Jason Zengerle, one of The New Republic’s bloggers and the magazine’s “senior editor”, writes this unfortunate reply to my post from yesterday
I understand that Atrios and Willis are angry at TNR simply for the fact that we chose to run a piece by Ponnuru, but that, to me at least, *is* crazy.
I agree that the title of Ponnuru’s new book is regrettable, but unless the book (which I haven’t yet read) is a complete departure from his previous work, I seriously doubt it will bear any resemblance to something by Coulter.
Mattwilshire is right (at least I hope he’s right) that we wouldn’t run a piece by Coulter, but Ponnuru’s no Coulter. He is a serious guy, and the article we ran by him was a serious piece. What’s more, his article was an explicit critique of TNR’s own line on Roe and Republicans. I’m sure that’s one of the reasons we ran it.
I realize that sort of thing–affording space to an ideological opponent to make his case–is an alien concept to some of these bloggers, but that’s part of the problem I have with them.
Way to be clueless. It isn’t that I’m upset that TNR is running something from an idealogical opponent in their publication, in fact I’m all in favor of contrarianism in order to make your argument stronger. The issue at hand here is that TNR didn’t just pick a conservative to write a column in their publication. They’ve picked Ponnuru, who explicitly labels the Democratic Party as “The Party Of Death”. He says “too many of today s Democrats have become part of a ‘party of death’”. The blurb from Regnery on the book talks about “How the party of death a coalition of special interests ranging from Planned Parenthood to Hollywood came to own the Democratic Party”, “How liberals use animal rights to displace human rights”, “Ponnuru s shocking exposé shows just how extreme the Party of Death has become as they seek to destroy every inconvenient life, demand fealty to their radical agenda, and punish anyone who defies them.”
That isn’t reasoned political discourse. It isn’t contrarian political thought. It’s an out and out smear of the Democratic Party, it’s members, and its ideals. A publication like The New Republic out to be hanging this kind of thinking out to dry.
Instead, they gave him a column.
Zengerle also wonders why so much attention is put on TNR for a publication bleeding subscribers. Well, I personally get much more policy and idealogical insight from The Prospect, but its writers just don’t seem to get as much push in the establishment media as representative of liberalism as TNR does (see FAIR’s study of TNR’s outsized influence).
(Perhaps not surprisingly, Zengerle has written about the challenge to Joe Lieberman. The article’s title? “Lamonsters”.)
The irony of my previous post “awaiting moderation” is delicious
Drpedro: Have you looked at freaking Regnery’s publications before? You’re a freaking idiot. If Ponnoru’s on Regnery, he’s smearing liberals or Democrats. That’s it. That’s what freaking Regnery does.
Your smugness is revolting.
Maybe he is right OW?
Maybe there is a reason the democrats lose national elections, even when they are arguably in the stronger position?
maybe you should consider what this guy has to offer, and perhaps that is exactly what the TNR is doing?
Maybe TNR doesn’t think that just banning people or “moderating” them is good for the health of democrats after all.
Maybe a virtual echo chamber doesn’t progress anthing in a “progressive” party.
Maybe you don’t really believe “I m all in favor of contrarianism in order to make your argument stronger”…I mean, you certainly talk the talk but, do you walk the walk?
Pedro, your comments go in moderation because either they have words that trigger the filter or too many links. I don’t have enough time in my day nor care so much about comments that disagree with me that I need to censor things.
Democrats as the “party of death”? Which party supports a dubious war that has killed over a thousand US servicemen and untold thousands of Iraqis? Which party supports an ineffectual and racially skewed system of capital punishment? Which party doesn’t give a crap if 40 million Americans don’t have health insurance? Which party thinks Halliburton profits need more protection than the environment our children live and breath in?
The only life the Republicans care about is their own, and that of all the fetuses in the world.
“serious guy” my ass. Anyone who would give a title like that to his book is too worthless to despise.
Well, when they do, I won’t be wailing about the end of conservatism as we know it.
If you can’t stand to read a little criticism about your beliefs, well, I guess you aren’t all that confident in them are you?
A typical pedro wail of conservative victimhood. Alert me when the National Review gives a forum to a serious liberal progressive.
And please don’t whine about being moderated again. I get moderated all the time.
We aren’t talking about NR, Paul.
We are talking about OW who can’t deign to rest his eyes upon a contrary opinion.
Apparently TNR doesn’t have that problem….
boy, the “progressive” party? Not really….
Yes, I can’t bear to look at a contrary opinion except I argue with you knuckle heads and deal with right wing blogs, tv shows and radio all live long day (you guys are constantly harping on about where I work but when it’s convenient you forget). Again, I’m fine with contrary opinion. As I stated earlier this week, I personally know conservatives who are dead wrong but who are perfectly nice people who I can disagree with. But not the ones who say my party is essentially a bunch of murderers.
“If you can t stand to read a little criticism about your beliefs, well, I guess you aren t all that confident in them are you?”
What an idiot. pedro, if TNR giving column space to Ponnuru is a sign of its confidence, then what’s NRs excuse for not giving space to guys like, say, Harold Meyerson? Hey Glen Greenwald has a book coming out. Can we expect NR to give Greenwald space in its pages? Probably not because like most modern-day Bush conservatives they do indeed lack the courage of their convictions.
“We aren t talking about NR, Paul.”
Naturally, of course, we aren’t. But Ponnuru writes for NR as a columnist. So why can’t NR give some space for a liberal progressive to write there? Oh, right, because they’re a bunch of chickenshit hacks who, by your own standard, must not have the courage of their convictions. And if OW cant stand to see contrary opinions your presence in this thread is explained how?
The party of Hillary!
The party of Hillary!
Yes, many congressional democrats were duped by Republican hype into casting a chickensh*t vote. Difference is, most of them now regret it. Not so those on the other side of the aisle, i.e. the Killing Party.
Dr. Pedo, I am perfectly happy to read well written and well reasoned opinions. I would include people like von Mises, Strauss or Friedman and if you wanted to have a reasonable argument about these folks, bring it on.
I find it pretty difficult to have a reasoned debate with a fellow who calls my political association, “the Party of Death.” Most of these derivative thinkers like Ponnuru and the rest of the Regnery claptrap performers are unworthy of consideration.
why don’t you guys try to attack the ideas? You might sound more convincing that way.
Ad-hominem attacks on the publisher for gods sake….not even willing to address the IDEAS of the book…
Oh yea, you guys are progressive alright…sort of like the Neanderthals were progressive
The ideas of the book? That Democrats love death and killing babies? Yeah, I’m going to “debate” that dreck. There are rational arguments to be made for or against these issues. Calling people homicidal ghouls, as he does, throws out the rationality.
“dr. pedro is an idiot. ”
Please debate the idea.
I doubt that there are any “ideas” in the book that aren’t more of the same reactionary elephant dung that’s been dribbling from the GOP anus for decades now. Lemme guess: roe v.wade was a sucky decision, letting Terry Schiavo die a natural death was baaaad, stem cell research bites, gay marriage blows, and all these things mean that soon eating girl scouts for brunch will be not only legal but mandatory. Am I wrong? Throw out an “idea” from the book and educate me.
Whether or not there are any “ideas” in the book, the title – if it isn’t referring to the party of greed, war, religious extremism and jingo nationalism – is simply ridiculous. It’s ironic that the picture on the cover seems to be a military graveyard, but I’d be surprised if the punk even mentions war as something produced by the “party of death”.
Well, then, do we all agree that no left winger who has made an outrageous political statement should be published an general mid ground political publications. Want to bet that there isn’t a left winger out there who hasn’t said exceedinglty nasty stuff about conservatives, etc.
Dugger
Dugger, the point isn’t whether there are people on the left who say nasty things about conservatives, although you probably need some thicker skin. The point is that you don’t start a reasoned debate by saying the other side is “the Party of Death” and expect informed people to take your ideas seriously.
drpedro Says:
April 25th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
We aren t talking about NR, Paul.
We are talking about OW who can t deign to rest his eyes upon a contrary opinion.
Which is why he removes all of those comments from you, Frank, Farris, and the rest of the Reich Wing that has been assigned to slag him on a daily basis. Oh – that’s right. He doesn’t.
Maybe you can try something resembling logic one of these days, “Doctor”. Although I won’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen…
frameone Says:
April 26th, 2006 at 2:37 am
dr. pedro is an idiot.
Please debate the idea.
I can find no rational points to refute this argument. All I can do is question some of the assumptions – based on what I read here, I feel extremely sorry for anyone who would utilize that font of medical expertise. Particularly if they were female and/or anything but rabidly loyal to the current crop of Publicans.
Dugger Says:
April 26th, 2006 at 8:12 am
Well, then, do we all agree that no left winger who has made an outrageous political statement should be published an general mid ground political publications. Want to bet that there isn t a left winger out there who hasn t said exceedinglty nasty stuff about conservatives, etc.
Dugger
As soon as we can agree that any Reich winger who does the same will be prevented from spewing in those same mid ground political publications. Let me know how soon anyone from your side of the aisle is willing to even talk about that, will ya?
z,
The debate has been going on for some time. Both sides have lobbed giant shells of over-heated and nasty rhetoric at each other. I say if you have a rule for one, have a rule for the other.
“These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I ve ever seen.”
So sayeth John Kerry.
Dugger
this may be a moot point by now, but has anyone actually, you know, read the book?
“That Adam Clymer is a major league asshole.”
So sayeth BabyDoc Putsch.
Apr 1986: A very pissed-off George W Bush storms over to Wall Street Journal executive Washington editor Al Hunt at a Dallas restaurant, where Hunt is eating with his wife and their 4-year-old son. Bush shouts: “You f***ing son of a b*tch. I saw what you wrote. We’re not going to forget this.”
Hunt’s transgression was having predicted in the Wall Street Journal that Jack Kemp would win the 1988 Republican nomination instead of Vice President George HW Bush.
Quaker,
You are correct, but neglected to mention that Bush was drunk – a problem of his past he has openly acknoeledged (its still not right, but should be viewed in that context).
Dugger
So he was verbally abusive and drunk. That makes it better?
One of the well-known twelve steps is to make amends for past wrongs. I have no idea if Mr. Bush has ever sought to revisit this incident with Mr. Hunt. However, I’ve heard not even a rumor that Mr. Bush has availed himself of Bill W.’s wisdom.
Z Adura wrote:
I’m guessing here that Mr Adura didn’t read the article.
Well, I did; I get the print edition of The New republic. Mr Ponnuru wrote an article challenging the accepted wisdom that if Roe v Wade is overturned, it will be an electoral disaster for the GOP, and a windfall for the Democrats. While no one can know, in advance, just how such an event would work out, Mr Ponnuru made a reasonable case in challenging the accepted wisdom.
The article he wrote seems to me to definitely fall within the type of thing TNR like to publish: articles bringing forth a new or different point on politics
Mr Adura finds it “pretty difficult to have a reasoned debate” with someone who calls his political affiliation the “party of death.” I wonder if it has ever occurred to him that not listening to what the Republicans have had to say is one reason that the Democrats have been losing elections?
Dana, you are correct that I didn’t read the article. In truth, I find the level of political discourse at NRO to be pretty low-grade, so I don’t typically make a habit of reading them. If your report of the article is correct, this pretty well substantiates my point. This position has been conventional wisdom for some time now, and many people on the left have held that this is why Republicans only pay lip service to the “pro-life” crowd. If this is news to you, I recommend you expand your reading list.
Mine will not include anything from Regnery Press. There are many fine conservative authors, but none would waste their time at Regnery.
Quaker
Nobody said it made it better. He did apologize but some years later and after he learned (he says) that Huntt was upset.
Dugger (he must have been a mean drunk)
Alcohol does not change one’s character, it reveals it.
“One of the well-known twelve steps is to make amends for past wrongs. I have no idea if Mr. Bush has ever sought to revisit this incident with Mr. Hunt.”
Bush isn’t a Twelve Stepper. Jesus saved him.
Mr Adura wrote:
But it wasn’t in NRO; it was an article published by The New Republic, a moderate Democratic opinion journal.
Yes, Mr Ponnuru’s article challenged the conventional wisdom, and the author made a reasonable case for why the conventional wisdom is wrong. (Obviously he didn’t prove it wrong, since you can’t prove a future event.)
Here’s the article.