I guess everyone has their knickers in a twist about this NY Times piece.
I am not sure why libs and conservatives are so mad, as all I got out of it was confirmation of my opinion of Wonkette, which is that she is the Anna Kournikova of blogging. Other than a pretty face, there ain’t much there.
BTW- since when did LGF become a ‘conservative’ blog? None of his viewpoints are conservative, unless you define conservative as ‘anything I don’t like.’
When did LGF become a ‘conservative’ blog? When the war Charles Johnson supports became redefined in the minds of the left [OK, not all of ’em, but too many] as Bush’s war. That support is the only viewpoint he needed.
How would you describe it then?
JC, the article purports to be a look at the political blogosphere, then covers only one side. Marshall, Cox or Zuniga may not all come off looking like the coolest people in the world, but at least they’re treated like real people — more than you can say for the “platoon of right wing” nutters who took on CBS … and only rated a single mention.
How would I describe LGF? Not as conservative. Just as anti-terrorist. A lot of the commentors are conservative but the host is not.
If you think pro-war is equal to conservative, I suggest you Google “Christopher Hitchens” or read Harry’s Place.
What JPS said: when LGF decided that it was better to fight back then endlessly debate.
I don’t think “pro-war” is equal to “conservative” at all. I do know, however, that whenever I’ve looked at CJ’s blog, I never saw a thing that would suggest that he was anything but conservative.
Wonkette should wish to be the Kournikova of blogging.
Kournikova, after all, at least made it to Wimbledon.
She was, at her best, a Very, Very Good tennis player… just not in the rarified Very Best In The World club.
Methinks “the Paris Hilton” of blogging is more appropriate.