Drudge Under On Fire

Matt Welch | April 6, 2005

This New York Observer story, ostensibly about the creation of Drudge Report-challenging websites by Arianna Huffington and blog impresario Nick Denton (who today launched a tabloid news blog called Sploid) is actually a very entertaining collection of bitchy quotes from the fedora-wearin', blog-hatin' sensation himself. Here's Drudge, on Huffington's new project (which is reportedly being managed by longtime Drudge assistant Andrew Breitbart):

"This isn't a dinner party, darling," he said. "This is the beast! This is the Internet beast, which is all-consuming, as anyone knows who works in this business."

On Denton's Wonkette and Gawker:

"The road is littered with Wonkettes who have come and gone," he laughed. "They lose interest and/or they can't make it work. Or burn out." [...]

"I mean, they have sightings of me in New York City when I'm halfway around the world," he spat. "I feel if they can't get that right about me, I don't know what to do."

And on the Drudge-hatin' Jim Romenesko:

"I don't read Romenesko," he said [...]. "It's redundant to me."

Meow! Note of disclosure: I'm friends with many people mentioned in the article, including Breitbart, Denton, and Sploid editor Ken Layne.

My defense of Drudge-style gossip here.

Comments

|4.6.05 @ 12:28PM|#

Enough with subtle innuendo Welch. Drudge is gay, just say it out loud. That's the rumor, commonly said, not shocking, and maybe true.

You're not writing for the corner, son. Get some fresh material.

Matt Welch|4.6.05 @ 12:34PM|#

Huh? Those quotes aren't "bitchy" & "meow"-worthy? Just because a guy might or might not be gay doesn't mean accurate adjectives are off-limits. And anyone who remembers the Salon-Slate wars of yesteryear knows that "catfights" are not the sole domain of rumored homosexuals....

James B.|4.6.05 @ 12:34PM|#

Intersting that Denton describes himself as an Anarcho-Calpitalist.

|4.6.05 @ 12:47PM|#

I don't read Drudge. And I won't read Huff&Stuff either (my apologies to Mr. Gillespie and crew). The reasons are the same.

But Sploid... now that has potential!

|4.6.05 @ 12:54PM|#

He's on fire--like in "flaming"?

Actually, I think Drudge's sexuality is a legit issue. There is something bizarre about any gay person who sucks the (metaphorical) cock of America's heavily theocratic right wing. One consequence of abandoning the pretense of objectivity of the MSM is that one's agenda is on the table and in play. And I have a hard time swallowing (ahem) gays who just go along with these cretins (as a counterexample, I would point to Andrew Sullivan--but then again, he's out and intellectually honest).

|4.6.05 @ 12:59PM|#

Are you all suggesting that Mr. Drudge is a self-hating homosexual? Now that's tabloid material, baby!

I'm not willing to buy into that rumor just yet. Homosexual? Maybe. Virgin? Hmmmm....

R C Dean|4.6.05 @ 1:11PM|#

Henry, one hardly knows where to begin. Perhaps the most fundamental error you make is in conflating one's political agenda with one's recreational preferences, the kind of collectivist groupthink that I tend to associate with lefties.

Repeat after me: Drudge's recreational activities, including what he likes to do with his penis, have no relevance to his political or other agendas.

Perhaps the greatest lie of recent decades is "the personal is political." Its not. Its personal. Claiming that Drudge's sexual preferences should somehow control either his politics or how we react to his politics is a dangerous road that someone who wants to appear gay-friendly should probably be reluctant to tread.

Andrew Sullivan, intellectually honest? Spare me. This is the guy who was claiming to be torn between Bush and Kerry on his blog, while endorsing Kerry in other forums. Whether you are "out" or not has nothing to do with intellectual honesty.

Personally, I can't imagine anything that I care less about than the sex lives of political commentators. I mean, ick.

|4.6.05 @ 1:13PM|#

gawker is always worth some time.

"Repeat after me: Drudge's recreational activities, including what he likes to do with his penis, have no relevance to his political or other agendas."

they have no relevance in criticizing him.

they do have some relevance in analyzing him.

|4.6.05 @ 1:20PM|#

Drudge is a great site for links, and to get a giggle out of his headlines, nothing more.

It's where I found reason, fer crissakes, and now I actually subscribe!

Does anyone read what he writes besides the 16 point letters in bold?

|4.6.05 @ 1:35PM|#

Perhaps the greatest lie of recent decades is "the personal is political."

Horseshit.

Drudge chooses his topics, and targets, personally. He answers to no one--no board, no shareholders, no editors. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you understand it going in. But, accordingly, unless you believe the fiction that he is 100% capable of "stepping away from himself" (go luck to anyone pulling that off), the personal has to be political with the Drudge Report.

Whatever else you might say about him, Sullivan anguishes (some might say dithers) in public over the contradictions of beeing a gay Catholic conservative "public intellectual" Brit in the USA. I'm sorry you didn't like where he came out in "lesser of two evils" equation last November.

Drudge, on the other hand, shows sign of self-awareness whatsoever.

|4.6.05 @ 1:37PM|#

Make that "no sign".

|4.6.05 @ 1:53PM|#

Sploid looks awesome.

Tim Cavanaugh|4.6.05 @ 1:53PM|#

Whatever else you might say about him, Sullivan anguishes (some might say dithers) in public over the contradictions of beeing a gay Catholic conservative "public intellectual" Brit in the USA.

Oh please! Sully's gotten more mileage out of his beyond-tired anguished gay Catholic schtick than Anna Nicole Smith got out of her marriage to the old bazillionaire. For Sully, the personal isn't political; the personal is career-making.

|4.6.05 @ 2:06PM|#

"He doesn't really care much about marriage, but figures (rightly I think) that the theocratic wing of the Republicans is powerless to stop the greater social acceptance of gays, so no harm done."

He should move to my state, Florida, where, among other things, gays can't adopt children. But then again some people will swallow anything to hvae daddy save them from the evildoers, I guess.

Tim:

I said "some might says dithers"--apparently that didn't cover you sufficiently.

Am I banned now?

|4.6.05 @ 2:07PM|#

Fuck, dude, it's monster-mania day over at the Drudge Report. There is no 8 year-old on the planet who would voluntarily be in the same room as that monstrousity, Michael Jackson. He puts the eerily in volunteerily.

|4.6.05 @ 2:37PM|#

"Drudge's recreational activities, including what he likes to do with his penis, have no relevance to his political or other agendas."

Except that his political agenda is to put in power people who believe he should imprisoned for his recreational activities. This isn't at least a little noteworthy?

Oh, and I love the reduction of gay people's family and romantic lives to "recreational activities."

All in all, though, you gotta love Matt Drudge chiding a blogger for getting a story wrong.

norbizness|4.6.05 @ 2:38PM|#

On a broader note, if any of the principals mentioned in Mr. Welch's post were suddenly relocated to wi-fi-less Siberia, would we really miss them?

|4.6.05 @ 2:50PM|#

joe,

For some people it is apparently not noteworthy if you embrace those who use fear and outright hatred of those like you to advance their political cause (which, one poster tells us, is supposed to make sense because the hatemongers won't ever get REAL power).

Uh, OK--let me guess: more "lesser of two evils" calculus, huh? If you advance through promoting the hatred and scorn of those like me, it's OK--just give me a lower marginal tax rate (artificially obtained through deficit spending--but never mind that) and protect me from the FOREIGN religious k00ks.

|4.6.05 @ 3:13PM|#

Henry,

Believe it or not, some gays have higher priorities than gay rights. I don't think it's that difficult a concept to understand. I don't agree with Bushworld's view of gays, but the country isn't exactly shipping them off to concentration camps either. The cultural shift toward acceptance of homosexuality has continued unabated, even as states have thrown up majoritarian marriage amendments that will probably be removed by the time today's 30 year-olds run the country.

|4.6.05 @ 3:16PM|#

Henry your whining is off the charts.Gay men in America are a privileged elite draped in victim's cloth.

|4.6.05 @ 3:21PM|#

joe,

"people who believe he should imprisoned for his recreational activities."

I'll spot you the word "be", but regarding the overall clause, I think you're making it up. I'd like to see evidence of Drudge stumping for someone who'd put gays in prison.

|4.6.05 @ 3:24PM|#

Chesty,

Thanks for the totally different idiotic "argument" (the old ones were kind of played out). Are the Marines still bouncing people under "don't ask, don't tell"?

Lot of buggery in those barracks....

|4.6.05 @ 4:11PM|#

Chesty,

Seeing as you are the most decorated soldier who ever served in the U.S. military, would you please be so kind as to regale us with your tales of derring do?

Also, I heard you are dead. How are things in the great beyond?

I'm sure you are not some poser who is tring to puff himself up by claiming to be someone who actually deserves respect.

Please enlighten us, o brave one...

|4.6.05 @ 4:14PM|#

Gee tarran you're really a sarcastic guy.you hurt my feelings.

|4.6.05 @ 4:26PM|#

"I'd like to see evidence of Drudge stumping for someone who'd put gays in prison."

Does George W. Bush count? During his campaign for Governor of Texas, he ran hard on his pledge to veto any attempt to repeal Texas' sodomy laws (the ones that put gay people in prison). As POTUS, he had his Justice Department file amicus briefs in favor of the State of Texas when those same sodomy laws were challenged in front of the Supreme Court.

|4.6.05 @ 5:57PM|#

GWB "ran hard" and filed his briefs?

Was Victor Ashe in town?

|4.6.05 @ 6:15PM|#

The first two links I get Googling, "george bush sodomy laws" have a gay guy saying, "He's just making a symbolic gesture, but I'm not voting for him anyway"

http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/carpenter/carpenter6.html

...and a Christian guy saying, "don't vote for him because he hires open homosexuals":

http://daveblackonline.com/george_bush_on_sodomy.htm

So I would prefer an actual cite where Dubya says, "gays should be put in prison", because I'm even more skeptical now.

|4.6.05 @ 6:49PM|#

Drudge has his moments for sure. Driving around Sunday night I tuned into his radio show and all he was doing is bashing Sin City for being the number one flick in the country on the weekend the Pope dies. He's a rightwing cultural warrior no doubt. When Mel Gibson was previewing the Passion in the fall of 2003 to selective groups, Drudge was one of those that got invited.

By the way, Sin City is an exellent movie. Violent, brutal, funny, and lots of semi nude gorgeous women.

blah|4.6.05 @ 6:59PM|#

I just messaged Drudge via his front-page "report a story link", because I felt he was covering up columns offensive to him.

On the links to other columnists on the net, Christopher Hitchens is listed, but his column linked is something about Wolfowitz, when he has had two newer columns, one on Schaivo and one on the Pope, neither flattering Catholics.

Think it was an oversight, or does he play with all of his links? I'll never find out on my own time, just pretty curious.

I always thought those were all real links.

|4.6.05 @ 7:52PM|#

"There is something bizarre about any gay person who sucks the (metaphorical) cock of America's heavily theocratic right wing."


Jesus, I'll be MONTHS getting that little word-picture out of my head...

|4.6.05 @ 8:35PM|#

'I would prefer an actual cite where Dubya says, "gays should be put in prison", because I'm even more skeptical now.'

OK, just so we're not weaseling out of accepting uncomfortable facts by creating absurdly high burdens of proof.

Do your own research, CTD. Find the transcripts of Bush's 1994 debates with Ann Richards, and find the amicus briefs from the Justice Department in the Lawrence case.

|4.6.05 @ 9:06PM|#

No one was ever put in jail because of the Texas sodomy laws. It's fiction. Houston, New Orleans and Austin are known as the SF of the south. But the Lawrence case did open up the possibility that the courts via judicial fiat will make gay marriage the law of the land. In other words, judicial tyranny.

|4.6.05 @ 10:37PM|#

yeah, so like, it's totally no big deal.

|4.7.05 @ 4:57AM|#

joe, I will happily do my own research to back up my own assertions.

|4.7.05 @ 11:27AM|#

judicial tyranny will allow people you don't know to get married?

might as well give up and marry our goldfish now.

|4.7.05 @ 2:53PM|#

Got SPLOID bookmarked. Glad to seem Ken in a new gig. I read his blog religiously in the early days of the Iraq war. He always had something biting to say.

|4.7.05 @ 5:44PM|#

"No one was ever put in jail because of the Texas sodomy laws."

Well, there were the two guys who got dragged out of thier home, put in jail, and challenged their conviction to the Supreme Court.

Just off the top of my head.