Credit where credit is due

Via Sully, a number of conservative blogs are condemning Ed Whelan for outing publius: Volokh, Tom Maguire, Dave Riehl, Rod Dreher. Good for them. At least we agree on something!

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






27 replies
  1. 1
    Jay C. says:

    Heh. At there ARE some things in the blogosphere that cross ideological lines. Too damn few. IMO, but there you go…

    And in case it hasn’t been posted here, the best line on the whole affair I’ve seen was a comment on Volokh’s post:

    So publius is now Blevins, and Whelan is still Whelan.

    Blevins has the better of that deal.

  2. 2
    Zifnab25 says:

    It’s bad form, and certainly not to be encouraged, but other than stigmatizing it, I don’t know what else you expect to do about it.

    The real problem isn’t being “outed” nearly so much as it is dealing with the still-anon crazies that come after you.

  3. 3
    DougJ says:

    It’s bad form, and certainly not to be encouraged, but other than stigmatizing it, I don’t know what else you expect to do about it.

    Me neither. But I was glad in any case to see the blogosphere stick together on this one.

  4. 4
    bayville says:

    Yeah, it’s nearly unanimous that Whelan is a douchebag. The key word being “nearly”

    But try deciphering this clown’s rationalization?

    Both complaints miss the point. First, yes there are professional and amateur pundits. Who disputes this? Are the professionals always better than the amateurs? Of course not. But some people do work as pundits for a living, some do it as a hobby.
    The second point is technically fine, but misses the larger and more important point. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were anonymous not because they wanted opine on the news of the day for fun. They were anonymous because they were heroically successful revolutionaries trying to secure a republic and a constitution. Whatever the merits of this Blevins guy, he ain’t Madison, Hamilton, or Jay, even if he does call himself Publius. My point was that the comparison is silly, and my point stands.

  5. 5
    lovethebomb says:

    Sully is a fetus clutching asshole. It is little wonder that he and other bloggers don’t like blogger outings. They are, after all, bloggers. Blog this, you fetishist war mongering papist loving bell curve douche. That’s the classy version.

  6. 6
    gwangung says:

    @bayville: This is an argument that relies on the “worth” of the person being attacked.

    I’m not sure it’s a good argument. Whether a person has that kind of worth or not, a) the choice is being taken away from that person (which is never a good thing), and b) “worth” never determines if a person gets harassed or stalked because of their internet postings.

  7. 7
    Jay C. says:

    And for another, unrelated rant:

    Is there NO *&$^&*% way to fix this @&^%$ comment system to allow more than one line in a blockquote? (see comment #1)??
    (and yes, I tried the bracket-p thing: didn’t seem to work – or at least not within four minutes)

  8. 8
    Anton Sirius says:

    Conor too, in his own oblique way.

    I’d like to think something like this — something so ridiculously petulant and petty — could be the spark that finally gets the insane right shunned and marginalized.

    When Whelan exposes himself with puerile crap like this it’s that much easier for people who previously considered him a ‘reliable source’ to just ignore everything he says from now on. And ditto for anyone who defends said puerile crap.

    In that vein, why would anyone have anything to do with Whelan’s “Ethics” and Public Policy think tank in the future, when its president behaves in such a blatantly and proudly unethical manner?

  9. 9
    mike says:

    Since Sullivan used to make a name for himself outing gays, he fails the basic hypocrisy test. No serious commentator takes Silly Sully for anything but the Tory clown he is.

  10. 10
    Napoleon says:

    Does anyone know how Whelan could have known who he was to out him in the first place?

  11. 11
    Zach says:

    It’s telling that nearly all of the Whelan posts that precede this dust-up that I’ve seen excerpted here and there were quickly edited by Whelan because he inaccurately argued in haste and overstepped time and time again. You reach a point when you’re no longer being intellectually honest by editing blog posts and instead are just admitting to being intellectually lazy.

  12. 12
    JGabriel says:

    Interesting. I’m not so surprised to see Volokh on that list, nor Dreher, though he could have gone either way, but I’m definitely surprised to see Riehl there. I don’t want to criticize the guy while he’s actually done something decent for once, so I’ll just leave it at that.

    As for Maguire, well, I’ve always thought he was just as much an asshole as any other winger, despite protestations by emptywheel, et. al., to the contrary – I guess he proved them right. Glad to see it.

    .

  13. 13
    Gus says:

    I didn’t think Dreher’s was such a condemnation. More a bland essay on anonymous blogging.

  14. 14
    Persia says:

    @mike: Are you talking about some other guy with Sully in his name? Or mixing him up with Larry Kramer or something?

    I don’t always agree with Sullivan and the man’s done many unadmirable things. But can we at least try to lurch reluctantly toward accuracy?

  15. 15
    JGabriel says:

    Jonah Goldberg (via bayville):

    Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were anonymous not because they wanted opine on the news of the day for fun. They were anonymous because they were heroically successful revolutionaries trying to secure a republic and a constitution.

    No, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay chose anonymity because their heroism (like their success) was not universally acknowledged or agreed upon at the time. Among other reasons, they decided it was better to air their views without the political baggage that might have been attached to their names in some quarters.

    I guess it goes without saying the Goldberg is fucking jackass, right? I mean, aside from the pure joy of it.

    .

  16. 16
    comrade scott's agenda of rage says:

    And why does this matter? What real (by that I mean effective) consequences does Whelen suffer? All I see is Daffy Duck walking away from the genie in the lamp in “Ali Baba Bunny” going “consequences, shmonsequences…” only without getting turned into midget duck living in a hole in Pismo Beach.

  17. 17
    Steve V says:

    Incidents like this always prompt concern-trolling wankathons from righty bloggers about the nature of blogging, their distaste for anonymity and their grudging acceptance of it sometimes. But this is an instance that is particularly unsuited for the usual navel gazing. I mean, publius’s “offense” was so incredibly trivial. I can accept that an outing might be appropriate in certain cases, but it’s just so obvious that this wasn’t anything near an appropriate case justifying an outing. Maguire and Riehl (of all people) give the most appropriate responses. The rest of them seem too afraid to just say “Ed Whelan was an asshole,” presumably out of partisan identification.

  18. 18
    Shinobi says:

    I just hope that Publius doesn’t have to deal with many negative consequences of some douchebag’s actions.

    I mean, what recourse does he have? He got outed and this could cause his family members to have problems at work, him to have trouble at work, strife within his family, so on and so forth. And Whelan just gets to smirk at himself.

    Times like this I wish I believed in god or karma.

  19. 19
    Calming Influence says:

    If you’re looking for something fun to do, Google Whelan douchebag.

    4,170 hits. In 0.52 seconds.

  20. 20
    Jay C. says:

    I guess it goes without saying the Goldberg is fucking jackass, right? I mean, aside from the pure joy of it.

    Why should it “go without saying”? IMHO, Jonah Goldberg IS a fucking jackass – of the first order; and it should be said as often as possible in every venue available.

    Anyway (no link, sorry) Mr. Goldberg (a.k.a Doughy Pantload) finished off his pompous screed with the observation that Prof. Blevins deserved to be “outed” for, in effect, profaning the sacred pseud of “publius”: i.e. he is just a lowly blogger, while Madison, Hamilton and Jay were/are intellectual demigods, or something.

    IOW, if John Blevins had posted his blogging under the name of “Lugnut” or “Bogstitch”, exposing him would have been less OK – but using “publius” was too-too, so screw him.

    Fucking jackass.

  21. 21
    Larv says:

    JFTR, it’s Dan Riehl, not Dave.

  22. 22
    cleek says:

    My point was that the comparison is silly, and my point stands.

    oh well then, if the great Jonah Goldberg says his point still stands, then by God, it still stands!

  23. 23
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    @bayville:

    And of course with the exception of Jonathan Alter, all the NRO types are lining right up behind Whelan. Reading the tortured logic, you realize … they really are beyond embarrassment.

  24. 24
    HyperIon says:

    Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse doesn’t waffle on this at all.

    I guess it’s not an ideological thing.

  25. 25
    gwangung says:

    Publius’ co-blogger, von, has an especially trenchant arguement on ObiWi.

  26. 26
    bago says:

    @cleek: Indeed, it was central to his point.

  27. 27
    Mr Furious says:

    Worst apology since Harry Whittington…

    My Apologies to Publius [Ed Whelan]

    On reflection, I now realize that, completely apart from any debate over our respective rights and completely apart from our competing views on the merits of pseudonymous blogging, I have been uncharitable in my conduct towards the blogger who has used the pseudonym Publius. Earlier this evening, I sent him an e-mail setting forth my apology for my uncharitable conduct. As I stated in that e-mail, I realize that, unfortunately, it is impossible for me to undo my ill-considered disclosure of his identity. For that reason, I recognize that Publius may understandably regard my apology as inadequate.

    [Cross-posted on The Corner]

    Asshole. At this point he should’ve stuck to his guns. Makes his offense that much worse.

Comments are closed.