In light of some of the comments to yesterday’s post, I really don’t have much to say.
I’ll simply stand on my two-year record of blogging day in and day out against the Obama agenda starting prior to the election; defending and promoting the Tea Party movement since the first rallies in April 2009 when the movement was written off by most as a one-hit wonder; fighting the Democrats’ strategy of crazy; exposing the false claims of Tea Party violence; defending Sarah Palin and her family against attacks by the mainstream media and nutroots with a vigor few bloggers can match; fighting the health care bill with arguments early on regarding the mandate and role of the IRS which did not become mainstream Republican talking points until months later; documenting the irrationality and failure of the Stimulus Plan; lighting a fire in the blogosphere for Scott Brown when no one gave him a chance; fighting the race card every Saturday night and then some; taking on The NY Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, Media Matters, Think Progress, the SPLC, the Geraldo of Nevada, and Journolists; calling for unity in the run-up to the mid-terms; fighting the smears against Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Rand Paul, Meg Whitman and other candidates; and promoting numerous candidates in swing districts; and doing it all in my own name in the open with all that entails.
You may not always agree with what is written here, and that may happen again as new contributors submit posts. The mission of this blog will not change, however, even if it no longer is a one man show.
As to whether you stay, you can love it or leave it. I’ll be here regardless.
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I like the addition of other voices. Those who want to pout and go home have no idea what it takes to hit the "publish" button after crafting an opinion piece. Good on Kathleen and good on you for inviting her!
If your guest writer(s) sign their posts it would go far to solve the uncanny feeling of meeting a wolf in sheep's clothing. You wrote today that you've been "… and doing it all in my own name in the open with all that entails."
In the time I've read your blog I have come to understand your perspective, and so when I check in I think I know what to expect and I grant a certain degree of trust. If there's another voice, fine, as long as I am not duped into extending the trust you've earned to someone who hasn't yet earned it.
I must say that I'm sorry to see that jab about some of us choosing to blog anonymously. Tell you what, you get me a job that keeps a roof over my head and pays my bills, and I'll gladly use my own name out here in the conservative blogosphere, but until then, how's about giving us a break?
As to your co-blogger . . . well, it's your page, and you can do what you like and have any and all the contributors you choose. It's you, though, who will continue to draw the readers who choose to neither "love it" nor "leave it," so I hope that you continue to post frequently.
I am glad to see another poster at this site – I value a variety of perspectives.
This has been hinted at before, but it would really help if the name of the poster was listed at the top of post, and not in the fine print at the bottom. Dan Reihl & Stacy McCain use other posters, and the names are right at the top. Otherwise, it is kind of like reading some anonymous post.
IMO, the post that upset so many of us was totally mean spirited and unnecessary, however I did not think it was a post written by you. Your
posts still stand as some of the best on the Internet and I do not understand how you are able to write so many great post and still have some other life. I thank you for the site and look forward to reading it each day. Will I spend any time reading your guest bloggers? Depends on what they write.
you know technically this is still a one MAN show. and now a one WOMAN show. and a one man and one woman show. or a two person show…
as for the gripe about signing… at the bottom of each post is an automatic author stamp. but on the other hand, maybe something more prominent would make sense. but it doesn't bother me much.
To aovid the confusion, just sign – me – at the bottom. That should clear things up!
"…defending Sarah Palin and her family against attacks by the mainstream media and nutroots with a vigor few bloggers can match…."
I think that the posting by Ms. McCaffrey was so contrary to the above quote that it provoked heated commentary, like mine. However, in the blogosphere it is always good to have a heavy comment thread (as I've said before, Allahpundit on Hot Air KNOWS that a Palin post will draw PAGES of commentary and high traffic – which is good, IMHO). So…..good on you, sir! I've been reading your blog faithfully each day since 2008. I won't be stopping now.
No offense but if I wanted to hear from a twenty year old college student about their views of the world I would ask my son what his thoughts were and you can bet he is just as smart if not smarter than your co-writer, without the nasty obnoxiousness involved.I tune into your blog for adult perspectives, candor and analysis not middle school bitchiness.
Ms. McCaffery's opinion was just that…an opinion. Agree or not, I think you are quite correct Professor – (paraphrasing) there is no need to rip her apart just because you happen to disagree with her.
While in no way is it my desire to make excuses for anyone, I think one likely explanation for the angry tenor of many of the posts, relates to the non-stop Palin bashing we have all witnessed for the last 2+ years. Perhaps we should call it "Palin-PTSD"?
But your credentials are solid with your readers Professor, and IMHO, we should all treat such disagreements as opportunities for reflective discussion; as friends would.
Love It or Leave It is sorta childish donja think? I came on your blog some time ago and read it for interesting comments that I am sure to find. I don't have to agree with everything anyone says to appreciate those things I do agree with.
All I needed to know about Ms. McCaffrey is that Vanity Fair is one of her favorites.I knew then to expect some elitists comments to be forthcoming
I enjoy this blog a lot. Thanks so much for doing it!!
In my opinion, the point of this blog exercise is to challenge yourself and others to think about the issues. The fact that we don't always agree is a good thing, why would any of us only read material that supported our point of view? And why, as a rational person, would we agree with everything an imperfect person does or says? Disagreeing with a particular post helps a person define their own argument; and to that end, the post about Palin has done its work – we are all thinking about the issues.
A second, and much less important point, even though I am a newby to this blog, I can read one or two sentences and tell the post is written in a different voice. Any thoughts or comments I have about a particular post are always viewed through the filter of voice, author and subject matter.
Why do you hate America?
Gang, close your eyes. Deep breath. Okay, now take another. Let your thoughts drift to puppies, kittens, and fields of freshly punched hippies. Think about how miserable Nacy Pelosi has been all week, and will be for the next several months. Think about how "the difference between '94 and now is, you've got me" quote will be hung around Obama's neck in history books for the next hundred and fifty years. Forget all about the mean lady posting a mild criticism of Sarah Palin.
There…isn't that better?
It was a small opinion post on the internet that you didn't like. It happens. No need to get all personal or go nuclear. Get over it.
"you can love it or leave it."
I find your coverage of the political events and issues of the day enlightening and always interesting.
Put me in the "love it" category.
Mr. Jacobson,
There were two errors in Ms. McCaffery's posting. The first was conflating the politics with the economics. The second getting it all wrong on the economics.
Palin, hand on heart is not a professional english major political nit picker. Yes it will lead to the whole over boil we have seen in the blogs. But when it came to the sheer economics of the observation, McCaffery was dead wrong. Prices ARE rising at the same time that container portions across a whole range of products are shrinking. Anyone who has not seen that going on for the past year has their head in the sand.
On the topic Palin is right. She picked a very bad delivery to make her point.
@DINORightMarie – Yes, it's all part of the plan – and it's working perfectly, heh.
@JohnJ – Thanks, I needed that.
@Fuzzy – no jab intended, more a pat on my own back, which I have been known to do every now and then.
@Joan and the others, thanks.
Keep up the good work! You have a great blog.
When I read Ms. McCaffrey's post, I felt as though I was reading something out of Vanity Fair. That's fine. If it weren't for her opinion, I would not have read all the comments, with the facts, in support of Palin. As Martha Stewart would say: that's a good thing. You're one of my favorite bloggers and I will continue to read your posts and, now, Ms. McCaffrey's.
I agree with Independent Patriot. I come for your analysis. It is somewhat disappointing that you did not choose someone with comparable gravitas and experience to join you as a co-blogger. (thinking Powerline blog).
Ms. McCaffery would have fit right in @ the Stewart-Colbert rally. IMO, her work does not represent the attitude nor temperment expected when stopping by this blog.
I'm a newbie here, having found you from a comment that Rush made about a post of yours. I've found your site to be insightful, current, and inspiring. That's why I took offense at Ms. McCaffery's post.
I have my reservations about Gov. Palin. But she's the most inspiring figure since Reagan as far as I'm concerned. I'm willing to explore her deficits but let's do it honestly, without the sniping we've come to expect from her detractors. She gets it – and, like Ginger Rogers, she does it in high heels!
Bloggers should write what they believe to be the truth and not hedge it to avoid hurting somebody's feelings. You can use tact, however, so the truth-injection doesn't appear mean-spirited or personal. I don't see the post in question (by your colleague) was terribly controversial or useful, but it doesn't make me want to stop reading Legal Insurrection.
Time and time again, one of the best blogs, hands down.
Thanks for your tireless efforts in the fight.
I choose "love it", you shouldn't even have to defend yourself or your blog. If people don't like it, that's their problem & not yours. You know you are one of the very best right-bloggers around. Don't let anyone ever make you feel that you are anything less than that.
I'll continue to visit every day but I must admit that I'll hold my breath & scroll down to the author's name before I can relax and read.
I get challenged eleventy gazillion times a day and often by you, Professor Jacobson. I'm sorry if it sounds mean-spirited, but not only don't I find some of Ms. McCaffrey's views challenging after listening to them for umteen years, it's also that I can hear them shouted from every street corner all day long, day in, day out, year after year.
This was a place to let my guard down. Until now. But I'll still visit because of you.
PS – If you defend Sarah Palin in a post & Ms. McCaffrey bashes her, do both posts disappear?
Professor, I love your blog and will continue to come here. I was however taken aback by the casual sneering tone toward Mrs. Palin coming from your co-blogger, as the ex-Governor surely has more accomplishments under her belt (although I'm sure Miss McCaffrey is a bright and hardworking student).
But then I read another post last night by your co-blogger sneering at Michele Bachmann and preferring women like Nan Hayworth as the feminine face of the GOP. Nan Hayworth is quite liberal for a Republican and very much pro-choice. I am concerned that your co-blogger has nothing but contempt for conservative pro-life women, a perspective common to Ivy League-educated women (a sorority of which I am proud to be a part) but that I find quite jarring on this page.
Perhaps Miss McCaffrey's views will moderate with time. At the moment I am sorry to say I have to treat everything she writes with suspicion.
The commenters to Ms. McCaffrey’s post may have been harsh. No doubt, they were startled to read yet another negative Palin post this time from an unexpected source. Indeed, a poll (http://rightwingnews.com/2010/11/polling-conservative-bloggers-on-the-2010-election-and-the-aftermath/) shows most center-right blogs highly supportive of Ms. Palin and her substantial achievements, so a critical assessment – particularly one that expresses a loss of respect while being deferential to Peggy Noonan’s puerile outburst – should be expected to ignite a passionate response.
The merits (or lack thereof) of the argument are contained in the post and responses, but it is my hope that you, Professor, and Ms. McCaffrey learn a valuable lesson from this kerfuffle. And that is even in the Age of The Blog, careful editing is needed.
From the misuse of “insinuate” in the first sentence to the sloppy hodge-podge of non-thought contained in paragraph 5 and ending with the odd advice to Mrs. Palin to refrain from giving offense where none was referenced left readers awash in the state of confusion. Or maybe Ms. McCaffrey was offended that Mrs. Palin defended her argument. Who knows?
I enjoy reading you Professor and am happy I found you some time ago and plan to continue to stay here, but it’s my hope more careful editing will result in comments based argument not style.
Professor Jacobson,
You're acting like a professor for not throwing Kathleen under the schoolbus. I have a daughter the same age as her who I proudly find to be brilliant (physics is her favorite subject). Like Kathleen, she has a lot on her plate, and it's just one of many plates she has spinning … it's like watching an amazing act on the Ed Sullivan Show. I don't know how these young ladies do it. Nervous as it makes me to see our daughter take on so much, I'd really have a knot in my stomach if she attempted something like this. Kudos to Kathleen. I'm sure you knew it would get very rough at times but you went ahead anyway. Maybe you'll look back and think, "That post wasn't one of my better ones." Life goes on. As an old geezer, Kathleen, let me bore you with a story from when I was about your age:
I was attending UCLA while working seven days a week in the flagship store of a chain of xeroxing/printing/office supplies stores (think proto-Kinkos) my father had just started [note to Prof. J.– these came after the ones I wrote to you about, and I learned the important lesson that I would never involve my own kids in a family business].
Xeroxing machines were a new thing, and here in L.A., we had a line of people stretching out the door all day long. Lots of highly educated, highly opinionated people (pains in the arse, in other words). Writers with scripts, lawyers with their crap, etc. I was a painfully shy young man, but I was forced to converse with them as we stood facing each other, separated by just the counter, during the interminable amount of time it seemed to take to run their stuff. People would lose their tempers with the long wait in line, so, to make it easier for them, my dad started cutting out the pieces from the LA Times' opinion page. They could "read the counter" while they waited. But every now and then, the African-American guard at the Bank of America next door, with whom my father would bet on football games, would give my dad the WSJ that they received if nobody took it home. (My dad loved the WSJ but was too cheap to subscribe.) When he'd paste one of those opinion pieces on the counter, at least a few lefty customers would bitch and moan, demand to see the owner, or say this would be their last visit as a customer (at which point my dad, the smartest, toughest sob you'd ever wanna meet, if present at the time, would wave and yell, "Good-byeeeeee"). (It was a rough-and-tumble, wild-west atmosphere in that store. I hated it. But I did grow me some thick skin …well, still thin by most people's standards.) The 5% of the articles with a conservative slant garnered 100% of the complaints. The 95% with a liberal take? From our conservative customers … usually a smile and a roll of the eyes.
I also found to my surprise (as a young lefty) that, unlike their liberal counterparts, the conservative customers didn't try to take advantage of my shyness (something easy to do in a service-oriented business).
Sorry for being so windy. I just hope, Kathleen, that you don't one day look back at the commenters on this site as I do those liberal customers.
It was brutal and I hated life. But I survived and you will, too.
Just to clarify– I should've said "SOME of the commenters on this site."
Also, I said my dad cut out the opinion pieces. I didn't make it clear that he then taped them onto the counter (a long one, it was a big store). Our counter was covered with opinion articles.
I remember one time when an especially insufferable customer started to complain and I gave him a verbal counterpunch (I really surprised myself.) When he asked for the owner's name so he could come back and complain about an opinion piece on the counter … and my attitude … I can't tell you how much I enjoyed saying, "The owner's name? Well … I call him 'Dad.'"
No problem, carry on. Everyone has a bad week now and then – we're all human.
"Love it or leave it"
Yep. I'm too old and time is too short for me to waste my time on the "Allahpundits" of the world yanking chains just for goofs. Yes, they get lots of clicks and lots of comments, I have NO idea why people waste their time on such foolishness, but I'm not in for this new party. I'll spend my precious moments hanging out with friends, not enemies.
Bye.
-brian
http://www.linkedin.com/in/bdpaasch
KEEP THESE POSTS COMING! You write a very informative and educational blog!
Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
ps. HAPPY VETERANS DAY!!
Count me firmly in the *love it* camp, too. Perhaps Kathleen could redeem herself by stating something factual, like Obama intentionally ommitting endowed by our Creator. I'll take a misquote over that ommission any day.
Sorry, I just can't help it, I feel like I've lost a friend. I know it's totally irrational and emotional. Like biofuel lab rat, I can't take the full frontal snark from the Allahpundits & Aces any more. And I'm so tired of listening to the oh-so- edumucated classes with their oh-so-much-more reasonable opinions that I could spit wooden nickels. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'll come back. But it won't be the same. Poor me.
Straw man, sir. The issue is not you and your record. The issue is your co-blogger. Your clueless co-blogger. I don't come to LI to read Peggy Noonan or Kathleen Parker or any of the other Sarah-Palin-hating airheads dotting the GOP landscape. I'm not looking for lockstep thinking, but I am looking for honest to goodness thought and fact-based critical analysis. Your co-blogger fell sadly short in both areas. Defend her, if you must, but please spare us the lightweight, airhead punditry.
Here's what I learnt in grad school: when you write, begin with a hypothesis. Research thoroughly and think things through to determine the validity of the hypothesis. If it is not, change it and keep changing it until you develop a supportable thesis. To pursue an invalid hypothesis will result in academic and personal humiliation. This means that it doesn't matter whether or not your thesis is in synch with your ideological views; what matters is that your thesis is valid and unshakeable. Therefore, as an academic, I don't buy stock in my hypotheses.
Writing is a war game in which the writer's ideas are the castle under siege. For the writing to stand, the foundation (assumptions, premises, conclusion) the undergirding syllogism must be unshakeable. If the argument is easily assailed and disproven, then that is evidence of shoddy construction and weak analytical thought that may be in the service of ideological bias. A well developed thesis and argument is an impregnable, unassailable castle.
For a writer, a researcher, truth, no matter how unpalatable, must be the primary objective. That truth may be a long distance away from what goes on inside your head, ideologically, but it is what establishes your bona fides as a reputable and read-worthy writer.
Prof. Jacobsen is doing Kathleen a disservice by not publicly calling her on her very substandard construction which has weakened the integrity of this blog. That public discussion of the flaws in her thinking will go a long way towards shaping her as a writer. Absent that, Kathleen's defense of her weak argument would prove quite instructive to her. However, after one half-hearted effort, Kathleen retired from the field of battle.
Writing is a war game. The writer must ALWAYS be prepared to attack and, more importantly, defend.
William, I love your blog. I will remain a reader of your material.
However, when it comes to Kathleen's work… I am all for just giving it a big miss….
Love it
I generally like Ms Palin, but that post was an honest and true one. In this instance, Palin was wrong and reporter Sundeep Reddy was right. It has been known to happen.
I'm a bit agog at all the people coming here, into Bill Jacobson's blog, and blasting him (and his team). Grow up, folks, not everyone agrees with anybody about anything, and people can disagree with you without being evil.
Sarah Palin is an appealing and skillful politician; she'll survive one small screwup. She's not a deity. No politician is (something our opponents in the Cult of Obama are slowly and painfully discovering). She's a much more appealing, and politically consistent, person than her detractors like Frum, Parker, and our own Maureen Dowd-like fading star, Peggy Noonan. She deserves our support, in my opinion, when she's right, which is most of the time. But she's not perfect.
You'll probably get a whole bunch more vituperation from the people who've called down a fatwa on Scott Brown for not voting like he was from Alabama. Brown is not perfect either. He's a human being — and also one who deserves our support, in my opinion.
Okay! I'm back! Why the long faces? Did I miss something? I'll come back later. (Okay. Bye.)
@Kevin,
I do not believe that Peggy Noonan deserves support. From what I have been reading with regards to what she writes, Noonan can be very, very catty. She has never had a nice word to say for Sarah Palin.
Also, the writer in the WSJ was wrong, and Palin was right in her remarks about the QE2 controversy.
There is a group of economists, who are not Keynesian, who disagree with the whole notion of any further "stimulus", and they do so because they recognize that this stimulus under the present conditions, which are remarkably like the early 1970s will end up with hyperinflation.
Not only are there many economists in schools not steeped in teaching Progressive economics, but there are world leaders who also question the move by Bernanke, including leaders in Germany, China and of all places, Brazil.
I didn't post a comment to the "Maligned" post, although it annoyed the stuffing out of me. It's only in retrospect, after reading your response to the comments, that I realized it had been written by your contributor.
I should have realized at once that the post wasn't a William Jacobson Original by the rookie mistake at the beginning: referring to Peggy Noonan's WSJ column as an "editorial." Peggy Noonan does not write WSJ editorials, because she is not a WSJ editor. Peggy Noonan's columns run on the Op-Ed page, so called because it is the page opposite the editorials.
(By the way, at what age does a woman become a "vestige?")
In any case, I wasn't annoyed by the substance of the piece so much as its sheer gratuitousness, the sense of piling on that began with a too clever by half attempt to create a mocking shorthand in the post's title and ending with the "me too" conclusion. It was sloppy, it read like an exercise in Confirmation Bias, and I was stunned to see it on your blog.
I don't mind it so much now that I know it was not written by you. We forgive youth for many things. Bully for you, bringing on a contributor, it keeps things interesting.
But I would like to echo the requests of other commenters and request that Authors Who Are Not William Jacobson identify themselves at the beginning of the post, it's a common convention in the blogosphere.
And oh yes, my vote: love it.
I know, I know, it's my 3rd post today, I need to get a life. Which I will do as soon as I get a job (& I have a promising interview Monday 🙂 )
It's just this – is it too much to ask for a moratorium on gratuitous bashing of conservative women pols of a certain non-elite variety? Or is that even out-of-bounds to ask with the new "many voices" policy?
It's just that I discontinued my Ricochet membership today for gratuitous conservative non-elite women pol-bashing after the final straw, a Michele Bachmann hit piece that has since been "disappeared" off the site. And I need places to hang out till I get a job.
Mr. Jacobson,
Why do you continue to ignore the most troubling and damaging legal and Constitutional disasters of our time. The Usurpation of the Presidency by your fellow Harvardian, who's father was NEVER a citizen. There is a case before the SCOTUS for Condference on the 23rd. It's not important?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-446.htm
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress
Are you afraid of the "birther" epithet? Have you been told to shut up? Obama is NOT ELIGIBLE.
As an expert in securities arbitration, why do you not say anything about the Fraud the Mortgage banks have perpetrated on We the People. They have not secured the chain of custody of the notes, and have committed fraud on the public, selling mortgage securities under fraudulent claims of the grade of paper w/in them, all while shorting the real estate market.
This is not about Republican and Democrat. This is about the very salvation of the Constitution and the rule of law. Get out of the R and D box!
Professor,
I hope you understand that the response to the post on Palin is not about you or your blog. We love your blog and can count on you to be informative and insightful, as well as factual. We do not always have to agree with you, but we generally come away with a better understanding of the topic, at the least. So, please do not take personal offense to these comments.
The issue is not that Ms. McCaffrey is critical of Palin (and yes, I thought it was you writing until I got to the end of the post, and I thought it was satire until I read the comments). The issue is a mis-informed and poorly-written opinion on a site where we least expect it. What does it say that many of us thought it was satire?
I won't stop reading your blog, but I will likely give your co-blogger's posts less attention, because the first outing was beyond unimpressive. It's not the quality nor the substance to which we, your faithful readers, are used to here, and, as one commenter pointed out, time is precious. Ms. McCaffrey may indeed get better at blogging, and we welcome that. I just don't think she understood your audience, and rather than admit any error or engage in discussion, it seems that we the closed-minded, Palin-clinging readers are to be blamed. That hurts.
Blog Boss hires assistant. Assistant produces hapless jejune piece of work. Readers express dismay, displeasure, outrage even. Blog Boss beats own breast and toots own horn. No one disagrees for his breast is manly and his tooting is sweet. His readers love him for both. Blog Boss mounts High Horse and wags stern finger at readers, mouths platitudes, frowns. "Me Blog Boss", he declaims. "This my blog. Like blog, lump blog, me no care. Me immortal. Hrrrmph!"
Sic transit gloria mundi.
I enjoy your writing and perceptiveness, so I'm not going anywhere. I think kathleen's anti-Palin post was ill-advised, but I imagine she's received a memorable initiation into writing for a high-profile blog.
Sort of reminds me when I blogged about parenting when my oldest child was 2. I thought I knew so much. Now that my third child is 7, I'm a lot more discerning about what to write. We all were young once and said stupid things. Kathleen'll figure out Palin's appeal eventually.
I will say that I'm more loyal to Palin than I am to any blog, so as far as anti-Palin material is concerned, I can tolerate thoughtfully presented criticism, but as a rule I don't read outright anti-Palin blogs at all. But since I believe that Mr. Jacobson is rather more pro-Palin than anti, I'll still be reading faithfully, though I may be skipping over Kathleen's posts until she builds a little more credibility.
By the way, I don't read Peggy Noonan's columns. Why? Because she doesn't matter. She hasn't mattered for a long time. There's a new breed of conservative, and 90:1 most of them don't have a clue who Noonan is.
I'll tell you who matters. Sarah Palin. She is doing more to shape public opinion than any one politician and/or talking head out there right now. And she's doing a damn fine job of it.
Two years ago the GOP handwringing was insufferable — especially the David Frum types insisting that the only way to win was to somehow embrace and fund the nanny state that the electorate purportedly wanted. Prof., YOU were the voice in the wilderness urging calm and confidently asserting that leftists always overreach, and that the 2008 leftists would overreach badly. Bravo sir. I'll be sticking around at LI.
Don't think you can be hard, and all of us loyalists will take it. We will leave this blog whenever we want, irregardless of what you say. Don't mess with us.
"irregardless" isn't a word Robert. Regardless and irrespective of that, I'm a fan of both this blog and of Sarah Palin. What I'm not is someone that thinks that a little constructive criticism isn't warranted amongst friends from time to time. Keep of the good work Mr. Jacobson.
@the Other Ken
Did you understand what I said? Real, dirty people with stinky breath like mine talk this way. Irregardless of what I mean to say I will say it, and you will be forced to understand it. I can't believe you think grammar is even an issue in this crazy world grandpa.
Good Morning Professor dear,
I come to read what you have to say. It is unique in the blogosphere and I would be hard pressed to find another I align with as much as I do with you.
Your blog has taken on a life of it's own and is like having a seven day a week brick and mortar store which has to be opened and run regardless. It is a burden… and you alluded to this previously and I agreed with you.
I was selected as a co-writer at Texas4Palin for several reasons. Josh Painter is in the same boat you are in. He said in his offer to me to write there that he liked how I write. He also knew he and I agreed philosophically on the mission of his blog. Screening in this way prevents clashes between me and Josh and between his blog's readers.
Other multi-writer blogs take the 'alternative views' route for understandable reasons… Allahpundit at HOTAiR comes to mind.
All the best to you, dear. I remain faithful as a reader regardless.
We don't need "alternative views." HotAir sucks now and AP is the reason. The libs and RINO moderates already have a near-monopoly message. Do they have to have a forum here too?
In other words, you're going to turn this into Hot Air lite and if long time loyal readers don't like it, "f**ck off. Real nice.
"Constructive criticism" is the friendly fire of communication. Dave Frum and they like consider their disastrous message and attacks "constructive" too.
By the way, the SEC sucks and SEC regulations have made corruption worse. Regulation does not work. Just thought I'd throw that in there.
"However, in the blogosphere it is always good to have a heavy comment thread (as I've said before, Allahpundit on Hot Air KNOWS that a Palin post will draw PAGES of commentary and high traffic – which is good, IMHO). So…..good on you, sir! I've been reading your blog faithfully each day since 2008. I won't be stopping now."
Yeah, attack Palin just so you can get web traffic like AP. Real principled there.
"- (paraphrasing) there is no need to rip her apart just because you happen to disagree with her."
When the disagreement is because she launched an all too typical tired 'Palin ain't smart' factually challenged turd than yeah, there is a need.
This blog is going downhill. You must decide if this blogs mission is to promote conservatism, or be a forum to promote all those precious "different perspectives" beloved of the unprincipled.
It can't be both.