Jun 07 2009
When your hyped up on zealotry thinking your cause is pure, it is tough taking criticism which brings you back down to Earth with us mere mortals and all our imperfections. But at NRO (a hotbed of ‘true conservatives’ – though there are many fine exceptions) it seems the answer to biting criticism is punishment. First a independent comment, on the incidentÂ from Tom Maguire, a blogger I admire and respect:
No, not cool. And quite small of Whelan. You need to take on arguments, win or lose. Punishing the world because it does not conform to your greatness is just not the way to do things. And make no mistake, you can see the revenge coming out in the post by Whelan, who actually admits to making mistakes:
Exposing an Irresponsible Anonymous BloggerÂ Â [Ed Whelan]
One bane of the Internet is the anonymous blogger who abuses his anonymity to engage in irresponsible attacks.Â
Apparently it is ‘irresponsible’ to challenge Ed Whelan, a serious crime.
Well, Iâ€™m amused to learn that I was wrong about publiusâ€™s lack of legal education.Â Â Iâ€™ve been reliably informed that publius is in fact the pseudonym of law professorÂ John F. BlevinsÂ of the South Texas College of Law.Â
Like many people who are blind to the possibility they may be wrong, Whelan is shocked to find out his challenger is his equal. I for one, not being Whelan’s equal, also agree with Publius at Obsidian Wings that Whelan is exaggerating and pretending when he claims few if any judges or justices consider the policy behind the laws they are considering in their cases. I think Whelan is a bit of a legal hack who does what he describes:
In the course of a typically confusedÂ postÂ yesterday, publius embraces theÂ idiotic chargeÂ (made by â€œAnonymous Liberalâ€) that Iâ€™m â€œessentially a legal hitmanâ€ who â€œpores over [a nomineeâ€™s] record, finds some trivial fact that, when distorted and taken totally out of context, makes that person look like some sort of extremist.â€Â
Why do I think this? Well I have the proof of this very post, where Whelan took the fact his challenger preferred to blog under anonymity (as do I) as some act of irresponsibility that needed to be punished by one Ed Whelan! When you do the very thing you are accused of doing it sort of proves the point – eh Ed?
The much more classy John Blevins responds here, but everyone can see for themselves that he is not only probably right on the matter that elicited the punishment, he has good company with others who concur with him. Ed Whelans is a small man – and you don’t need a degree in law to figure that one out.
What we have is a ‘true conservative’ punishing a more centrist conservative for the crime of disagreeing. Sound familiar?