reason, or else our self-appointed court jester, Master Timothy, is smoking rocks again in only including "pubs" as those lacking a sense of humor.

Capiche?

Seems the Dems still don't realize the problem with Clinton was not the sex, it was the lying under oath about the sex. Not too hard to understand unless you are a Demo.

"the problem with Clinton was not the sex, it was the lying under oath about the sex."

No the problem was a kangaroo court allowed to ask questions that it _knew_ would be eventially ruled as irrelevant to the very dubious case at hand.

But let us never speak of this again.

Michael, and it was Bill Clinton who fully supported expanding civil discovery in sexual harrassment suit so as to allow the "kangaroo courts" you deride. In other words, Bill Clinton thinks it's great that kangaroo courts are allowed to put other folks through the wringer, but he reserves the right to corrupt the proceedings when he is in the crosshairs. I guess it is good to be the King, at least according to your reasoning. I'll be happy to never speak of it again when Bill the Noble and his favorite Senator take up the cause of pulling back the scope of civil discovery.

Let's find something we can agree on, it's kind of wonderful cosmic justice when those who live by sexual hypocrisy will get theirs.

I was no fan of what a lot of Clinton did (defense of marriage my ass) and so I wasn't really upset that his own sex life became an object of ridicule, I just found the opposing side a lot more morally reprehensible.

And I'm just so glad that someone who was on that other side and was publicly so self-righteous about how terrible adultery was and how it showed what a rotten person Clinton was (I'm talking about _you_ Judith Regan!) has been publicly named for playing hide-the-kielbasa with a married man (that view of a mass grave must have been such a turn on).

Why did you find them more morally reprehensible? They weren't the ones who lobbied hard to expand state power, and then reserved the right to selectively corrupt state proceedings when the power targeted them. Absent access to the power of the state, who gives a good goddamn what some moralist thinks about anything? Just ignore them.

I sometimes think that Ken Starr's ulterior motive was to drive a stake through the heart of the Independent Counsel Act once and for all (he argued against it's Constitutionality, after all). If so, I congratulate him for a job well done, and consider him one of the great public servants and lawyers of the late 20th century.

Question: do you think it's ok for the
police commissioner to get a "sweetheart deal"
on renting an apartment ? I sure don't.
In fact I think that would be worse than
misusing city property - if some private
property owner is doing favors for the police
chief, don't you think he's expecting something
in return ?

Actually had the Republicans used this theory and applied it to Kerry I don't think it would have made any difference at all. ;)

(waves to the demos doing their newspeak)

Steve

Comments are Closed.