Which is fair enough, except that you were using him as a countering "liberal" voice. If you don't know what he is other than what he calls himself, or that he's a "fascist" of a left or right persuasion (interesting idea in and of itself), then he doesn't work as an example.

Unless you meant him as a counterpoint to Marcotte, then never mind.

The main point is, both sides do it, and that includes both punditry and public officials. It's not about being man or woman enough to admit you're wrong, it's a presumption that their target audience and supporters think they should never be wrong. Sort of like the Pope.

By the way, I think the problem with paternity law is probably summed up as, in the majority of states, a case of legal fatherhood. If you are the legal father, you have the responsibility that comes with that. If you later find out you are not the biological father, that's all too bad, but the needs of the child have to come first.

All of which is why I advise, every chance I get, against a man adopting a woman's children by another man as his own. It's begging for future problems down the road.

Is Andrew Sullivan considered a liberal now? Just checking.

He calls himself a conservative, but I wouldn't know. Left fascists and right fascists all look alike to me.

Ken: I do apologize. The first quote of mine that you cited in your last above post is in-artfully phrased and does appear to project upon you. My apologies.

"Are you saying that the rhetorical technique the two of them use is not comparable, just because one is relatively obscure and the other seems omnipresent?

In your post you turn your argument on this phrase: "This is by no means the sole province of the right. [...] This conflicted with Pandagon’s received wisdom — common on lefty blogs — that Sparkman’s death represented the clear and present danger of right-wing rhetoric." There is not a word of that, including the details of the incident which I omitted, that I disagree with. I offer no defense for Amanda Marcotte, nor is any deserved, for employing a dishonest and solipsistic rhetorical trick.

They are certainly comparable, IMO. As I said previously, "[t]he similarities are very apt. . ." But that's as far as the comparison goes. And yes, I realize you have since stated that your point was not to equate the two, but part of the crux of your argument was that the "double down" employed by Limbaugh was not "the sole province of the right." That can be said about every POV or ideology out there in the world. However, to hold up a "relatively obscure" blogger against one of the most notable commentators in the media writ large, the argument gets a little diluted.

"There really isn’t a good liberal comparison to Limbaugh. I suppose Maddow comes closest in that general arena, though I have no idea whether she’s used this rhetorical trick. But again, my interest was not in casting around to find a liberal to compare to Limbaugh. My interest was in talking about a rhetorical trick that I find distasteful. The desire to bash liberals and somehow excuse Rush is something that exists in your head, not mine."

As a liberal minded person, what is notable to me (and somewhat telling regarding competing ideologies) is that it is hard to come up with a comparison of scale to Rush Limbaugh, both in market share and intellectual consistency. So much so that one has to hit the depth chart and find a 2nd tier blogger/political operative/small time author to hold up to Limbaugh. Though, in reading your ensuing comments, I admit that I may have misinterpreted the initial set-up, but your post wasn't very clear about it either. Marcotte deserved the mockery and scorn you heaped upon her. Yet, like I mentioned before, to frame the argument in a "both sides do it" fashion and then compare Rush Limbaugh to Marcotte kind of diminishes the argument somewhat. But, IMO, you clarified the point your were trying to make so that makes it kinda moot.

As for finding a liberal in Limbaugh's league, good luck. There are plenty of liberals who employ all sorts of dishonest and intellectually suspect arguments. However, most don't seem find much success in the upper echelon of the liberal movement; editorial page "liberals" notwithstanding. I would suggest the pious dooshnoozle Keith Olbermann or the logically challenged and angry "everyman" Ed Schultz. Rachel Maddow, while extremely passionate about her views, seems to have a certain regard for making sound arguments (littered with snark and invectives as they are). But then again, I cannot say that I watch any of them with any regularity, so don't take my word for it.

Where did I accuse you of wanting "to bash liberals and somehow excuse Rush"? Projection, eh?

It was more of a “look how dumb the libtards are” without acknowledging the fact that Amanda Marcotte is bush league compared to Rush Limbaugh.

RD, I think you're projecting onto me.

But lining up the king of all AM talk radio against a 2nd tier DFH blogger as a point of comparison is pretty fucking weak. When Amanda Marcotte has a few million readers per day, perhaps her hypocrisy and stupid reasoning will be comparable to Limbaugh’s.

Again, I think you are projecting. Are you saying that the rhetorical technique the two of them use is not comparable, just because one is relatively obscure and the other seems omnipresent?

There really isn't a good liberal comparison to Limbaugh. I suppose Maddow comes closest in that general arena, though I have no idea whether she's used this rhetorical trick. But again, my interest was not in casting around to find a liberal to compare to Limbaugh. My interest was in talking about a rhetorical trick that I find distasteful. The desire to bash liberals and somehow excuse Rush is something that exists in your head, not mine.

"Would it be your position, RD, that lefty thinkers are generally more rhetorically honest than righty thinkers?"

No. That would not be my position. But lining up the king of all AM talk radio against a 2nd tier DFH blogger as a point of comparison is pretty fucking weak. When Amanda Marcotte has a few million readers per day, perhaps her hypocrisy and stupid reasoning will be comparable to Limbaugh's. Till then, it's great that you found a liberal foil for your libertarian perception. Too bad it's a silly fucking joke.

And for the record, I noted Marcotte's obnoxious rhetoric, thought it seemed thematically familiar, and thought a while until I realized what it reminded me of. It's not like I started out with Limbaugh and had to cast around to find a rhetorical equivalent.

Would it be your position, RD, that lefty thinkers are generally more rhetorically honest than righty thinkers?

Seriously. To make the "see, both sides do it" argument you have to compare a prominent DFH blogger with the presumptive king of right wing talk radio? Yeah, they're totally on the same level and soundly help you make the argument that "both sides" are comparatively bereft of intellectual consistency/honesty.

As a proud Dirty Fucking Hippie, I regularly read this blog because I work with lawyers and dig legal commentary and, most importantly, it challenges my perspective and ideology in a way that, mostly (this post excluded), respects my nominal intelligence. But way to go all glibertarian retard up in this joint. You sure showed this libbie a thing or two about what's what.

Don't get me wrong, I still love the place. But, sheesh.

Comment #3 @ponygirl – "But if we assume this is true, then it does sort of reinforce my theory that the teabaggers are all bark and no bite. Not that I want them to bite, but they sure do like to talk about revolution and retribution and going galt and watering the tree of liberty and all that without actually doing any of those things. "

Sullivan’s position boils down to, “I put the word `allegedly’ in front of the outrageous accusation. How can you blame me?”