Hey Glenn, you've really been on fire since coming over to Salon, but I think this post is a misfire. First of all, the post doesn't mention for those of us unfamiliar that you were talking about a self-described on-line political gossip column.

You say you weren't really criticizing Akers, but...you were. The stuff about the names being bolded like Page Six--well, now that I know that's precisely the type of column it intends to be, your ire seems misplaced and your post seems to have been "hiding the ball" a bit.

Secondly, you say:

She doesn't mention that Fred Ryan, in addition to being the COO of Allbritton and who -- in Akers' words -- "also happens to be chairman of the board of the Reagan library" (hey, what an unnoteworthy coincidence), "also happens to be" The Politico's CEO and a former official in the Reagan White House

Another way of viewing this is that Akers has revealed Ryan's control of both The Politico and the Reagan library! That she didn't go the extra step and mention Ryan's additional title of CEO, or that he was in the Reagan admin is, to me, completely unremarkable (esp. for a gossip column). The important thing, to me, is that she revealed the incestuous conflict of interest. You criticize her for "skimming over" the implications of the conflict she just revealed, but as previously pointed out, she tells her readers upfront that ain't what The Sleuth is about.

You later claim the post isn't really about Akers (but half of it really is about her), that it's about the glimpse of the Beltway underbelly, but I'm a little underwhelmed to learn that Fineman and Matthews were hobnobbing with B-list TV actors and the bigfoot who put together the GOP debate.

So, keep up the good work, but I think you veered a little of course with this one.

You and I made a lot of the same points in our letters, posted minutes apart. I wasn't cribbing from you, I swear! Didn't see your letter until after I published mine.

That several negative reactions to Mr. Greenwald's efforts have arrived at the same time is interesting. Is there a ... reason for this??

I don't know this Kelly Joyner person, but for the record, I happen to be a big Glenn Greenwald fan and I voiced a lot of the same complaints about this post that Joyner did in (his/her?) letter.

Clownsense - is that you? I haven't been around Glenn's "Comments" section too much lately.

I cut Jestaplero some serious slack. I think he's wrong, but his opinion matters and is worth consideration.

L.W.M.: I have some serious gratitude for you! Thank you SO MUCH for cutting me some serious slack before.

However, I note that before, you merely stated that I was off-base, but offered absolutely no factual basis or argument for WHY I was wrong.

Now, you magnaminously "cut me some slack", although I continue to wonder exactly why I am the supposed beneficiary of your generosity since you have never, to this point, bothered to lift a finger to argue with me.

An indie rocker turned prosecutor?" WTF!?

Uhm...yeah. I am a "free thinker." This threatens you in some way?

One point that I think is notable is that Smith -- notwithstanding the series of highly questionable and Drudge-affirming articles he has churned out -- is no fire-breathing, Machiavellian, scheming right-wing operative. By all accounts, including from many people who are familiar with him and his pre-Politico journalism, he's perfectly decent and ethical and almost certainly not someone who subscribes to right-wing political views.

When I worked for a friend of mine as he ran for Congress in the 11th district here in Brooklyn last year, Ben Smith's political blog at NY Daily News was, for me, far and away the best resource among the several NY political blogs. He seemed like a very good reporter and a decent guy.

I've been disappointed with some of his work at The Politico but I hold out hope that he will "come back to us" in time.

epeoples wrote:

Ron Paul is a signatory to a public proclamation condemning any government role in education which reads as follows:

"I proclaim publicly that I favor ending government involvement in education."

In Ron Paul's America people who couldn't afford a private school for their children would simply be out of luck.

Glenn responds:

That is completely irrational. Just because the Federal Government can't do "X" doesn't mean that "X" won't be done. There is such a thing as state government, and municipalities, and they can operate and maintain public school systems, too.

Glenn, what epeoples was pointing to was Paul's support for a group that opposes ANY government control of education, not just federal government involvement.

Here's the mission statement from the Alliance for Separation of School and State's website:

"We believe parents, and not the state, should be in charge of their children's education. That control may take many forms and levels of involvement, but the state will never be part of the picture."

So, although you characterize Paul's position as "that the Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to do so, regardless of whether it's desirable" his support for this group, at least, indicates Paul might actually favor homeschooling, and oppose even state or local governments from running schools because he thinks homeschooling is more "desirable."