I would like that as well, especially since this blog seems devoid of any opinion about policy lately. I find myself wondering why, to be honest, and feeling like it's getting quite dull around here. I realize bloggers sometimes get busy or occupied with other things, but it does make me wonder if anyone here HAS an opinion that they're willing to express about the problems in Pakistan, Israel/Iran, or the Chrysler deal, or the oversight of stimulus money, or the greater than expected shrinkage of GDP last quarter….

I mean, the fact that center left bloggers are quite concerned with whether or not the GOP is going to be able to make a comeback is really quite touching, but you guys can feel free to talk about other stuff too.

Anyway, I guess you'll have to let us know what the statute of limitations is on these things, and while you're at it you can let us know if there are exemptions when folks like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or the occasional beauty pageant contestant says something that's considered dumb. If there aren't exceptions to your rule, then I presume you'll comment when those sorts of stories get extended airing here?

I don't think you've responded to too many comments here at TMV. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.) Not having done so makes it difficult to, as you put it, “engage an author to a greater extent”.

I would certainly appreciate your engagement. I enjoyed your commentary at Oxblog, which was certainly conservative but also certainly independent-minded. Your commentary from Doublethink, or at least the portion you've cross-posted to TMV, has been utterly predictable, from the snarky gossip about Hillary, to the parsing of waterboarding, to complaining about the media's unfairness to conservatives.

That's of course a matter of opinion. Anyone who would like to read David's TMV archive can do so by clicking here. Make up your own minds, gentle readers!

And as I've already suggested above, readers can also go to your main blog, Conventional Folly, and decide for themselves if it's anything but follow-the-party-line propaganda.

And I did think the bloggers there were paid, so I did think you were a paid professional. Thank you for correcting me on that score.

You're certainly free to have any opinion. And you're certainly free to express your opinion out there on the front page of TMV. Which means you're certainly free to be the last guy on the Biden-bashing-bandwagon. Biden's comments which were foolish and deserving of criticism–and also quickly corrected by the Obama Administration. You're free to add the wrinkle that the Sunday Talk Shows didn't take his foolish comments seriously enough.

And really, your commentary was not that interesting. Now, your proofreading error, that was interesting. As has been noted above, Joe Biden is the Vice President of the United States, so he shouldn't be out there on live TV saying stupid things about serious topics. On the other hand, you're just one of thousands of bloggers banging on the internet, so I understand your comments are not the equivalent of Biden's comments. Yet there you are mocking Biden for making a mistake–while making a mistake of your own. It wasn't one of those classic internet errors like teh–instead it was one of those classic internet errors that the spellchecker doesn't catch.

It was, as they say, low-hanging fruit. (But only for someone who would take you seriously enough to pay attention to what you write.) So I plucked it.

And I thought that would be the end of it.

Imagine my surprise to find another long time commenter complaining that I had violated policy by criticizing you. Then, when challenged, she seemed to expect me to prove her case for her.

Then–the ghost of Dan Quayle appeared. As they say on the internet, OMG!!1!

Believe me, David, no one is more surprised than me that there are nearly 30 comments on this thread.

I do think, however, that it would be wonderful if you would be one of the guys who engaged with commenters here at TMV.

Joe Biden said what he said on April 30. That was Thursday of last week. Today is Wednesday, May 6, almost a week later, and people are still slamming him for it. I think that's over the top.

Second issue: Is it unfair to refer to my other blog, Conventional Folly, as a “professional propaganda site”? Propaganda is a fairly subjective term, often used to suggest that a publication is extremely partisan. The term 'propaganda' also tends to carry a connotation of being deceptive, as any fan of Orwell would know. In that regard, I think that one should be careful when using the word.

And what about “professional propaganda”? I don't get paid for posting at Conventional Folly, although the site does pay some bloggers. So in that sense, I'm not professional. Yet again, the real issue is connotation. The term “professional propagandist” suggests that someone is a proverbial gun-for-hire, ready to churn out partisan polemics for anyone willing to pay the price. Thus, I would lean toward calling it pejorative.

All in all, I would certainly suggest that any commenter engage an author to a greater extent before using derogatory terms like 'propaganda'. I'm happy to have serious discussions with commenters, especially those who engage in a collegial spirit.

???

What are you talking about? Have you seen anyone react in that kind of over the top manner? If so, I must have missed it- I've seen the usual, normal criticisms of a politician who made comments that were ill advised.

Just curious. ; )

It didn't have to be corrected repeatedly, that's my point. That was the media, and GOP talking heads, turning an overwrought answer to a question into the apocalypse and Satan's minions taking over the world.

I really don't give a d**n about Dan Quayle's spelling errors anymore. That's ancient history and it's not relevant to anything. I shouldn't have brought up that episode because I was only playing into AR's strawman argument and giving people like you an opening to shift an argument about the overreaction to Biden's overreaction into absurd and irrelevant accusations of theoretical double standards about hypothetical reactions to long-forgotten historical figures.

I don't give a fig about Dan Quayle in this discussion. He was either smart or dumb, made mistakes or didn't, deserved criticism or praise. Either one or both. You choose. I really don't care.

The only relevant point in this discussion is whether Joe Biden's alarmist response to Matt Lauer's question about the swine flu was unhelpful and ill-advised and as such merited clarification, correction, and apology at the time that it occurred, and maybe a few more times, as a cautionary measure, to make sure it was not causing any undue alarm — OR, whether Joe Biden's horrifying, unbelievably irresponsible panic-mongering lie calls for weeks of rising hysteria, condemnations and well-earned scorn and contempt in the print and broadcast media, and possibly even a congressional resolution (nonbinding, of course) to censure him for putting the American people and the very survival of the republic in such mortal existential danger.

If you want to debate using straw men arguments, fine, but I do know that's what you're doing.

I could come up whit many, many Biden quotes that are the equal and superior to Quayle, but why bother?

But of course any idiotic, irresponsible statement by Biden is 'just Joe being Joe.'

But if you thought for a second how you would have reacted if Dan Quayle had made that comment back in the day, then it would be clear to you why the reaction, as you would have been out there on the front lines attacking HIM.

Well, thank you for explaining, finally, but your explanation still doesn't make sense. Dan Quayle had a penchant for saying things that made him look stupid, like telling a student “potato” was really spelled “potatoe.” That was a much more clear-cut error.

Joe Biden's response to (was it Matt Lauer's?) question about what he would tell his own family about traveling in the context of the swine flu was not stupid. It was not incorrect, like the answer to a multiple-choice question. It was an overreaction because the facts of the swine flu epidemic as they currently stand don't warrant avoiding all public transportation if you are not sick yourself.

If he had stopped to think for a moment, I'm sure he would have realized all this, but he didn't, and that's not because he's stupid, it's because he often speaks before thinking. He's verbally impulsive, he puts his foot in his mouth. And he's well aware of it, which is another important point. I'm not saying that he should not have been corrected, or “held accountable” as you put it, for the inaccuracy and unhelpfulness of his comment. But he HAS been. All I'm saying is that some of the response to Biden's gaffe is as hyperbolic as the gaffe itself. He did not say what he said because he's stupid, because he “doesn't know better.” Being impulsive, or undiplomatic, or blunt — whatever you want to call it — is not the same thing as being stupid. It's the ability to make quick mental judgments about your reactions, not intelligence. Lack of tact is not stupidity.

And fwiw, I don't think Dan Quayle was or is a stupid man. He said some things that made him look stupid at the time. And again, telling a student “it's potatoe not potato” is a lot different from saying, “I would tell my family not to use public transportation.” One is a really astonishing error of fact for a grown man with a good education. The other is, as I've said, bad judgment in the moment.

My reply, if you had thought for even a second, would have made sense. Your lack or of imiagination is not my problem, and I am unsure why scuh an innoculous comment by me warrented an attack by you.

But, the point for the slower member of this board is that if Dan Quayle would have said the same things, the attacks would be the same or worse. Slow, stupid VP's are not help in high esteem, right or left.

My belief was that you couldn't understand Biden getting attacked for his stupidity, because he is a Democrat, and you don't seem to think any Democrat should be held accountable for their stupid comments.

But if you thought for a second how you would have reacted if Dan Quayle had made that comment back in the day, then it would be clear to you why the reaction, as you would have been out there on the front lines attacking HIM.

That clear enough for you now?

I'm not sure what you consider a personal attack.

David Adesnik is complaining about lack of expertise, I'm pointing out some irony. If you're going to mock someone else's mistake, don't make any obvious mistake of your own.

The real problem with this post isn't that there's a typo, it's that it's so pro forma even the author was too bored to read it.

As for calling the other place a propaganda site, I'm pefectly willing to let everyone judge that: Check it out.

It's nothing pesonal.

Yeah, but you're not Joe. Unless he's asked you to be his helper. Has he?

That makes even less sense than your stuff usually does.