Thanks for update on Edsall.

These catch all posts are appreciated.

I know it is fun to poke at those militaristic 23-29% that will vote for Rudolph the authoritarian just because it seems like he is the toughest guy around.

These people are still dangerous, because there are still a LOT of remaining hard-R voters that will vote R only because they know in their core-of-cores that D means "tax and spend liberal." Facts don't enter into it they know that in their gut because it is not only what they have always been told, but it is what they have always said themselves.

It is no time to become complacent. That said, progressives have made a lot of progress.

Healy argues that the "conservative" movement now rests, in essence, on virtually nothing more than a belief in endless, mindless militarism.

To which I would add, tax cuts and yellow ribbons. Conservatives want wars that they don't have to pay for and don't have to fight in. Abolish that "death tax" and display those yellow ribbons.

As my post documented, many "Christian conservative" leaders have made expressly clear that Middle Eastern militarism is of the highest concern, not as a mere foreign policy matter but as a matter of what they consider to be "moral issues."

to do justice to the degree that these people are anything BUT Christian.

Without delving into detail, it's pretty clear that the whole message of the Gospel is to confront evil with forgiveness and to tend to one's self rather than judging your neighbors.

That we fail to live up to those ideals is understandable. That we advocate the opposite behavior and then claim the approval of the Creator in doing so is unforgivable.

I'm sorry, I've been dishonest about this because I wanted to be supportive of Mr. Greenwald.

Comments here are...a...mess. Always have been. Please schedule and budget a complete do-over, re-design, whatever.

Constantly remind them of the contradiction in voting for a pro-choice, pro-gay Guliani. Some, maybe half, won't be able to stomach it. That'll be the fault line that splits their movement in two.

I wonder how it is that Bush and etc are still at even 28%. If you look at the comment pages on WaPo after that revolting, disgusting excuse for a human being, Richard Perle, was given voice it is a slaughter. Both for Perle and for the Washington Post for having published the filthy liar.

typo

It may have done Tom Edsall well in Washington to have a poker face, but in his new job at Huffington Post, it's not going to wash.

The update is welcome. Not knowing Edsall, it's hard to decode what happened. Most deadpan humorists I've known (and I've been known to indulge myself) wouldn't let someone like Gravel walk away like that, without tipping their hand. The ones who would, I've generally thought deserve to be misunderstood.

The aftermath--the extreme reluctance to come clean--could also be due to the same attitude that prevailed in the initial exchange. Or simply to not wanting to hurt Broder's feelings. While I think the exhange is still illustrative (it couldn't have worked as a joke otherwise), Edsall's reluctance to come clean should not necessarily be read as deference on his part. Not that it needs to, of course.

An interaction like this is wasted on real life. It should have happened in a novel. Where is Jane Austen when really need her???

1) There's obviously a lot of hypocritical conservative evangelical and conservative Catholic leaders out there, who (as E.J. Dionne points out this morning) savaged Kerry over his stance on abortion, but have been and will continue to be quiet about Rudy's essentially identical stance.

2) A lot of the rank and file will, of course, follow their leaders.

3) However, Rudy's abortion stance will hurt him amongst the evangelical Protestants, especially among evangelical women, large numbers of whom have quite genuinely taken the abortion issue to heart. Regardless of the hypocrisy of the Dobsons, Robertsons, Falwells, Wildmons, LaHayes, etc. of the world, very often the rank and file really believe the things they say they believe.

Whether Rudy's capable of winning the nomination anyway, I can't say. But this will make his quest a lot more difficult.

4) I can't say anything about conservative Catholics; I have no connections with that tribe.

WaPo doesn't care. In the past few months, they've given a platform to Perle, Tenet, Bremer, Lieberman, Liz Cheney, Gonzo, et al to spin their side of the story. This, in addition to their own cast of clowns: Krauthammer, Applebaum, Broder, Will and Novak.

Next week: the Hillside strangler will tell his side of the story on WaPo op-ed.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/webcast/live.ram

It's all a game to them, a dance.

He certainly played with you for days, didn't he, and then when he was bored he went on to something else. This is the way Post-Modern Journalism works. There is almost no substance at all any more, and whatever substance there is can be poo-pooed away. It's a game, people, nothing but a game.

Why did his cronies go out and trash Jebediah's reporting and declare Edsall a "well-known" kidder who uses irony and sarcasm -- that are often not recognized as such -- all in defense, ultimately, of the Way Things Are, as exemplified by Dame David Broder, Dean of All American Journalism?

And why did Edsall feel compelled to conduct a "private" conversation with you about this matter? There were ample opportunities for him to make a public declaration of this or that, whatever it may be, and I doubt anyone would have begrudged him whatever he might have to say, though they might well have mocked and disagreed with him. As it is, you still aren't sure what it is he was saying or not saying or joking about or whatever, which I imagine is exactly the way things are supposed to be in his universe. You aren't supposed to know the "secrets" of his tribe, but he can hint at this or that and let you come to your own conclusions, which of course he can then denounce and deny. It's the way Things Work.

Youngster.

When you grow up, maybe you'll be allowed in to the Outer Circle from time to time, and when you're sufficiently grizzled, or bought off, you can pontificate away to your heart's content.

And this is the man Arianna has hired to be Political Editor at HuffPo? Why?

Really. Why? What does he have to offer but more of the same sort of Palace Culture Decadence and Corruption that has pervaded the institutional media for ages and continues to foster rot and decay from within?

Why would Arianna want this? Or was she told by her venture capital funders that she better hire Edsall or someone like him, or she wouldn't get her money?

(Note: It's beside the point whether or not Edsall is a "good man" or has a "progressive" political viewpoint. He's acting like a creature of the discredited and disreputable Palace Media. If he can slough off that rotting institutional hide, then maybe he will have something significant to offer. As it is, all we're seeing is more of the same.)