’)Glenn Reynolds gives his patented “read the whole thing” to this 
NY Daily News opinion column with the headline “More than a bad day: Worries grow that Barack Obama & Co. have a competence problem”.
Of course, Reynolds doesn’t note that it’s an opinion piece. Nor does he note that the author is one Michael Goodwin. So, what kind of stuff does Michael Goodwin write? I mean, this must be someone who’s been mighty positive about Obama and has now turned on him (no doubt from the dozens and dozens of whiners going to tea parties and “Going Galt”, this year’s version of “Ridin’ Dirty)?
March 8: Obama’s search for an enemy: The President keep beating the class warfare drum
March 4: President Obama suffers a trust deficit
Feb 11: Change would do President Obama good: Partisan rant is bad form
Feb 8: Stumbling out the gate: Barack Obama flubs his first big test
So, once again, we get to the heart of the matter, Jeopardy style.
“Question: What is another dishonest right-wing hack?”
“Answer: These are the opinions in the right-wing echo chamber that Glenn Reynolds elevates in the most dishonest way possible.”
Gee, it’s a good thing you’re here to save us, Oliver. Without you, we might never notice on our own the “opinions” in the URL for the Goodwin piece, or the big “Opinion” at the top of the page.
I also appreciate the links to Goodwin’s previous work. What a great insight — a guy criticizing Obama today has criticized Obama before.
So, anything of substance to say? Or are you content with howling “burn the heretics!” at those who dare find flaw with Obama?
This posting is the Olestra of blog postings — no value, with the potential of causing anal leakage.
J.
There’s nothing wrong with people disliking or pointing out flaws about the President (unlike you guys with Bush, we know he’s mortal) but it isn’t asking too much to be intellectually honest about it. Most of you cons are too dumb to notice the opinion part, as you and others regularly point to opinion pieces as if they’re AP stories.
Yeah, those who miss the two “opinions” I alrady mentioned might read the column and actually mistake it for real news — if they overlook the lack of a dateline, the first-person narration in the lead, and all those other hallmarks of opinion columns.
On the other hand, it’s a pretty accurate column. If someone mistook it for an actual news article, they’d still be fairly well informed.
J.
Pajamas Media blew 7 mill and Glenn talks about competence
it’s a pretty accurate column
… for me to poop on. Really, you people need to get serious. Just one side of the aisle being reasonable and rational is probably not a good idea in the long run. Plus its tiring for us.
Seriously, other countries get thoughtful, intellectually honest conservative parties. The USA is stuck with the Instapundit/Jay Tea/Limbaugh conservative movement that actively spreads disinformation and ugly bigotry.. Usually just because they know that it frustrates liberals. What a joke the conservative movement in the US has become.
What is it that Instapundit do here?
He said read the whole thing?
The horror.
This is pretty typical of instapundit, but not entirely unusual of any of the mega-linker bloggers on either side. It’s as little a surprise as if he wrote:
That said, the article is garbage. When the author starts with an unsourced statement (which reeks of “I was talking to a cab driver”-ism) and the first actual criticism (as opposed to the useless “some are worried that”) is in paragraph 11, it’s pretty obvious there’s not much there there. The most offensive error is citing Chas Freeman as having given “praise of China’s massacre at Tiananmen Square”. Freeman’s criticized China’s leadership for not stopping the student protests earlier, rather than allowing them to spiral for months and then cracking down violently. Calling this praise of the massacre is insane.
To correct:
True enough, Crusty. I remember when Mike Barnicle used to pull that same scam time and time again. He was finally busted for repeated plagiarism and just plain making stuff up, and his career was over.
What’s that? He’s still considered a valued commentator? Oh, never mind…
Oh, yeah, Freeman. Was that the guy who spent years as the bought-and-paid-for butt-boy for the House of Saud? The guy who withdrew his nomination while blaming THE JOOOOOS for sinking him? The guy who imploded in an anti-Semitic rant? Yeah, he was a REAL good choice. Superb judgment on behalf of whoever wanted him in a very sensitive position…
J.
It’s a little wordy calling someone a “bought-and-paid-for-butt-boy for the House of Saud”, you can just abbreviate that to “Mr President”.
True dat, Crusty. Freeman was a lot more honest.
“Honest” as in, “once he’s bought, he stays bought!”
And Crusty… that’s a really insightful clarification re: Freeman and China. “You should have been oppressive much faster and crushed the dissent sooner!”
J.
Pot meet Kettle Oliver.
FAIL again.
JT, would you care to illuminate us on what Mr. Freeman said that was anti-semitic? Not anti-Israeli policy, mind, as they are two different antis.
So you’re getting all worked up about a blogger pointing to an opinion piece? Amazing that this policy sprank up in a matter of 20 minutes.
SaveFarris says: “So you’re getting all worked up about a blogger pointing to an opinion piece?”
No.
It’s one right-winger pointing to another right-winger as if the second right-winger was a voice of reason and not some partisan hack.
So you
It
No.
It’s one right-winger pointing to another right-winger as if the second right-winger was a voice of reason and not some partisan hack. Southern Strategy Strowbridge
Yes.
It’s one left-winger in Oliver pointing to another left-winger and former movie critic as a voice of reason and not some partisan hack.
SaveFarris is exactly correct. No difference at all in these two posts and it’s remarkable they come one right after the other. Yet Reynolds is likened to feces for his.
Heh.
Dennis the Bigot: “It’s one left-winger in Oliver pointing to another left-winger and former movie critic as a voice of reason and not some partisan hack.”
Good job working my profession into your post. It does nothing but make you sound jealous.
As for the intellectual depth of your post…
Michael Goodwin is a partisan hack, the key being hack. He is not a reliable source worth quoting.
Frank Rich is a partisan, but he’s not a hack.
Rich is more of a hack than … say … Glenn Reynolds.
Good job working my profession into your post. It does nothing but make you sound jealous. Southern Strategy
Frank Rich was the movie critic I referred to, not you, you dolt.
And he’s no less the hack than Goodwin. Nevertheless, there isn’t one iota of difference between Oliver’s Frank Rich post and Glenn Reynolds’ Michael Goodwin post. Certainly nothing of a difference to merit a likening of Reynolds to feces without placing his in the same category.
Well for one thing, amigo, OW isn’t a link farmer and posted two paragraphs of his own commentary. For another, OW identified Rich’s column as a ‘column.’ Contrast this to Reynolds, who identifies David Broder’s column as a ‘report.’
I’d say a particular political ideology in America has a habit of reading opinion pieces as if they were front page fact, but that’d be unnecessarily provocative.
Strwobridge-
As a movie critic yourself, you didn’t even know that Frank Rich was a movie critic, yet you pretend to be an expert on the guy. This is quite typical of you and your hackery.
You are in no position to say who is the greater hack between Goodwin and Rich.
I’d say a particular political ideology in America has a habit of reading opinion pieces as if they were front page fact, but that’d be unnecessarily provocative. Parthy
But you see, Parthy, at the New York Times where Frank Rich is a columnist, liberal opinion pieces are posted on the front pages as news stories every day. Have been for years and years.
This is fact.
This is fact.
I don’t buy it amigo, never have. I think they print about a million words a day, try to get it right and sometimes blow it. How do you explain the war cheerleading?
Dennis the Bigot: “Frank Rich was the movie critic I referred to, not you, you dolt.”
I have no way of knowing if your claim here is correct, as you’ve mentioned my profession on numerous occasions and you are a known liar.
However, your posts was, at best, grammatically incorrect.
“It’s one left-winger in Oliver pointing to another left-winger and former movie critic as a voice of reason and not some partisan hack.”
One left-winger in Oliver?
Forgive me if I read that and didn’t fully understand what you were talking about.
Dennis the Bigot: “Strwobridge”
Do you have a medical condition that prevents you from typing my name?
If someone mistook it for an actual news article, they’d still be fairly well informed.
You mean if a right-wing critic of Obama mistook it for news.
Heh. Indeed. That is central to Oliver’s point.
JT, Freeman suggested that it would’ve been preferable for the Chinese government to not allow students to gather and protest in the first place rather than kill the students who were protesting. To say that’s not ideal is true, but to call it controversial is silly, and to call it “praise of China’s massacre” is slander.
Are you claiming that the Saudi’s bought W but he didn’t stay bought? Got any evidence for that?
Thank you for the great post, Mr. Willis. Instapundit is a running joke but it’s important to know what those pitiful clowns are up to.
Hey Dennis, I’ve notice your post are getting cruder and angrier. Is there a problem, old boy?
Where did Reynolds say, “This is not an opinion piece”? Where did Reynolds say “This guy I’m linking used to like Obama, but doesn’t now!”? Could it be that Reynolds thought the article was interesting and thus he.. linked to it? Oh, apparently he violated Willis’s rules of linking – you must identify that the linked piece is opinion prior to linking. Hey wait, Oliver, you didn’t say anything about opinion when you made a link in this post:
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/03/12/walmart-downgraded-blamed-on-efca-actually-astoturfing/#comments
Which is clearly opinion. Must have been an oversight on your ironclad rules.
Before you start throwing out charges of being a dishonest hack, maybe you should stop being one yourself.
Haplo9, as I stated above, I don’t think linking to an opinion piece is a big deal, but the FDL link from Oliver is to a news story. You may have issues with that because it’s FDL and they mash news and opinion, but it’s actual reporting with facts and details and everything. Nary a third-hand, off-the-record “some would say” bit in the whole post…
You’re right I have issues with treating FDL as “news”, (I mean, seriously – would you ever consider linking to RightWingNews to be something other than opinion, even if what you linked to has the veneer of news?), but without getting into that argument, do you really think Oliver qualifies every link he makes with a statement along the lines of “this is news” vs “this is opinion”? Of course he doesn’t. I wouldn’t expect him too, either. That he expects it of Reynolds is just throwing crap against a wall and somehow hoping it sticks.
Considering the FDL became well-know for their reporting on the Libby trial, I certainly wouldn’t put in with RightWingNews, though they’re not exactly TPM, either (that said, I’m certain OW has linked to opinion pieces without magical “full disclosure”, I just don’t think your citation is correct). My point is just that the content of the FDL post is news.
I’m with you on how unshocking insty’s link is. I’m pretty sure you could find hundreds, if not thousands, of links more full of wrong than this one; it’s just a crummy opinion piece, there’s not even a connection to white supremacy or right-wing militias or advocation of torture and murder or a picture of Mickey Kaus. Maybe that last one should be under torture..
Let me see if I can come up with a rewrite of Reynolds’ piece that might meet with Oliver’s approval:
“Here’s an opinion column from a right-winger who has written critically of Obama in the past, so he’s a lying hack. I urge you to read the whole thing, because I like people who criticize Obama, too. That makes me a lying hack, too. Just remember that it’s an opinion column, not news, and it’s from someone who’s spoken critically of Obama before, so it’s full of lies and half-truths and right-winger talking points by someone who ought to be burned at the stake.”
J.
‘Journalistic blogging standards for thee, but not for me.’
J.G.Thayer: “Let me see if I can come up with a rewrite of Reynolds’ piece that might meet with Oliver’s approval…”
Dennis the Bigot: “‘Journalistic blogging standards for thee, but not for me.’”
How’s this for a rule… Don’t quote known idiots.
And by the way, Dennis…
What are the tennets of the Laffer curve?
Is Rush a racist asshole?
Did Snopes lie about Newsweek, or did Newsweek lie about Rush?
Strowbridge said “don’t quote…”
Whoops! Almost broke his rule!
Dang… that’s gonna make it difficult.
Newsweek’s lies could fill up volumes. Let’s start with the “Koran in the toilet” farce, then move on to their photos from the Lebanon conflict…
J.
Let me see if I can come up with a rewrite of Reynolds
Gahh!!
OW, it happens every time I cut and paste any content that has a slanted apostrophe or quote marks. If I remember to replace them with straight characters, this doesn’t happen.