to whom? you say this often in defense of your position of neither confirming nor denying the allegations. i don’t understand who you think is going to pay you to defend yourself.

eh on November 19, 2009 at 2:40 PM

He just denied the allegations, nitwit. Holy crap. Read the man’s posts if you’re going to argue with him, else you’re just talking to yourself. Or perhaps that was the point all along.

eh on November 19, 2009 at 1:00 PM

Go back to the freak show at LGF chump. Chuckles ass needs to be kissed and you’re just the little cultist POS for the job.

I was once quite an elitist. Hated Ronald Reagan and the people who supported him back in 1976. Had a visceral and bad response to the social conservatives of the day, such as Phyllis Schlafly. . . .
Sadly, there are still elitists calling themselves conservatives and some of them have big microphones. But they are as obvious today as I was 30 years ago.

rockmom on November 19, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Wow. And here I thought elitism was an incurable disorder, LOL. Not very often one meets an ex-elitist. I’m an ex-Democrat, but we’re a lot more common. Reagan was an ex-Democrat, you know.

Anyway, your mention of Schlafly is interesting. A couple of the people who played some role in my becoming an ex-Democrat back in the ’90s were Eagle Forum activists. Schlafly was a grassroots “community organizer” before community organizing was cool.

I have long thought Dreher was a serious nutbad. . . .
di butler on November 19, 2009 at 2:35 PM

I don’t think that’s it, Di. Rather, he is weak, and allows his weakness to make him envious of strength. The envy turns to resentment and frustration and then he lashes out. The psychologists refer to it as passive-aggressive behavior, but whatever you call it, it is not uncommon.

Dreher’s beat at NR was arts and culture, not the hard-core politics-and-policy stuff that is the motherlode at a political publication. Perceiving himself doomed to second-banana status, he made his play for cover-story glory with “Crunchy Cons,” scored a book deal on that basis, was granted a platform to promote it on NRO, etc. It’s his hobby-horse and he’s going to ride it, but it’s a one-way ticket to Loserville which most conservatives will (wisely) refuse to follow.

So Dreher has isolated himself in a cul-de-sac of his own making, and all he can do is occasionally to emerge and throw jabs at the mainstream. Kind of like a troll, really.

eh on November 19, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Stop it with the stalking, will you? We have had enough of Charles Johnson’s acolytes over here. Nobody is interested.

I was once quite an elitist. Hated Ronald Reagan and the people who supported him back in 1976. Had a visceral and bad response to the social conservatives of the day, such as Phyllis Schlafly. Couldn’t understand why they hated Nelson Rockefeller. Then I ended up in the Reagan Administration working with a lot of these folks, including Gary Bauer’s wife. And gradually I came to agree with their views of America.

Sadly, there are still elitists calling themselves conservatives and some of them have big microphones. But they are as obvious today as I was 30 years ago.

There is an interesting story behind all this, a story that is worth money…

to whom? you say this often in defense of your position of neither confirming nor denying the allegations. i don’t understand who you think is going to pay you to defend yourself.

it’s such a bizarre notion that it is not readily assumed to be an honest response. when you issue such “the check’s in the mail” evasions, i’m lead to question the direct denial you’ve only just finally issued here. what’s the emphasis on “I” in “NO, I DID NOT” for? is it something like how darth vader murdered luke’s father by adopting an alter ego? because you can’t speak straight, i have no clear idea.

why not tell this presumably valuable story which nobody is rushing to cut you a check for and make us all eat shit.

you’ve read what else i’ve written about charles johnson’s claims against you, so you know i’ve suspended judgment somewhat and taken your side on the claim about bill white. with the usenet postings, i allow that some of what you wrote may have not risen to the level of “racism” per se, but writing for the premier white nationalist publication would be an association of choice which would remove all ambiguity and establish you as a racist crank.

if that’s not you in the byline there, and you can prove that it’s not, you may as well.

i’m a huge fan of sowell (it doesn’t prove that i’m not a racist). have you read black rednecks and white liberals? what do you think of his thesis that all of the pathological behavior of black americans was conditioned by scotts-irish crackers who imported it from the old country?

some miscellaneous points:

…who considers amnesty opponents (including Michelle Malkin?) to be racists.

i don’t understand the incredulity implied by italicizing michelle malkin’s name as if it’s implausible that a filipina could hold racist attitudes against latinos. that would be the equivalent of suggesting that blacks are axiomatically incapable of holding racist attitudes against latinos or vice versa.

My skills as a researcher are, as you have just learned, more formidable than you might have previously suspected.

what are you trying to evoke with this style of prose, a flash gordon villain?

i can duplicate your formidable skills easily:
“eh on” site:hotair.com

I hate no one, not even you, sir, for it is against my religion to hate.

religion of peace, got it.

I was reading Dreher over on Beliefnet around the time he changed churches and positions on the Iraq war. He has every right to do so, but (especially on the war) his new position seems even more rigid than his old one.

Definitely a “big fish in a small pond” kind of guy.

As to his review- How exactly did he manage to address her “economic populism” and talk about her unrestrained championing for big business without discussing her adversarial relationship with Big Oil, and her successes in changing energy policy?

did you write this?
eh on November 19, 2009 at 1:00 PM

A direct question, and a direct answer: NO, I DID NOT.

There is an interesting story behind all this, a story that is worth money, and which I do not intend to tell, for free, in a comment-field dispute with a self-professed “palin-hating rino” who considers amnesty opponents (including Michelle Malkin?) to be racists.

My skills as a researcher are, as you have just learned, more formidable than you might have previously suspected. It is my skills which people pay for, and not my opinions. From a misunderstanding of this aspect of my professionalism, much mischief has ensued.

Most of this mischief has been caused by amateurs like yourself, “eh,” who arrogantly suppose that their opinions make them superior to others. The desire to correct that fallacy — opinions are like a certain orifice, which everyone has, and which you quite resemble, “eh” — is why I so often recommend Thomas Sowell’s book, The Vision of the Anointed. If being an admirer of Sowell makes me a “racist,” then I don’t know what I could possibly say in my defense.

Your only purpose in asking these questions has been to make a guilt-by-association attack on Sarah Palin and other conservatives — including, apparently, the proprietor. Your purpose having been exposed, I am satisfied that no one will have further cause to suspect my good will in this matter. I hate no one, not even you, sir, for it is against my religion to hate.

Perhaps this pseudonym of yours was hijacked…

it wasn’t. are you saying that your burke c. dabney pseudonym was hijacked in that fashion by the person who wrote this?

the idea is to manipulate you into a position between him and a direct question about whether he wrote for a white nationalist publication. implicit in that positioning would be the value judgment that it’s more important to distance yourself from people who don’t like palin than it is to distance yourself from white nationalist cranks.

mccain must’ve summoned a RINO-illegal robeast to do the deed. ST. PALIN MUST BE AVENGED!!!!!

eh on December 13, 2008 at 6:45 PM

palin diefication syndrome?
that’s what i was mocking. not the church fire, which was an accident for all anyone knows at this point.

eh on December 13, 2008 at 7:27 PM

You misspelled “deification” but never mind that, “eh.” Mocking the concern over the fire at Sarah Palin’s church in Wasilla? Calling “St. Palin” and deriding her admirers as “palinstinian zealots”?

Perhaps this pseudonym of yours was hijacked, the password/login hacked by some fiendish Palin-hater attempting to undermine support for the Republican candidate here among conservative Hot Air readers.

And then perhaps someone else hijacked the same pseudonym in order to make insinuations about other Palin supporters. Such mischief has been previously practiced on the Internet, so I would not wish to accuse you of being a dishonest hateful troll.

You should be more careful in the future, however. Terrible things can happen if these hacker-trolls get hold of your vital security information.

typically, when asked a direct question about these things, your strategy is to write 1500 words of nothing. that’s what you did the last time i asked you respectfully. you can add to this the champion tactic of pointing at me, yelling “liberal” and running away, but you’re still running away from a simple yes or no question.

these are those uber-patriotic troop supporters who think the sitting president saluting returning coffins is a dishonorable disgrace but that st. palin running to ft. hood to sign autographs over the warm bodies of the recent massacre is okay.

eh on November 18, 2009 at 10:06 PM

the fact is that palinstinian zealots hate mexicans more than they love the troops or america.

eh on November 18, 2009 at 10:09 PM

Identities and motives. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

/facepalm
eh on November 18, 2009 at 12:46 AM

Motives and identities, you see. A pseudonym as cleverly brief and common as “eh” is rather difficult to search, but not altogether impossible.

eh on November 19, 2009 at 11:16 AM

You’ve done some interesting research on political hoaxes, sir, as well as on the problem of Internet impersonation. These subjects were never of much interest to me, but I’ve certainly become more curious in recent months. The Internet presents so many novel problems and we must exercise caution in our conclusions about what we find online, especially because identities and motives can be so easily mistaken.

I think the other McCain has the perfect summation for these faux Conservatives, Dreher, Brooks & Frum as ‘these small men always love to pick on girls, don’t they’!

I’ll take Palin and Levin over these self-important mini-barons of thought any time.