The Line of Pure Nastiness . . .

By Clark Stooksbury • March 27, 2010, 10:55 AM

Last week, Glenn Reynolds gave a lecture at the Howard Baker Center on political civility. According to the student newspaper Reynolds pontificated about the “need to find a balance of disagreement and argument while not crossing the line of pure nastiness. . .”

Imagine my surprise to see Reynolds speculating that, “Possibly Obama just hates Israel and hates Jews. That’s plausible — certainly nothing in his actions suggests otherwise, really.” Obama’s crime is that he supposedly neglected to have a photo-op with Bibi Netanyahu, or something like that. I’m not sure what to say in response to that other than to note that Reynolds is apparently insane, which is to say that he is a rightwinger in the age of Obama.

Posted in Conservatism.

16 Responses to The Line of Pure Nastiness . . .

Bob Weber says:

March 27, 2010 at 1:05 pm

It’s the old Instahack rabbit punch technique. “I never SAID he was anti-semitic, I was just wondering.” Why anyone would associate with a sleaze like Reynolds is beyond me.

The Jacobson piece Reynolds links to is even worse.
Randal says:

March 27, 2010 at 1:26 pm

Touche!

I do wonder about the likes of Reynolds and what goes through their minds when they commit such glaring hypocrisies. They seem, so far as I can tell, genuinely unable to comprehend the nastiness of their profligate abuse of the antisemitism slur and the logical error in misapplying it to cases of opposition to Israel.

Could be stupidity or mendacity, but I suppose the most charitable interpretation is that they are blinded by ideology.
Pingback: What Professor Reynolds Got Factually Wrong - Conor Friedersdorf - Metablog - True/Slant
Joshua Simeon Narins says:

March 27, 2010 at 5:49 pm

I tweeted:

Possibly Glenn Reynolds just hates integrity and hates the truth. That’s plausible – certainly nothing in his actions suggests otherwise.
Man of the West says:

March 27, 2010 at 5:57 pm

“…Reynolds is apparently insane, which is to say that he is a rightwinger in the age of Obama.”

One begins to wonder if you can write about an individual without simultaneously delivering backhanded slaps to people not under discussion.
The higher man says:

March 27, 2010 at 10:30 pm

Something to think about when regarding the tea party movement, obamacare protests, townhall meetings, etc.

“To understand what a people is, one must begin with the smallest human group, the crowd. It strikes one immediately that there are two types of crowds. There is the crowd assembled on an intellectual basis — the attendance at a lecture, at a drama, at a social function. Then there is the crowd assembled on a spiritual basis — a political meeting, a religious agitation, a protest, a riot.

The first type is a mere collection. The individuals repel one another, figuratively and literally. These crowds have as many viewpoints as there are individuals in them. They are not unities, but only potential unities. The outbreak of fire in a theater immediately turns such a collection of independent individuals

319

into one soul, with one thought, a thought directed downwards, it is true, but it is a unity. The unity of panic is a fact which political and military leaders must know how to exploit. It is one way of inspiriting when other methods may fail.”

http://www.vaidilute.com/books/imperium/imperium-03.html#people
sgi says:

March 27, 2010 at 11:24 pm

Well, it’s pretty effing nasty to call Glenn Reynolds “insane” simply because you think that what he wrote was nasty.

Speculating about how Obama feels about Israel and Jews is fair game. Which is more than can be said for Progressives and Democrats who call Republicans, conservatives and tea partiers racists every day.
ktula says:

March 28, 2010 at 12:25 am

Glenn Reynolds, Ph.D. in Hypocrisy.
VeritasAmore says:

March 28, 2010 at 1:59 am

Why, oh why, can militia/TP/GOP/RWnuts conflate issues all the time, but are “confused” when someone takes a step back–not to hocker or throw a brick, mind you–but to get a better view of the event, and concludes that a “person of the cause” AND the cause itself are “insane”?

No one of any intelligence AND discernment opposes the practice of reasoned debate and disagreement over policy; however, ANY one who misunderstands the intent of the framers to replace reasoned arguments with calls for willful, hateful, racial violence is not only desperately unintelligent but anti-American as well.

Interviews with the eager participants at the recent ugliness in DC revealed that a vast majority of the crowd were completely illiterate on the specifics of why, who, what, and WHY HCR was so horrible. If “the people” (as defined by elections and not mob rule) are upset with the fed, fine by me, but at least know why you’re mad and whether it makes any sense.

Where were these sheeple when WBush sold us on a phony war, lied about it, and then financed it with debt that will affect our grandchildren? Where?

And where were these sheeple when the Patriot Act was rammed down our throats and threatened the very reason for this country’s existence, viz., the writ of habeas corpus?

Where were these patriots who thought it ok to threaten some band members with their lives for disparaging the president, but stood by when a retired USARNG Colonel calls the Commander-in-Chief a “liar” on international TV? WHERE?

Where were you?
Barney Rebble says:

March 28, 2010 at 8:30 am

TAC – The American Conservative

Blog comments so far, this post, running 8-to-1 in favor of “Let’s give Obama a chance…”

You guys are going to lose this November. Too bad you’re not going to help us clean up the Republican Party between now and then, so that what we might get is more than the usual collection of crooks, like the dems usually field.
Matt Weber says:

March 28, 2010 at 11:59 am

If you read the rest of Reynold’s post, it’s really not that intemperate at all. Of course, Stooksbury can’t pass up a chance to attack some conservative no matter how far fetched the claim. How much is Obama paying him?
Tony J says:

March 28, 2010 at 12:28 pm

“Where were you?”

In the front row chanting “USA! USA!” and calling anyone who disagreed with them traitors.

When the American Electorate betrayed them/the Election was stolen by ACORN/McCain wasn’t enough of a Real Conservative back in November, 2008, they were forced to make painful but necessary mental adjustments in order to reconfigure their definitions of ‘patriotism’, ‘legality’, and ‘debt’ so that eveyone who disagreed with them were still traitors.

Granted, making those adjustments fried what was left of their brains, but on the upside, they can now afford to get medical treatment for the problem.
Bob Weber says:

March 28, 2010 at 1:42 pm

@ Barney Rebble, on March 28th, 2010 at 8:30 am

“Blog comments so far, this post, running 8-to-1 in favor of “Let’s give Obama a chance…”

You guys are going to lose this November.”

Of course I’m going to lose this November. I’m a Libertarian!
But nobody here is defending Obama’s politics. Friedersdorf points out that it’s simply objectively untrue that Obama is an anti-semite. His long associations with Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod should be sufficient to disprove that. And as Larison has pointed out, Obama has seen to it that American taxpayers still foot the bill for Israel. So Reynolds is either dishonest or he’s an idiot.

@ Matt Weber, on March 28th, 2010 at 11:59 am

“If you read the rest of Reynold’s post, it’s really not that intemperate at all. Of course, Stooksbury can’t pass up a chance to attack some conservative no matter how far fetched the claim. How much is Obama paying him?”

The rest of Reynolds’s post is baseless speculation that Obama wishes to distance himself in advance from an Israeli attack on Iran. Reynolds again shows his ignorance. Unless the Israelis are willing to do a one-way suicide mission, there is no way they can attack Iran without U.S. co-operation. A minor snub of Netanyahu would not cover this up. And what’s this crap about Obama paying Stooksbury? This is a trope amongst the black helicopter crowd.
Matt Weber says:

March 28, 2010 at 2:42 pm

Chill out Bob. Of course it’s speculation…Reynolds doesn’t know anything. Any blog post about what Obama thinks is necessarily speculation.

And what’s this crap about Obama paying Stooksbury?

It’s called a ‘joke’ man. I might as well ask what’s with the paranoia about the ‘black helicopter crowd’?
Pingback: Glenn Reynolds is insane - E.D. Kain - American Times - True/Slant
Pingback: The right-wing need for victimization and Israel