Trackback link seems messed up, so here is my link:

http://thesins.blogspot.com/2006/03/pride-interview.html

It indeed could have been worse. The WP could have brought on board someone with half a brain.

The Bible, Carolos Casteneda, Stephen King & Louis L'Amour? Yipes. That explains a lot.

You are insane.

You are insane.

And like cherry blossoms denote the start of spring along the tidal basin in Washington, D.C., the random, vapid and illogical personal attacks of moonbats mark another link by the Daou Report on Salon.com...

The Bible, Carolos Casteneda, Stephen King & Louis L'Amour? Yipes. That explains a lot.

Yes Richard, people - the vast majority of people in the United States - read the Bible, at least on ocasion, which probably has something to do with it being the most read, most published book in human history.

Castaneda is quite big hit among the "New Age" set that I discover in a minority literature class focussing on hispanic writers, and Stephen King's record as a fiction writer is perhaps unmatched in modern times.

Louis L'Amour is one of the most succesful writers of western novels, though Zane Grey was no slouch.

Perhaps all of those ignorant people who read these books shouldn't shop at your easily stereotyped Seattle Art Gallery for fear of being derided by you and your "tolerant liberal" sensibilities, but it is, of course, their choice.

Thanks for the plug.

I always felt that a right-wing blogger should have a strong background in fantasy and supernatural literature.

Must be the paint fumes in the art gallery.

While I do enjoy some fiction, I never really got into fantasy literature, except for the rare times I visit the Democratic Underground, firedoglake, Taylor Marsh and other “progressive” sites, that engage constant fantasies ranging their ever-present fixation on impeachment (winning elections is apparently an angle they aren’t ready to try), to the theory that Vice President Cheney meant to shoot Harry Whittington, to the Downing Street Memos (two of which, the David Manning Memo and the so-called “Iraqi Options” paper flatly contradict liberal claims), to the “9/11 is an inside job” crowd, to the recent claim that the “right wing blogosphere does not exist,” Democrats engage in a pervasive fantasy life every day.

Is this the reason that progressives say they are part of a “reality-based” community? They are indeed far more correct than they know.

If something it “-based” it means that it is not “X,” but that it merely uses components of “X”. A tomato-based soup is not just tomato soup, but tomato and a whole host of other ingredients, often to the point that it has more of “the other” than it does tomato, and nobody would readily recognize it as tomato soup.

So it is with the progressive “reality-based” community. They do use some elements of reality—9/11 did occur, Cheney did shoot Whittington—but they concoct surreal fantasies to twist the world to their worldview, making events that are reality-based, but decidedly not reality.

Chris “The right wing blogosphere does not exist” Bowers seems to think that you are losing an argument to a figment of your imagination, Richard. This site, as a right wing blog, doesn’t exist.

Which one of you is fantasizing more Richard, Bowers for insisting that I don’t exist, or you for believing that I do and trying to interact with me?

Oh, there is plenty of fantasy going on Richard, I’m just not sure it is healthy to engage in as much as you do.

I have found the comments regarding the new blog to be sort of whiny. Not as fevered and raging as at KOS, but definitely whiny.

I liked his initial post. Good blogging, I thought!

There are plenty of conservatives in the MSM: David Brooks and Bill Safire at NYT, George Will and Charles Krauthammer at WP. Andrew Sullivan is on at Time.

So why are you conservatives are always bitching about the lack of your ideology's reprentation in any so-called liberal publication? Aren't you all supposed to be against reservations and quotas?

And why are you liberals always pissing on our shoes and trying to convince us that it's the rain?

Wow! You named five of 'em! Wow!

Hey, ConYank! Liked the interview! I do feel entitled to your opinion. Whenever I vist. LOL

notnowjohn,

Andrew Sullivan, only nominally a conservative, is the only one you can find at Time magazine out of many, many writers. David Brooks is the only remaining conservative at the NY Times (Safire retired in January), a news organization with hundreds if not thousands of reporters and stringers. The Washington Post actually has two identifiable conservatives among more than 800 (soon to be 700) employees in their newsroom.

And yet you and your liberal breathern are screaming your fool heads off because the Washington Post added one conservative politcal blogger to their massive staff.

Thomas Sowell's quote on Sister Toldjah's site is apparently accurate:

"It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread a multitude of hypocrites."

I hope nobody was composing a response to the two now-deleted responses from the foul-mouthed liberal from San Francisco, notnowjohn.

I tossed 'em.

I suppose I'll never understand why folks like that cannot conduct a conversation supported by facts instead of invective, though I suppose it also explains why the rest of the country virtually ignores them.

Safire was replaced by Tierney. You don't consider him conservative?

Also, you seem to be confusing the entire staff of the NYT with its opinion writers. It doesn't make sense to say that Brooks and Tierney are the only two conservatives out of thousands of NYT employees.

But your inability/unwillingness to understand that difference isn't really the point. That the post has hired this racist child Domenech is a farce. Your cheerleading is embarassing.

I predict he has resigned or is fired sometime next week. He has way too much obnoxious, hateful, and insipid history around the blogs for even the wapo to ignore.

I'm so confident I'll even wander back by this blog after it happens, so you can congratulate me on my prescience.

I heard Ben is a plagiarizer. Caught ripping-off P.J. P'Rourke. Oh my. This could be the end for him.

He ripped off O'Rourke, did he? That's mighty sad to hear, not to mention pretty stupid.

When did he do this?

I only ask, becuase I heard he was 17 at the time on one of the liberal blogs. Real tough of you guys to beat up on a 17 year-old's bad judgement. I'm sure you were perfect in your teens, never erring, never making mistakes, never doing anything illegal or immoral. It must be tough, having to balance that halo all the time.

I hope you can taste the sarcasm.

I'm having a hard time discerning which is more sad. Being called out for a stupid act of plagiarism you made as a teen, or being so petty that you would dig into the past of a teen to try to destroy a man for a long-ago error in judgement.

I don't have any stake in the matter, but from what I've seen so far, all the fury over Domenech has shown me far more about liberals that it has about Red America.

Sorry, but it wasn't just that one. People have now compiled over a dozen instances of plagiarism over many years. This is not ok, even if you're a Republican. Students get kicked out or suspended from college for just one or two of these.

Even more troubling is the AP article that nobody else can find: http://www.bendomenech.com/globe.htm

This one is definitely from after his three-year stint at W&M. I hope someone can dig out the source for this, otherwise he's toast in a way I wouldn't wish on anyone.

If these charges of plagiarism are true, he deserves to lose his position not only at the Washington Post, but Red State as well.

Conversation continues here.