Media

David Weigel Resigns From the Washington Post

|

Story here.

The back story: Yesterday, FishbowlDC published some e-mails made to the private lefty-commentator listserv JournoList by former Reason staffer and current Contributing Editor David Weigel, in which the Washington Post "inside the conservative movement" blogger suggested Matt Drudge "set himself on fire," encouraged "everyone to think twice about rewarding the [DC] Examiner with any traffic or links for a while," and used phrases like "screaming Ron Paul fanatics" and "Paultard Tea Party people." In response, Weigel apologized to his readers, Matt Drudge, to Byron York, and "if people find the word 'Paultard' offensive." His bosses then said:

"Dave's apology to readers reflects he understands, in calmer hindsight, the need to exercise good judgment at all times and of not throwing stones, especially when operating from inside an echo-filled glass house that is modern-day digital journalism," said Post Managing Editor Raju Narisetti, the architect of the Post's latest moves into the blogging space. "Time to move on."

Then this morning The Daily Caller published more listserv contributions from Weigel. Excerpt from that piece:

"Honestly, it's been tough to find fresh angles sometimes–how many times can I report that these [tea party] activists are joyfully signing up with the agenda of discredited right-winger X and discredited right-wing group Y?" Weigel lamented in one February email.

In other posts, Weigel describes conservatives as using the media to "violently, angrily divide America." According to Weigel, their motives include "racism" and protecting "white privilege," and for some of the top conservatives in D.C., a nihilistic thirst for power. […]

"It's really a disgrace that an amoral shut-in like Drudge maintains the influence he does on the news cycle while gay-baiting, lying, and flubbing facts to this degree."

In April, Weigel wrote that the problem with the mainstream media is "this need to give equal/extra time to 'real American' views, no matter how fucking moronic, which just so happen to be the views of the conglomerates that run the media and/or buy up ads." […]

Weigel seems to harbor special contempt for a type of conservative he calls a ratfucker, a favorite phrase of his. […]

Republicans? "Ratfucking [Obama] on every bill." Palin?  Tried to "ratfuck" a moderate Republican in a contentious primary in New York. Limbaugh? Used "ratfucking tactics" in urging Republican activists to vote for Hillary Clinton in open primaries after Obama had all but beat her for the Democratic nomination.

Within hours, Weigel resigned, and now JournoList is reportedly shutting down. Follow the unfolding debate on Google and Twitter. We'll have more here later; consider this the "WEIGEL THREAD" that you have been demanding since the wee small hours.

Advertisement

NEXT: If You Don't Give Us 150 Percent Pensions, We'll Kill This Child

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is there anything left to say?

    1. Yes. We feel hurt and betrayed. Mommy!

    2. David Weigel

      1. Who are you voting for in November? I’ve got the luxury of a guilt-free, zero-impact vote in the District of Columbia, which I would cast for Bob Barr if he was on the ballot. Since he’s not, I’m voting for Barack Obama, the only remaining candidate whom I trust not to run the country (further) into the ground with stupid and erratic decisions, and who (miraculously for a Democrat) has run a less brain-dead, faux-populist campaign than the Republican.

      2. Who did you vote for in 2004 and 2000? Last time, it was that guy from Massachusetts who hated the troops and lied about his Vietnam service in a French accent. In 2000 I not only voted for Ralph Nader but served as an electoral college elector for him in the state of Delaware. I regret the Nader vote, but not the Kerry vote, as a weak Democratic president with a conservative congress would have been pretty tolerable in retrospect.

      3. Is this the most important election in your lifetime? Clearly the most important was 1988, when Americans rejected Mike Dukakis and spared themselves from a tax hike, a liberal Supreme Court justice, a pointless intervention in Central America, and a bungled handling of Soviet dissolution. But this is a close second, because I really don’t think McCain has the temperment to be president or the interest in standing up to a Democratic Congress, his only theoretical advantage over Obama.

      4. What will you miss about the Bush administration? The withering of the Cult of the Presidency. It’s going to come back in force under President Obama, as I’m reminded whenever I walk down my street and see T-shirts with Our Leader’s gorgeous face on them.

      5. Leaving George W. Bush out of consideration, what former U.S. president would you most like to have waterboarded? Lyndon Baines Johnson. While his children watch.

      1. Kind of like #5

        1. I think it is complete faux macho douchbaggery. WTF did Johnson’s children ever do? And why would you fantasize about torturing their father in front of them? I can see saying Johnson. But the children part is just disgusting.

          1. How about Lyndon Johnson while Doris Kearns Goodwin watches?

            1. Ok. But I think Doris might get off on that. NTTAWWT.

              1. Then Bill Moyers can be forced to watch instead.

          2. I wasn’t referring to the details, just the target. LBJ was the prototypical dirty politician and had little problem extorting his political enemies. Not to mention policy issues like the WoP.

            1. I actually wouldn’t mind doing it to Johnson myself. The man was a crooked as he was lecherous.

              1. You want to waterboard someone partly because he was better at getting ass than you are?

            2. Whoa. You imply that dirty can somehow be seperated from politician. In what alternate universe does such a culture exist? The “dirt-free” politician has been absent the US of A since about the time George Washington resigned after his first term as President. Also, it’s tough to decide if the commenters here are just torture-porn aficionados or interested in seeing a particular politician brought down a peg.

              If it is actually the latter, I suggest that a better method would be pants down around the ankle, bent over the chair, and whacked on his/her bottom (please, please, let me see this happen to Pelosi!) ’til it turns bright red.

      2. “I’m voting for Barack Obama, the only remaining candidate whom I trust not to run the country (further) into the ground”

        Just like he trusted the people on journolist to keep everything private. I think Dave has trust issues.

        1. If he didn’t before, I have no doubt that he does now.

        2. This says all you need to know about Weigel’s judgement

      3. Sure, Dave’s previously stated views are interesting in light of this kerfuffle, but my main take-away from this is a keen desire to know whether the current staff of reason agrees with him about my motivations as a Teaparty-American.

        What say you, Matt Welch? Am I driven by my desire to protect “white privilege”?

        1. What a top-shelf handle!

        2. Why not just read the archives? Search for “Tea Party”.

      4. “I’m voting for Barack Obama, the only remaining candidate whom I trust not to run the country (further) into the ground with stupid and erratic decisions,”

        snort. ..
        choke

      5. Defend this:

        Weigel’s exhortion on Journolist after Martha Coakley’s loss:

        “I think pointing out Coakley’s awfulness is vital, because it’s 1) true and 2) unreasonable panic about it is doing more damage to the Democrats.”

        So that’s what he wrote privately. Here’s his putatively objective account of the loss in the Atlantic:

        “In the debate over how Democrats could possibly lose the race–which has major repercussions for President Obama’s agenda–Coakley herself is taking more and more of the blame.”

        1. I still chuckle at Michael Graham’s (IIRC) description of the Coakley campaign: “It wasn’t the Hindenburg or the Titanic, it was the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic.”

        2. This is exactly the right approach, for anyone interested in sussing out the public vs. private Weigel (which for my money is the most interesting part of this). What did he say about the same things in different settings?

        3. Weigel himself has provided context for that email:
          http://daveweigel.com/?p=2349

          1. The context doesn’t help his case at all.

        4. The account Blue attributes to Weigel in the Atlantic was written by Max Fisher, not Weigel.

          http://www.theatlanticwire.com…..akley-2220

          1. Fine, then try this:

            http://washingtonindependent.c…..difference

      6. I find your continued attempts to appear as equally disdainful of the left AND right amusing. McCain not stand up to a Democratic congress? You’re NOT fooling anyone. Just stop. Please.

      7. I found this the most disturbing. Sure many reason staff members voted for Obama, to my memory, it was almost evenly split between Obama, Barr, not voting at all with one or two McCain and or Palin only votes. What bothers me is that he voted for Kerry and Nader and then recently in his emails came out full force for Obama, the Democrats and Obamacare. I just don’t see how any libertarian could ever be for Obamacare. To me the Washington Post articles didn’t matter that much to me, although I have read a lot of his articles there and the Washington Independent. I just get an icky feeling someone who is so in favor of Obamacare and generally of passing the Democratic agenda to the point of calling opponents of it “ratf*ckers” actually worked at Reason.

        Also while many on the staff voted for Obama, Weigel’s reasons for voting for him make me cringe. I think these past two years have already proven Obama makes just as stupid and erratic decisions as Bush, if not more so.

        1. Because this blog has just about as many left-libertarians as those of any other stripe – with the exception of the cosmopolitan types being by far the largest political demographic that post on this board. IMHO.

      8. “I’m voting for Barack Obama, the only remaining candidate whom I trust not to run the country (further) into the ground with stupid and erratic decisions.”

        Like deliberately bankrupting the coal industry:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

        Deliberately alienating our allies with open insults. (speech IPOD’s, cheap incompatible DVD’s) and:

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..-rift.html

        Not to mention that the party he leads is trying to pass new speech restrictions and regulations on the Internet.

        Great. It’s nice to see you support shiny happy fascism.

    3. “Is there anything left to say?”

      That Weigel’s tears are so yummy and sweet?

    4. I’d like for someone who knows Weigel to tell me why he got so pissed about ehe item about him dancing at the McCardle-Suderman wedding.

      I just re-read the piece and I still don’t get it. There was nothing derogatory or insulting about it.

      1. That made no sense at all. He complained about them dragging his girlfriend into the fray, even though all they said was that she was from Alaska and wasn’t there. WTF

      2. He got pissed because he’s jumpy and touchy and was convinced that it represented a ‘ratfucking’ by the Washington Examiner, a paper which he ideologically loathed (he worked for the liberal mirror-image Washington Independent before joining the Post).

        Literally, nothing more than that. He was already in a heightened state of paranoia from the perceived ‘attacks’ by Drudge, and he misinterpreted that item (which was actually submitted by a friend, Tim Carney, and meant in a fun positive sense, not as mockery).

    5. “Is there anything left to say?”

      Q: How many ratfuckers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

      A: I don’t know, but it only takes one to screw himself out of a job.

      1. No appreciation?

        That’s at 1:37 am, PST! Tipsy!

        And there isn’t even a cover charge here!

    6. Yes, I say three cheers for Weigel! I wonder how many other intelligent people are hiding on Reason`s staff. Hey, a man`s got to make a living.

  2. Hillarious.

  3. Now please stop the stupid threadjacking.

    1. That should be, “Now please stop the stupid threadjacking, Rat-Fucker”

      1. +1

  4. Journolist is shutting down. I wonder what else is on that old list serve. I bet those dirtbags are at each other’s throats right now trying to figure out who did it and praying that Weigel didn’t save any of their gems to leak out onto the net.

    1. I suspect it’s “shutting down” the same way ACORN is: changing names and reorganizing.

      1. Changing names, reorganizing, and shredding and burning the evidence, you mean?

        1. And of course that as well.

    2. It’s all fairly hilarious, because these guys thought they were inside a secret, powerful liberal cabal, and it turns out that the only functions of Journolist are 1) getting liberal reporters fired, 2) bitching and moaning (which everyone already knew from Mickey Kaus posting a thread way back), and 3) getting praise for Ezra Klein in magazines.
      Wasn’t it Ezra Klein who recommended Weigel for the job at the Wa Po? Doesn’t that make complete sense now that we’ve seen these messages?

      1. Not that I actually believe this, but… wouldn’t it be delicious if it turned out that Ezra Klein was actually some sort of GOP operative, who set up things like Journolist precisely with this kind of thing in mind? That said… as it’s been discussed elsewhere, this stuff almost certainly had to come to light because someone else on Journolist decided they didn’t like Weigel, and wanted to hurt him. That’s the more interesting question here – who leaked all this stuff?

  5. Well, Drudge is an amoral shut-in who gay baits despite swallowing more cum than a whorehouse. But he still makes me laugh, so I cut him some slack. And I’m an amoral shut-in, too, so who am I to judge?

    Honestly, in the new material Weigel looks a little bit more Democrat-friendly than I had thought he was. Surprising.

    1. Yeah, I thought Dave was more libertarian, but this makes him look like pretty much a full-on TEAM BLUE douchebag. How douchebaggy.

      1. How so? What I see is criticism of douchebag Republicans, not a defense of douchebag Democrats.

        1. He was rooting for health-care reform to pass. That’s sort of a QED moment right there.

          1. But it was libertarian-leaning total state control of your body, health and nutrition

            1. Haha. Like an FDR libertarian. You know that whole freedom from want stuff.

        2. ummm … online “secret” strategizing with left wing writers about how to spin the health care story? Sounds pretty team blue to me.

          1. Which of his emails constitutes “strategizing” for favorable press coverage of health care legislation?

            I must have missed something, I didn’t see any of that.

            1. After Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat, threatening to kill the health care legislation by his presence, Weigel stressed how important it was for reporters to highlight what a terrible candidate his opponent Martha Coakley had been.

              “I think pointing out Coakley’s awfulness is vital, because it’s 1) true and 2) unreasonable panic about it is doing more damage to the Democrats,” Weigel wrote.

              ——

              plainly thats not just talkin shop. It’s about spinning the facts to acheive a specific political goal. Maybe the “honest service fraud” folks at DOJ should look into this, if they are out of stuff to do.

              1. Thanks.

                I still question the idea that someone who might support a specific Democrat-sponsored piece of legislation is unqualified to report on “the right”. And to think that any journalist/blogger/whatever anywhere completely avoids “spinning the facts” seems quite naive.

                1. I don’t actually see why his firing/retirement was inevitable either. I just wanted his team-blue doosh status duly noted for the record.

                2. Is it really that difficult to understand? No one is saying that Weigel can’t report on the right because of his anti-conservative views; the entire MSM does that. Weigel was portrayed as a libertarian conservative who was reporting on conservatives from “inside the conservative movement”. He was not a conservative and his obvious support for the Democrat health care take over is a serious contradiction to any claim that he is libertarian. His claim that Etheridge gave that kid a “hug” shows that he is either dishonest or an idiot.

                  Weigel and the Washington Post have misrepresented who he is. You might think he is brilliant and his reporting beyond reproach, but he was never a conservative reporting from “inside” the conservative movement. His bile filled missives sound like an angry Daily Kos poster.

                  1. I understand that point, but I’m not sure I find it valid.

                    One of the worst things about the modern-day “conservative movement” is its penchant for identifying and eliminating internal intellectual dissent. This of course is a trait of all ideologues, and is not in short supply among any set — libertarians included. But damn, it’s infecting conservative discourse right now.

                    If you want to charge Weigel with failure to be a “real” conservative, then fine. And sure, it’s probably true that he was “sold” inaccurately. But I think genuine philosophical dissent is a necessary ingredient for adaptability and evolution, and it’s rare that someone from the mainstream media offers a credible version of it. Outing Weigel is just a reflex that demonstrates exactly how much “conservatives” want to hear what they want to hear, or else.

                    1. Outing Weigel is just a reflex that demonstrates exactly how much “conservatives” want to hear what they want to hear, or else.

                      What makes you think he was “outed” by a conservative? Did Journolist have any?

                    2. What makes you think he was “outed” by a conservative?

                      I should have said “ostracized” or something. Cast away like the ideologically impure whore he is.

                    3. Well, ideological impurity comes in degrees, and with different attitudes. Weigel got on my nerves here with his shilling for Obama and attacks on the right that often just seemed to come from the left playbook. He seemed less like an impure libertarian and more like Democrat pretending to be one.

                      And I don’t think I’m one to demand any purity. I’m fairly moderate/conservative by Hit & Run standards, often arguing the impure position. And I enjoy numerous “impure” commentators: Hitchens, Paglia, Kaus, Reynolds. They all seem sincere to me, though, and lack the partisan animus I often saw in Weigel’s writings.

                  2. We can now see how disingenuous his whole “I was just looking for a new angle on the whole Etheridge story” approach was. In the Daily Caller article, he calls the guy who did the ACORN videos a “ratfucker” and celebrates his arrest while entering that congresswoman’s office. He did coverage of that guy, basically joining in the character-assassination pile-on, but acting like he was simply covering an interesting story.
                    Clearly, Weigel enjoys diminishing people who challenge liberal power. If he’d been able, he would have hunted down the kids who filmed Etheridge to attempt character assassination on them. What other conclusion can we draw now?

              2. plainly thats not just talkin shop. It’s about spinning the facts to acheive a specific political goal.

                Do you believe that context means anything?

      2. Which basically means that Reason’s been getting had by a TEAM BLUE douchebag.

        Anyway, the echo chamber effect of JournoList was obvious long ago. WTF are journalists doing chatting with eachother behind closed doors about how they are supposed to cover shit anyway? Fuck that. I want news from verying perspective. I don’t fucking want them hashing out a party line in private emails.

        1. Ya, if Alex Jones had reported this, I probably wuda rolled my eyes, and gone “well there goes Alex being Alex again”. But it really is a god damn open conspiracy to control the media by a bunch frikkin left wingers.

          1. Yeah, but it also goes to show how implausible most conspiracy theories are, at least those that require tons of members. Secrets do out.

            1. That’s not my take. This shows that some of the conspiracy theories are true. And, as these are the guys leading the charge to ridicule others for whacky ideas, it may mean other theories are true too.

              1. It doesn’t mean any such thing. That’s a fundamental logical error. All this evidence shows is that -this- reporter (Weigel) was able to misrepresent himself. It doesn’t prove that anyone else was doing so. For that, you’d need evidence for -that- claim. It might increase your -suspicion- that other theories are true, but there is no actual evidence to support that claim.

        2. Which basically means that Reason’s been getting had by a TEAM BLUE douchebag.

          I disagree. I suspect Reason knew perfectly well what they were buying. No “getting had” involved.

          1. 0

        3. I don’t fucking want them hashing out a party line in private emails.

          Define “private”.

          1. Isn’t it clear that, here, “private” means “what Weigel thought would not be made public”?

        4. DW ia either a really nice guy or has access to some great hookers and blow for people I generally trust and respect to put themselves out there for him. In the morning.

          I don’t give a fuck what journalists do. I have a brain and use it to filter their bullshit from the facts. DW was a transparent dbag from the beginning. IMO he never got past the trust part to get to the verify part for me. He always seemed off.

    2. Honestly, in the new material Weigel looks a little bit more Democrat-friendly than I had thought he was. Surprising.

      Keep your enemies close, and your journalists closer.

  6. I wonder what the dates are of the Weigel comments.

    Because there have been leaks before: Joe Klein’s incoherent Journolist nonsense was leaked to Greenwald, who happily burned Klein to the fucking ground [not that Klein has any credibility left to burn anyway – but still].

    After the Klein incident, how could anyone put anything there that could potentially bite them in the ass?

    1. A new guy trying to fit in, that is who.

    2. Jim Geraghty at NRO thinks the whole thing quickly devolved into a big black mail scheme where nobody could say anything publicly against anyone else. And that makes sense. They all start trading emails. And then everyone immediately starts shooting off at the mouth. Then before you know it everyone on the list has something to be embarrassed about.

      Who knows what Weigel did. Wrote a post defending Rand Paul. Called Yglesias fat. Who knows. But he did something and got whacked.

      1. Right John. It was because of something good David did (and there were a lot of things) that someone decided to lower the boom on him.

        1. With that group probably so. They are all swine.

          1. They are all swine.

            Truer words were never spoken.

        2. *This* is what I hope Weigel realizes when he says he learned something about who his friends are today.

          1. Liberals seem to enjoy doing this shit to each other. I don’t think libertarians stab their associates in the back like this.

            1. There have been plenty of public backstabbings and denouncements in the libertarian movement over the years. Of course, since the only people paying attention are other libertarians, these are easy to miss.

            2. No, we like to stab them in the face. And then excommunicate them.

  7. I swear I thought he was gay, but now I heard he has a GF in Alaska. Wasn’t he gay? What the hell is wrong with my memory?

    1. Unless he has a 4340.75 mile cock, I’m going with gay.

    2. That sure is a lot like having a girlfriend in the “Niagra Falls Region.”

        1. Wasn’t there a guy named like Jeff Winkler or something who was gay that wrote for Reason? I don’t quite remember the name, I just remember that he outed himself with a picture of a New Zealand rugby player or something like that.

    3. She seems like a nice girl…up there in Alaska.
      Maybe Dave was on the down-low.

  8. As for Dave, I’m heartbroken that he resigned from The Post. Dave is an extraordinary reporter, and a dear friend. When this is done, there will be a different name on his paychecks, but he will still be an extraordinary reporter, and a dear friend.

    Klein shivved him. No doubt.

    1. I think it was him and Chait. Yglesias and Toobin wouldn’t have the balls. Kruman and Joel Klein’s egos are too big to bother with a lesser creature like Weigal, and Alterman would have had the balls to just post them on his own site. That leaves Klein and Chait, both of whom are first class cock suckers. The anonymous shivv followed by the public “we are so sorry for Dave” is just their style.

      1. Do you know any of these people, John?

        1. Possibly. His old army email addresses identify him as John Kluge. Any relation to the DC media mogul is speculation.

      2. Weigel was always just a Fredo to them anyways.

        1. Weigel was always just a Fredo to them anyways.

          Sounds like a cross between a hobbit and a corn-chip bandito.

  9. ME-OW. ….and thank you.

  10. Yup, Ezra did it. It’s the perfect crime, and that “He’s my BFF” post by Klein is just twisting the knife. Psychos will do that.

    1. No shit. Is that not the most nausea inducing announcement?

      1. “not thinking of the right person to interview, or not asking the right question when I got them on the phone, or not intuiting that an economist would have a terrific take on the election, I was leaving insights on the table”

        He’s basically admitting he has no experience. This is why have don’t get to cover national policy at national paper right out of college.

        do your own damn research.

    2. They will blame this all on Drudge for linking to the Fishbowl D.C. post naturally.

  11. Dunno if Weigel will read this, but if you do, Dave: I’ve been one of your harshest critics, but you got fucked over in a major way here, and you deserved far better.

    1. I think he did to. I don’t like Weigel’s writing. But outing him like that was real chicken shit stuff.

    2. Also, I have some decent intel now on who might have backstabbed him (or, at the very least, who on JournoList had *strong motive*, shall we say…). And I can say that the names I’m hearing aren’t the ones that anyone has mentioned yet.

      1. Who is on the list? Right now we have the two Kleins, Krugman, Yglesias, Toobin and Chait. Who am I missing?

        1. Man, if it was Krugman and it came out I would die and go to heaven.

          Not that there’s a heaven, but you know what I mean.

          1. I suspect Connie Chung.

          2. You would just get a taste of it on earth. Krugman would be the best.

          3. +1
            I would just love to have Krugman outted publicly as an unabashed leftist and hyper partisan. He gets a bullshit passcard for being “A Nobel Prize winning Economist.” Some people actually think he is moderate.

            1. The only people who think Krugman is moderate or rational are devoted progressives, who from my perspective all demonstrate questionable rational thinking abilities anyway.

              That said, if it does turn out to be Krugman I know some Seattle leftists who will be getting a big “I told ya so”, and I will also probably be immediately ascending to Valhalla.

            2. Umm, yeah, because every damn thing he’s written for the [past 10 years didn’t show it…

              1. …the “unabashed leftist and hyper partisan” part, I mean.

              2. Serious. Any asshat who thinks Krugman is anything but the pathetic shill that he is either crazy or stupid. Or just crazy stupid.

            3. Krugman publically outs himself in his columns every week.

          4. That would be just perfect if it was Krugman.

            1. It’s not Krugman. For god’s sake.

              1. Killjoy.

              2. I’m going to go Twitter that it was Krugman and see if I can start a rumor.

              3. It’s Krugman now! Behold the power of the Interwebz!

                1. What now?

                2. Friggin’ hilarious!! xD

        2. There are far more people on JournoList than you seem to realize. Something on the order of 200 participants/lurkers.

          It’s becoming clear to me from conversations that Weigel had quite a few “silent enemies” on the left, who truly did smile to his face but loathe him behind his back for being insufficiently ‘pure’ in his liberalism.

          1. I’m gonna guess that Andrew Sullivan was on the list serv and did this after Weigel confessed that he wasn’t interested in Sullivan’s “Palin Placenta” story as they shared a post-coital Virginia Slim.

          2. So you’re saying partisans are fucking scumbags who value team over anything else? Imagine that.

            1. That is pretty much exactly what I’m saying. At least that’s the message that’s coming through from .

              What’s interesting is that this is a bit like Murder On The Orient Express. As it turns out — and god is it nice to suddenly have a few buddies to reach out to in times like thiss — there ARE more than a few people with ‘motive’ against him.

              And while at least one of these guy’s grudges against Weigel is hilariously prickish and personal, several others are strictly ideological. As in, the hit was “strictly business, pal” from the Left.

              1. Name some names, you close-lipped tease!

                And again, while this shit doesn’t surprise me, it absolutely shreds the continuing attempt of many journalists to say they are “impartial”. It’s 100% horseshit–which again I knew already–but they will turn around after something like this and go right back to saying they’re impartial.

        3. Brad DeLong, Alex Rossmiller, Jesse Singal, Rick Perlstein, Katha Pollitt, Alyssa Rosenberg, Chris Hayes, Michael Cohen, Isaac Chotiner, Matt Duss, …

          http://www.slate.com/blogs/blo…..cabal.aspx

      2. Unless you identify yourself or name the names, this comment goes in the “anonymous Internet crank” bin. Even journalists demand to know who their anonymous sources are.

    3. I’m with Esoteric. Even when you lie down with dogs, it sucks to get fleas.

  12. It will be interesting to see how many other “rewarding jobs” will be available to Weigel now that he’s demonstrated that he’s not to be trusted and has an ego the size of Alaska.

    I will say the karmic retribution here is pretty hilarious. For olde times sakes, here’s the comment that Dave posted when we gave him crap about calling the assault by the Democratic senator a “hug”-

    David Weigel|6.14.10 @ 5:01PM|#

    Well, I really enjoyed the two and a half years I spent here, and I’m constantly confused as to why mentions of my name lead to a lot of schoolyard insults. I really can’t figure out why they do it — lack of fulfillment seems like a good enough theory. After all, I’m here, and they’re where I left them in 2008.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to return to my rewarding job and large circle of friends. I don’t know how my ego will ever recover…

    Tasty, tasty comeuppance. Probably not as tasty as the dinner his mom is about to reheat for him though.

    1. What about his actions show that he’s “not to be trusted”?

      1. What about his actions show that he’s “not to be trusted”?

        Because like all too many journalists today, he’s a lying sack of shit who puts himself forth as a straight-shooting “reporter” of the news when nothing could be further from the truth.

        In Weigel’s case, he was doing this while coordinating with his other dickhead friends like Ezra Klein about how to shape stories to make them favorable to democrats. Guys like Weigel are the reason why the press is held in lower esteem by Americans today than probably any time in our history.

        Some people here apparently feel a little sorry for him; I don’t in the least. He misled and embarrassed the hell out of his employers; he is a victim of his own dishonesty, stupidity, and total lack of professionalism.

        Besides, he’ll land a job with the Huffington Post or MSNBC in no time.

        1. Everything you and I read, watch, and hear is “shaped” intentionally by somebody. Look at all the names on that listserv. You really think all the supposedly straight-up “journalists” you listen to don’t do the same thing? They don’t have their own listservs? They don’t make jokes and talk smack on email or at the coffee machine or at stupid fuckin parties? They don’t discuss big stories with each other, and share their thoughts about the best way to interpret a given event?

          Expecting partiality from a human being is an exercise in futility. Looking back at Weigel’s work on Reason and other places, I see no indication that he made any attempt to obfuscate or hide anything. If his column was marketed poorly, that’s a marketing mistake that can easily be overcome by reading what the man has written.

          1. Come on, dude. Look at the stuff Weigel was posting here (http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/25/emails-reveal-post-reporter-savaging-conservatives-rooting-for-democrats/2/).
            Then, look at the stuff he posted about the conservatives he was covering. In light of the angry shit he writes about the people who oppose liberals, don’t his stories which diminish these people make total sense as deliberate smear attempts?

            If he wants to write these things, that’s fine. But he presented himself as this unique, independent thinker, when he was really just an agent of the left, doing their bidding undercover. If you don’t see his obfuscations,you’re not looking very hard.

          2. True, but with that consideration, what is the Post’s standards for picking someone from “inside the conservative movement” ?

            Some vague left-libertarian tendencies are enough to make you a “conservative”, even if you vote Democrat, root for health care reform, and call Republicans “ratfuckers” behind closed doors?

            WTF?

            1. what is the Post’s standards for picking someone from “inside the conservative movement”?

              The only standard seems to be creating the appearance of ‘objectivity’ while actually enforcing lefty talking points.

    2. I don’t know if he’s “not to be trusted”.

      After all, as Fluffy I will sit here and write messages calling you a cunt all day, but if I wrote for the Post I probably would use a more reasonable manner and demeanor.

      Saying Weigel can’t be trusted because he says bad things about Drudge and about some conservatives in private is like saying George Will can’t be trusted because when he goes home he takes off the bow tie.

      1. I should clarify that I mean “not to be trusted” in the sense that he we trusted with a position at the Post wherein he was supposed to be reporting about the right wing. In doing so the Post trusted him not to make them look bad. He has made them look bad because he wrote some really dumb shit to the journolist folks in hopes that he’d be in with the cool kids.

        Now the Post looks dumb for trusting him, and Dave looks even stupider for trusting the idiots at Journolist.

        All in all, not exactly a resume building experience.

      2. He takes of the bow tie?!

        I always kind of imagined him sleeping with it, etc.

      3. How about the difference between knowing the person who is interviewing you disagrees with your positions and knowing that they hate your guts?

        1. That requires an assumption that insult is always offered seriously. If that’s the case, I’ve been doing it wrong.

          1. Is this before or after you have established a relationship with them?

      4. George Will only ever removes a bow tie to put on a different bow tie. He sleeps, eats, showers, and, yes, makes love with a bow tie on.

        1. Now that sounds like fun.

          1. Depends what the bow tie is attached to.

        2. George Will was born with trousers on.

        3. I’m pretty sure Will invented the Cincinatti Bowtie. Look it up.

        4. I have it on good authority that George Will does, however, change to a slightly more funky and hip bowtie when making love.

          He’s not a COMPLETE dork.

      5. After all, as Fluffy I will sit here and write messages calling you a cunt all day, but if I wrote for the Post I probably would use a more reasonable manner and demeanor.

        Like “ratfucker”.

    3. The real Weigel couldn’t possibly have written that could he?

      “..rewarding job and large circle of friends.”

      No one older than, say 15, would really write something like that. It had to be a spoofer.

    4. It will be interesting to see how many other “rewarding jobs” will be available to Weigel now that he’s demonstrated that he’s not to be trusted and has an ego the size of Alaska.

      My bet is that Reason will hire him back.

      I don’t think Walsh gives a shit about the other stuff. He likes David, he likes his work, and he left for career reasons not because of problems in the office.

      What would actually be cool is if David started covering left wing media insiders for Reason. If this experience actually pissed him off enough to go after them with a vengeance that is.

      1. My bet is that Reason will hire him back.

        He is still listed as a “Contributing Editor” so I’m not sure he was ever actually completely gone from Reason.

        What would actually be cool is if David started covering left wing media insiders for Reason. If this experience actually pissed him off enough to go after them with a vengeance that is.

        That would be awesome, but this is the “trust” part I was referring to earlier. Dave pissed off some of his sources enough so that he was outed. He won’t have the same insider line he did previously.

        1. He won’t have the same insider line he did previously.

          I don’t think he needs to be an insider…just cover every fumble these guys make and make phone calls. Sure there will be lots of “X refused comment” lines but still these idiots are journalists. They talk shit constantly and although it is their business to lie cheat and steal one thing i have learned is that it is always easiest to con a con artist.

          And if this episode has taught us anything the journalist community will eat their own. If David played it right he could rip the the leftist blogverse/media a new asshole.

          that is of course if he is capable of not freaking out over the very small stuff which he has proven to do in the past.

          Note: yeah this is fantasy football and i am reaching…still it is fun.

          1. Hell, don’t apologize for the ‘fantasy football.’ I for one would love to see Weigel “rehabilitated” by Reason once more. Now that he’s a little bit older and a little bit wiser.

            He just needs to be a little bit more honest about who he really is and where he’s coming from. Matt Welch, to name just one person, has been very upfront about his interesting ideological journey from the left to a more rigorous libertarianism, and has built trust that way.

            Weigel just needs to level with people from the outset, and then do his thing. It’ll stand or fall on its own merits from that point out.

        2. Weigel, if he was smart enough to save all of the journolist threads, should make amends with libertarians by publishing a new chunk of that every week. I imagine that would really bring the pain.

          1. If he did it exclusive to Reason then we would get all the Breitbart readers all up in are forums.

            Still yeah i think that would be awesome.

    5. delicious!

    6. It will be interesting to see how many other “rewarding jobs” will be available to Weigel now that he’s demonstrated that he’s not to be trusted and has an ego the size of Alaska.

      Congress and the presidency spring immediately to mind with those job specs.

  13. Weigel gets Journolist shut down (and eventually opened under a new name with tighter user controls)? Good for him.

  14. Wait, this is enough to oust someone? I don’t even see what the problem is — how does this go beyond simply expressing his opinion informally? What is all the hubbub about?

    Really, I’m asking.

    1. Weigel was caught hoping for the death of other journalists, trying to sabotage other publications, and viciously insulting the sorts of people his employer hired him to get scoops from.

      1. Is there any way to interpret that stuff as something other than tounge-in-cheek, half-serious informal criticism? It’s not like he was seriously advocating for immolation in public.

        1. A journalist has to have sources. Sometimes journalists need help from other journalists. Are you going to be a source for the guy who, behind your back, says you are a “ratfucker” who should die? Are you going to give a tip to the guy who tried to convince his cronies to not give any links to your publication?

          1. So he’s being ostracized because he would have been ostracized?

          2. Given the nature of his beat, he should have been developing sources on the Right, not participating in an insular circle jerk on the Left.

            1. +10

      2. Well, after all, Drudge does kind of deserve to die.

        But as JMann points out below, with the info out there it compromises Weigel’s ability to get sources, to “embed” himself among conservative activists, etc.

        1. Yeah, I guess — although I always considered that sort of cronyism a disease anyway. A good old boys network does little to further the goal of interesting journalism or punditry.

      3. caught hoping for the death of other journalists

        Come on. That’s a stupid thing to say.

        1. Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh famously said he hoped President Obama would “fail” in January, 2009. Almost a year later, when Limbaugh was rushed to the hospital with chest pains, Washington Post reporter David Weigel had a wish of his own. “I hope he fails,” Weigel cracked to fellow liberal reporters on the “Journolist” email list-serv.

          http://dailycaller.com/2010/06…..ats/print/

          1. There’s a big difference between saying and doing. Compare every posturing male talking about defending his home versus the difficulties soldiers trained to fight by the military experience pulling the trigger. Similarly, decades of marketing research shows clearly that what people say they will buy does not line up with what they actually buy.

            As a journalist, clearly he should have exercised more discretion. But can you honestly say you’ve never said to a friend that you wish Paul Krugman or Nancy Pelosi would drop dead?

            1. Well, yes, I can honestly say I have never said anything like that, because I honestly don’t wish it. My wishes run more toward wishing that they’d all lose their power and influence, and have to earn honest livings like the rest of us.

              1. Zimriel, do you not understand the difference between figurative and literal speech? Comments like “drop dead,” die in a fire” or “eat shit and die” are generally meant as expressions of contempt, NOT the literal desire to see that person expire.

                1. I disagree. I think many on the left do feel that way. When libertarians or conservatives disagree with someone they say his/her beliefs are wrong and may even as going to say they’re idiots, but wishing death upon someone is a common occurrence on the left. People wished Bush would die to the point a fake documentary was made showing it. Even the Onion’s last week or so of the Bush administration had an article everyday chronicling Bush dying in some new fashion. Cindy Sheehan wished she could go back in time and murder Bush as a baby. If that’s not messed up I don’t know what is. So many of my liberal friends (not all) toss around death wishes like hacky sacks. My libertarian, conservative and moderate friends simply don’t.

              2. I guess you are a better person than me then. I can hardly walk down the street without wishing death on scores of people. I do also frequently wish politicians would actually have to work for a living.

              3. I’m with Zimriel. I would never say I want someone to die if I do not actually want that person to actually die. I’m down with metaphors, but that’s pretty damn extreme.

                I never wanted Teddy Kennedy to die, and was quite sad to learn of his cancer. I just wanted him to be completely politically humiliated, rejected, and crawl into a hole to while away the miserable remaining years of his (long) life.

            2. Actually, the insults did not bother me in the least, and I would be a hypocrite if they did. It was the way he was riding dirty trying to minimize damage to the Democrats in the Massachusetts race, the correspondence related to the health care initiative, and the promotion of blacklisting the Washington Examiner for a matter petty and personal that made me think less of him.

              Actually, I was one of the few that liked him, and the few who enjoyed prog-rock Fridays until he showed up here a few weeks ago and made an ass out of himself and a fool out of all of us who ever defended him.

          2. The Limbaugh/Weigel comparison doesn’t hold up, though: Limbaugh made his comments on a national radio show which he knew full well would be heard by others, whereas Weigel made his remarks in what he thought was a private venue.

            1. true enough. but Limbaugh was wishing for Obama to fail politically, and for his initiatives to fail. not such a bad thing to wish for in light of obama care, etc.

              Weigel was apparently wishing for Limbaugh to fail where, the ICU, resuscitation? Gallows humor maybe, but still the scope of Weigel’s wish is just a bit more despicable, at least to me.

              Having said all of that, I do have some sympathy for Weigel. It is painful to see a young guy implode.

            2. Cunts don’t come any dumber

              1. This should be redacted.

                And just for the record, very few things make you look as dumb as saying something stupid about Jennifer.

              2. Cunts don’t come any dumber

                Well fuck you very much, asshole.

              3. Jennifer HAS a cunt; however, she is the opposite of a cunt.

                The former kind of cunt is a very, very good thing, much appreciated. The latter, not so much so.

                The maligning and misuse of the word “cunt” saddens me almost as much as the maligning and misuse of the word “liberal”.

            3. “The Limbaugh/Weigel comparison doesn’t hold up…”

              I’d say he reminded more of Ann Coulter, but we’ve already been through that.

    2. When Wiegel got hired, a lot of people thought that it was to balance the open left-i-ness of Klein. These emails (1) make it difficult for him to get source info and (2) make it look like his job is to report on how the Republicans are a bunch of racist ratfuckers defending their white privilege.

      There’s a case like this at one of the local papers, where a guy got taken off the police beat when it turned out that his personal blog was hugely anti-cop.

      1. But the guy is clearly an independent voice — I mean, he took plenty of heat for sticking up for Rand Paul. Hard to call him a Democratic lackey in light of that.

        I see your point I guess. I’m just surprised at this — none of the emails I’m reading strike me as anything beyond mildly funny private musings.

        1. That’s because he didn’t call you a racist ratfucker, defending your white privilege, and hoped that you die.

          1. Um, actually I think if someone said that about me, I would still call it “mildly funny private musings”. Am I the only one who considers hyperbolic insult and anti-deference to be a legitimate source of humor?

            I don’t get the defense of the “good old boys’ network” model. That shit is worth tearing down anyway.

            1. I don’t get the defense of the “good old boys’ network” model. That shit is worth tearing down anyway.

              Is it worth replacing with a new “good old boys’ network” of everyone who belongs to some mailing list?

              1. Is that what was happening here though? Did Weigel cultivate any sources or scoops via his commenting on the listserv?

                1. Is that what was happening here though?

                  It’s how he got his job, since Ezra Klein recommended him. *shrug*

                  1. It’s how he got his job, since Ezra Klein recommended him. *shrug*

                    Yeah, it’s not as if he had a body of work or anything…..

                    1. Yeah, it’s not as if he had a body of work or anything…..

                      Plenty of people have a body of work. That doesn’t mean that they all got the job. Recommendations do count for something.

            2. Um, actually I think if someone said that about me, I would still call it “mildly funny private musings”.

              Okay, but if he calls you for a story he’s working on are you taking it?

              I’d laugh off his “jokes” but he’s talking to my dial tone.

              He didn’t burn the conservative bridges, he nuked them.

              Let’s see, dial tone, phone, bridge, nukes, burns…I’m a dope.

        2. I’m sure he’ll have no trouble getting a job as a left-wing opinion writer. He was really pulling for Obama’s health care take over, after all. His career chronicling conservative activism from the inside, however, was over once this stuff became public.

          1. Yeah I take the point — I guess I don’t really consider being an “insider” in these corrupt-ass networks to be all that valuable.

        3. I really think it has to do with his fair approach to Rand Paul. The left is on a witch hunt to make him the demon face of Republicans. I’m not the only one with this theory: See here and here. Particularly interesting is the bashing from FiredogLake in the first link.

          Weigel was someone the Paul campaign seemed to trust for fair questioning if/when there was a controversy that they wanted to address. The progressive left resented this and probably resented having a “libertarian” where a liberal hatchet man would have furthered the anti-Paul jihad.

          Envy and bitter hatred seem like the hallmarks of a leftist activist on Journolist pining for “career” in political polemic blogging. Though I wouldn’t be too surprised if it was a more DNC friendly careerist that leaked it.

          Also remember this WaPo also had nearly daily editorials against Bob McDonnell of Virginia’s bid for governor. Regardless of where you stand on the particular candidate it’s unseemly for the Washington paper to engage in such a feverish jihad against a candidate. Perhaps the Journolist crowd merely intended to more forcefully apply this brand of smear polemics to the whole tea party movement and Weigel stepped out of line.

          1. Yeah, see that’s what is so confusing here. From what I can tell, the basic narrative involves someone from “the left” exposing Weigel to “the right” as a person from “the left”. At which point “the right” births a bovine-like animal.

            Basically he got fucked over because he refused to play cheerleader for one particular team. What a bastard.

            1. Well libertarians–or those perceived as such– tend to run into to this a lot. It makes perfect sense actually…when Weigel was bashing the right the left cheered him on as a cause celebre but when he “stopped short” on the frenzy on Rand Paul well he indeed he wasn’t “part of the team”. Since it was always about politics for the left there was no constituency on the leftist WaPo to defend him and precious few on the libertarian right he found himself axed as a sacrifice to the broader Right’s agitation.

              Libertarians are fine for the left (and right) when it comes to attacking “the other guy” but when they actually gain political influence or prominent perches then they get demonized and knee-capped.

              Remember the Paul’s were Maddow’s favorite guests from the right until a Kentucky Senate seat came into play. Suddenly the Civil Right Act and dark hints of racism became the main topic. Why didn’t Maddow etc. bring that up with Ron Paul despite knowing his views and the accusations for years? Because Ron Paul’s house seat was completely safe from a Dem takeover.

              I’ve seen it with Reason too. Now the Salon gang are hinting that Matt Welch might just be a little racist. No time for such accusations during Bushitler though…they wanted someone on the right to join them. Now that one of our own (Wiegel/Paul) actually is part of movement that threatens them well we’re just part of Bushitler you see….

              1. @Bill C:Libertarians are fine for the left (and right) when it comes to attacking “the other guy” but when they actually gain political influence or prominent perches then they get demonized and knee-capped.

                Yeah that’s a great analysis, right on the mark.

                Of course, in light of that, I’m a bit surprised by the heat he’s taking in these parts. I thought being a libertarian was a good thing around here.

              2. Absolutely right!

            2. There’s that expression about honour and thieves which escapes me at the moment.

              1. It should be pointed out that Weigel’s libertarian cred was always suspect and confirmed by his apparent support of Obamacare. That doesn’t mean some progressive on Journolist bought his position or activism on behalf of it. Supporting Obamacare and Rand Paul probably isn’t a tenable position in an ideological war.

                1. I always thought the Rand Paul reporting (and Ron Paul and the Tea Party) was in the tenor of “See, I’m a reasonably enlightened progressive and can studiously observe these Paultards from my anthropological perch. Their primitive ways and signs and symbols are important, and the cherished customs of the little people have a logic. They deserve to not be dismissed so easily.”

                  In short, I think the articles were token non-conformist dissent to make him seem edgy.

                  From everything I’ve seen here at Reason, Weigel’s M.O. was to be deliberately “above the fray,” elitist, and difficult to pin down. This seemed to place him squarely in the cosmotarian-esque, progressive Ezra Klein camp.

                  1. This seems sort of right, but you’re mixing your own self esteem issues up with his reporting. He writes about politics as a cross between a sports writer and a gossip columnist. Sort of like the reporting I’ve seen on pro wrestling. I don’t understand what’s at all elitist about that.

                  2. My thought too: pop-anthropological journalism.

        4. He did in a way stand up for Rand. He hypothesized that one could …. you know …. at least THEORETICALLY … be pro-private-property with out being a racist. Now maybe that really is the best we are going to get, and we should all thank him for being so brave as to insinuate that we aren’t all racists. But I’m pretty much done apologizing for being pro-private property. And man, wouldn’t it be great if we could set the bar a little higher?

    3. I think the real crime is not the petty insults, but the clear attempt on his part to shape the news to meet his political beliefs.

      Read the entire Daily Caller piece.

      1. Are you saying that the article that cherry picked quotes and strung them together with no context is the best place to get the whole story?

        1. highnumber: see the quoted context from kf in the next comment.

          1. The article itself is not the context of the emails.

            1. It is now

    4. The most damning excerpt is probably this, from the Daily Caller article:

      “After Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat, threatening to kill the health care legislation by his presence, Weigel stressed how important it was for reporters to highlight what a terrible candidate his opponent Martha Coakley had been.

      ‘I think pointing out Coakley’s awfulness is vital, because it’s 1) true and 2) unreasonable panic about it is doing more damage to the Democrats,’ Weigel wrote.”

      It’s not hard to see why the Post wouldn’t want the guy assigned to cover conservatives arguing that reporters should frame their coverage to minimize damage to Democrats. And then doing just that himself, with the Etheridge/”hug” thing.

  15. I wonder what else is on that old list serve.

    Quite a few things have been leaked over the lifetime of it. It’s just lefties whose names you might recognize from the news dropping bitch-gossip and coordinating spin and ragin’ at the proles and the Palin ‘gina. It’s like a worse-written Democratic Underground thread. Or the cheerleaders’ lunch table at Goebbels High.

    CLAP CLAP CLAP

    1. Leftists are always ragin’ at the proles. One finds that tedious.

  16. Who will work the WaPo’s Ratfucker beat now? I appreciate that they have Ezra Klein to report from the left, plus someone to report on what the ratfuckers are doing. You can’t be fair and balanced otherwise.

    1. I’ve always said that adding rat- to the beginning of any curse word or -muffins to the end makes a pretty fun sounding exclamation. Try it!

      1. Ratcock
        Ratbitch
        Ratbastard
        Ratdouche

        QED!! Let’s move on…

        Fuckmuffin
        Titmuffin
        Scrotumuffin

        Not so sure about that last one…

        1. …the last one simply describes Lady Gaga.

        2. Downonamuffin

        3. Ratmuffin?

      2. I really like cuntmuffin, it rolls off the tongue.

    2. Hopefully Julian Sanchez.

  17. I hear huff-po is hiring.

    This is a pretty good resume.

    1. AlterNet was willing to hire Helen Thomas after what she said. So, I’m guessing, they’d be willing to make him editor-in-chief.

    2. I hear huff-po is hiring.

      They really do huff the po’ over there.

  18. Off topic, but interesting:

    Salma Hayek: Actress reveals love of eating insects
    Salma Hayek has revealed that she enjoys eating ants, worms and grasshoppers as part of a varied diet.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..sects.html

    1. If every woman in the world could have a rack like that, I wouldn’t give a shit if they all snorted ants like anteaters.

      1. Oh I agree with you, John. I just foun d it interesting. Tho some would say that lips that touched insects will never touch mine.

        Me? I eat all kinds of weird shit. Life’s ahoot!

    2. note to self: become a billionaire.

    3. Because we all need pretty something to purge our minds of Weigel’s pasty mug (and, oh sweet baby Jesus I want this outfit), here. Ignore the source, it was the best pic I could find.

      1. Dress rocks but I’m not crazy about the shoes. I just don’t like the chunky shoe with skinny heel look (I know, it’s totally in right now).

        1. They’re called platform stilettos. And yes they are really popular. Did you see Lady Gaga’s version of the trend?

        2. You have to be either female or at least a little bit gay to look at that picture and notice the shoes.

          I got to the face and tits and that was it.

    4. Dude, if I remember my Primal diet correctly, insects have the densest proportion of protein relative to their size. Pretty awesome and there’s a reason millions of humans (and other apes) today regard them as delicious and healthy!

  19. Dave Weigel, if you’re reading this: you absolutely got a raw deal here, and I’m appalled by the implication that a journalist can’t express private opinions on an ostensibly private forum without catching grief for it. Whoever outed you is a contemptible coward.

    1. Surprise! Journalists are as scummy as the rest of us.

    2. Ditto. It sucks that tehy expect you to not be human and have a weakness like “opinions”.

      1. I’ve heard rumors of primary school teachers watching R-rated movies or engaging in other not-appropriate-for-children activities during their off-hours. Let’s hound them all out of their jobs!

        1. And they all smoke in a secret room!

        2. I wish you would post here more often, Jennifer. I have a great deal of respect for both you and your writing. It made me proud to see your byline in the UK news.

          1. Thank you, sincerely.

          2. Actually, I’d prefer to see Jennifer write articles here.

        3. IMHO, it’s closer to finding out that a primary school teacher calls her kids “ratfuckers” and writes e-mails to her friends hoping that they would die. Arguably not a firing offense, but you could imagine why parents would be upset.

          1. Dude, come on.

            I would find absolutely nothing out of the ordinary or untoward about someone who wrote in an email, “God, I wish Maureen Dowd would die in a fire.”*

            “Die in a fire” is about as common on the internet as “I can haz cheezburger?”

            *Seriously, come on, Fire. Get it together and burn that dumb bitch already. Knock off your list that house full of foster kids you’re about to visit, and burn Dowd instead. Thanks.

          2. Oh that could be a firing offense. I recently read about a teacher who lost her job because she dissed one of her student’s presentations on her facebook page.

            http://www.philly.com/inquirer…..nline.html

          3. I think it’s like that, plus conspiring with “pro-ignorance” friends to help them frame their message of how learning to read or do math is wrong.

            Discovering that the teacher is anti-reading, anti-[w]riting, and anti-[a]rithmetic seems like something that would justify ending the relationship.

          4. I know several primary school teachers, and they all bitch profusely about the childrens outside of work. No deathwishes yet, but there are frequent expressions of strong hatred. Makes me wonder what percentage of elementary teachers are ChildFree.

            1. Elementary school teachers have kids, they just put them in private school.

  20. consider this the “WEIGEL THREAD” that you have been demanding since the wee small hours.

    So if we bitch enough, will you add a World Cup thread, too?

    1. Amen. But save it for our thrashing of Ghana tomorrow.

    2. I’ve given you at least one, right?

      1. The one with that fruity ass picture?

      2. I must have missed it. Or I was drunk. Or both. Probably both, come to think of it.

      1. RELEASE THE KRAKEN.

  21. “and now JournoList is reportedly shutting down changing names.”

  22. I was critical of Weigel’s work when he was here, actually, as some of you may remember, one of the big reasons I stopped coming around here a while back was ’cause seeing his work as I scrolled down the page made my eyes hurt…

    My central complaint about Weigel was always that he just didn’t get us libertarians. I don’t think he ever understood what we…I guess I should say “I”… I never got the feeling he had any inkling of what it was I was about.

    I’ve always thought there was something deeply conflicted within a libertarian politician, ’cause how can a real libertarian want to be a politician? …and that kind of thinking always colored my views of Weigel’s work as well. If he really understood libertarians, he wouldn’t have covered politicians for us like that. There always seemed to be a conflation of the candidates with the voters as well, something that can only offend a group of people who traditionally use their votes on protest candidates and protest parties…

    I don’t want to change the world for the better through the ballot box, and I think the aggrandizing of politicians and the importance of what they think is one of the greatest disservices anyone can do to the cause of liberty–and what really always bugged me about Weigel was that I always suspected that made me a “rat-fucker” in Dave Weigel’s world.

    1. My central complaint about Weigel was always that he just didn’t get us libertarians. I don’t think he ever understood what we…I guess I should say “I”… I never got the feeling he had any inkling of what it was I was about.

      All due respect, Ken — and I say this in reference to the long-winded debates we’ve had on the “other” forum — for the past couple years, none of us have had the slightest inkling as to what you’re about.

      As for Weigel’s work here — I always thought it was too bad he was assigned to the politico beat — the driest of dry beats — but given the crap material he had to work with, I always thought he did a bang-up job.

      1. “All due respect, Ken — and I say this in reference to the long-winded debates we’ve had on the “other” forum — for the past couple years, none of us have had the slightest inkling as to what you’re about.”

        I’m pretty much run of the mill libertarian, nothin’s really changed. It’s always been about the ultimate respect for the ultimate minority–the individual. I always stand up for that littlest of little guys. …sometimes that’s a trader at Goldman Sachs; sometimes it’s a prisoner being water-boarded; sometimes that’s a struggling kid at a community college who can’t afford to cough up for ObamaCare…

        Weigel could never understand that. Poor guy has his head screwed on so far backwards, he thinks a democratic majority forcing itself on the rest of us is the very definition of liberty and justice…

        I should give Weigel some props for helping me think of a way to get the word out about how wrong all that is… Remember how people started calling themselves “cosmotarians” after Postrel’s piece? How they threw it at us like an insult, and we picked it up and wore it like a badge of honor…?

        Well I’m a “rat-fucker” now.

        Yours in Palin,

        Ken “Rat-Fucker” Shultz

        1. Poor guy has his head screwed on so far backwards, he thinks a democratic majority forcing itself on the rest of us is the very definition of liberty and justice…

          Could you give an example? I’m not sure I understand the criticism.

          1. Actually, to clarify, I understand the criticism perfectly, because it’s a problem I often point out myself. I’m just not clear on how it applies to Weigel specifically.

          2. I’ve gone through this in other threads, and I won’t say that none of it has anything to do with clashing personalities, but…

            Without rehashing old threads, it has to do with aggrandizing politicians and their ideas, and assumptions about voter participation as a means to advance libertarian ideas.

            1. If enough libertarians vote third party or cast blank ballots, then things will start to change. I’d say the tipping point would be when LP candidates routinely get into double digits in the vote count.

              But, right now we’re in the low single digits among the general populace, and a big chunk of us don’t vote for principled reasons, so virtually all politicians can safely ignore libertarian principles.

      2. and I say this in reference to the long-winded debates we’ve had on the “other” forum

        Yeah i want a list of the poeple from the other forum.

        You poeple are piles of shit and I hope you all burn to death.

        And if you have heart problems i hope it fails.

        1. You should try some transcendental meditation or something.

          Relax. You’ll live longer.

          1. i apologize to those i offended by my comments but i was fully justified in making them.

            1. Dude, you forgot “ratfuckers.” 😉

              “i was fully justified in making them… ratfuckers

              It really adds some zing to the insult.

            2. It took me a *long* time to realize that Joshua Corning was doing a Weigel parody here.

  23. Don’t worry, he’ll just be hired by the marxist-progressive cabal and make a zillion dollars selling out the US..

    1. Sorry, but we don’t pay nearly that much.
      Except to Keith.
      He’s evil, you know.

  24. Hey leave me out of this.

    I was only on that left-wing douchebag circle-jerk to get the occasional ideas for the Chris Matthews show.

    I’m not hostile, just lazy.

  25. The hug incident did him in. All he had to was apologize for imprecise phrasing, but instead he dug in his heels as his blue teammates overwhelmingly rejected his narrative. And got a helluva lot of bad press for it.

    He’s too damn arrogant to even try to hide his biases while exclusively covering team red, and too stupid to know that doing so makes him useless. Sorry, I find it fucking hilarious that he was fired from his dream job.

    1. Dream job, schream job, he still has his huge circle of friends, and the enjoyment that comes from reheating his own meals.

    2. + ?

      (I swear it’s in English)

    3. I’m just going to repost what I wrote there, which has since been proven out:

      Dave –

      Do you really want to know what the problem is? On an elemental level, we’re reacting to? Because if I tell you, you have to promise to actually response in good faith. Incidentally, this is a critique that comes not only from me, but from some of your friends and acquaintances throughout your life, who I happen to know.

      The problem is that your instinctive first hot-off-the-pixels response was NOT to act as someone who really cares even a whit about “liberty” — which is something we would have expected from a man who self-identifies as libertarian and once worked for Reason. Your locution was almost painstakingly chosen, rather, to MINIMIZE the ridiculous thuggery Etheridge displayed here. You called it a “hug.” You reduced it to “people behaving strangely.”

      And you INSTANTLY diverted the question away from “WTF is this scumbag Congressman doing?” to the question of ‘who hired these guys and what conservative conspiracy are they a part of?’ Which, just coincidentally I’m sure, was the lead thrust of the Democratic Party talking points memo on the Etheridge affair (as posted by Ben Smith of POLITICO) being forwarded around to bloggers like yourself today. You, quite literally, seem to have “gotten the memo” on how to spin this into “those Nixonian conservative dirty tricksters!” rather than “Holy shit, now Congressmen are attacking random strangers rather than answer for their votes!” That would have been a lot more appropriate; as you may have noticed, pretty much everyone EVEN ON DAILY KOS reacted that way. Which is why POLITICO singled you out as an “Etheridge defender.” (So don’t be disingenuous. I know you too well to think you’re that stupid.)

      And that reveals so much about who you are, whether you realize it or not. For god’s sake Dave, even ANN ALTHOUSE got this right. It’s stunning that you didn’t. And it is going to be very hard for you to live down your first response to this incident in the future. Because a first response is always the most revealing thing about a person’s true character.

      1. You’re scary.

        1. In which way? That I’ve thought about this too much? Probably have — I do know him somewhat after all, and our circle of mutual acquaintances in DC is downright vast.

          1. seeing the future and whatnot

            BTW, I think some older guy at the Post leaked this because the young blogger/ideological liar combo was the last straw. Am I on the right track?

    4. Uppity conservatives.

      I don’t know Weigel from dirt. My first impression was from this issue. And it wasn’t good.

      Derek

  26. And still we wait for an apology to ratfuckers.

    1. Weigel won’t apologize to ratfuckers. He will “apologize if anyone was offended by the word ratfucker” and then explain that it’s completely unfair to him that anyone is offended.

      And then he will complain to his friends.

      1. You mean “And then he will complain to his large circle of friends.”

  27. “HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.”

    “Deep breath.”

    “HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHA.”

    1. What it is.

    2. +1

  28. Over here, a certain L*newack* has shown up in the comments to gloat and say:

    Things are a bit more complicated than most of his opponents can understand.

    To which someone responds:

    ‘more complicated than we can understand’? libtard talk.

    1. It makes me sad that no one told Lonewacko to shut the fuck up.

      1. Shut the fuck up, Warty.

  29. Weigel supported the health care bill? While I’m not a libertarian, that strikes me as a bit out of step with my conception of what libertarianism is.

    http://dailycaller.com/2010/06…..mocrats/3/

    (Link is to page three of a three-page article.)

    1. Do you fuckers ever read anything? Weigel didn’t even pretend to be any kind of libertarian when he worked here.

      1. Hey, sorry I’m a fucker. And sorry I haven’t followed every damn thread of your little soap opera.

        Jeez, I’m sympathetic to you guys and the first time I chime in I’m a fucker.

        Won’t make that mistake again. Good luck enlarging your movement if this is any way typical.

        Sincerely,

        Fucker

        1. I was addressing ALL the people who assume Weigel is some sort of libertarian because he wrote for this website/magazine. He was a reporter here not a “libertarian opinion journalist”.
          Sorry fucker you just came along after a whole string of ’em with the same assumption.I didn’t realize you were unfamiliar with Weigel’s work.

          1. Fucker sez:

            I’ve read enough stuff of Weigel’s and Reason to know he wasn’t a libertarian or conservative. I posted because I hadn’t seen his embrace of socialist health care highlighted anywhere else and thought this would be a good forum. I thought it was worth mentioning. Oops.

            –Fucker

      2. You know, SIV, we libertarians are more than obnoxious enough to run off our share of potential allies without a Republican like you doing it for us.

        Mark my curses be,
        May the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea make a meal out of thee.

  30. Drudge got Weigel shitcanned without so much as a “flash”? Just links?

    It’s probably good I don’t have that power.

    1. los links!

    2. Never pick a fight with a man who measures daily page views in the millions.

    3. Drudge got Weigel shitcanned without so much as a “flash”? Just links?

      Weigel did the freak out all by himself.

      The correct response he should have made was “Haha, drudge got me…next time i will make sure my verbs are politically correct”

      Instead David freaked the fuck out and got himself fired. The freak out was his fault and if something so small as pointing out the use of the word “hug” puts him into a conniption fit it is not the fault of Drudge.

  31. Unlike Ken, I didn’t find Weigel’s work interesting enough to care much one way or another. Something about him, though, seemed to annoy some of the usual H&R folks.

    Now, if someone had shivved Balko, that would piss me off. The guy is the Picasso of law enforcement goat fucks.

    As for Weigel… if you are willing to work at the Post, what do you really deserve?

    1. I’d expect a hand-job from William Raspberry.

    2. The question the Washington Post should be asking themselves is why they picked Weigel in the first place…

      I have my faves in the libertarian blogosphere, but there’s only one person who’s ever participated in all of that and just didn’t seem like he was capable of “getting” what we’re about. …and they hired him to explain it all to them?!

      ?

      1. Weigel was hired to explain conservatives at WaPo readers not to explain Libertarians.

        1. You mean the “rat-fuckers”?

          He was hired to explain the “rat-fuckers’ to Washington Post readers?

          Do you see a pattern here?

    3. I’d gladly take one from Sally Quinn (the old gal still looked hot the last time I saw her), but Raspberry? He might sound yummy ’cause his name reminds you of berries, but I bet he sweats a lot.

    4. What, Weigel should never have taken the WaPo job? I disagree. Frankly, the thought of libertarians writing for WaPo or the New York Times or Fox News (as Radley Balko did before they stopped running columnists altogether) is actually better than those same people writing for Reason. The overwhelming majority of Reason readers are already in favor of personal freedom and small government, so even the most eloquently written defense of the individual won’t likely change anybody’s mind if it’s published here. But that same piece in WaPo or NYT or Fox does have the potential to change a few minds.

      1. I am not so sure Weigel is a libertarian. I think Weigel is simply Weigel and he would probably agree with me on this.

        Anyway that is what I have gotten from reading his stuff over the years.

      2. Well, if I ever see Reason pushing Obamacare like Weigel, I’ll be sure to never read them ever again.

        Your assumption is that Weigel was somehow “in favor or personal freedom and small government.” From what I can tell, he was anything but pro-liberty, and his employment at WaPo was more of a token lackey to make a particular brand of leftist statism look good. His method of choice was selectively mocking a fringe of the Tea Party movement. Given the political orientation that Weigel claimed he had, this is odd considering how a great deal of those people actually do hold libertarian-leaning views on the issues of the day.

        I’ll rather have the libertarians here at the less-read Reason than having the “libertarian” label caricatured by creating a straw man reporter at the Times or WaPo.

        1. Drink.

          1. From what I can tell, he was anything but pro-liberty, and his employment at WaPo was more of a token lackey to make a particular brand of leftist statism look good.

            Skoal!

      3. Personally, I’d love to see some evidence tending to indicate that Wiegel is a libertarian, let alone one capable of coming up with an eloquent written defense of the individual. He’s always struck me as having both feet firmly planted somewhere left of center, who nevertheless finds it useful to electroplate himself with a libertarian veneer by way of cultivating a certain “right-wing insider” cred among lefties lacking functional bullshit-o-meters.

        Let me put it this way: the revelation that Wiegel is a Journolister/Juiceboxer is perhaps the least surprising news since it broke that Michael Jackson used prescription skin bleaching cream.

  32. We’ll have more here later; consider this the “WEIGEL THREAD” that you have been demanding since the wee small hours.

    I never demanded a “WEIGEL THREAD”.
    I just appropriated other threads starting yesterday evening. Figures you’d start one when I was off doing something else. Anyone at Reason asked ol’ Dave how he’s liking that rat cock?

    1. I’m wondering if he talked this way around the Reason staff during his tenure at Reason. And if he didn’t, was he hiding his real feelings, or has his philosophy changed since he left Reason?

      1. Whenever I’ve been here, Weigel has always hard to pin down. I think around 2005 or so I decided he was just a troll, a moderate-statist, here to rile up the libertarian set. I never however got the impression that he hated the Right, including the libertarian Right.

        Well… now we know. I suppose it should have been obvious; one doesn’t troll a board of people one likes.

        1. Whenever I’ve been here, Weigel has always hard to pin down.

          In much the same manner as Andrew Sullivan or Arianna Huffington, I suppose.

        2. Weigel = Tony?

  33. good luck dave. that’s a tough break. I’ve always enjoyed your work. and here’s to landing on your feet!
    respectfully,
    VM

  34. I used to enjoy his live blogging of the debates on here. But I will never understand why they hired HIM to cover the conservative movement.

    1. Journalism has gone to shit. I throw up a little when I see what has happened to The Atlantic.

      1. Throw up a little more. They just hired Linda “Fishy Emails” Douglass, fresh from her gig in the White House pitching ObamaCare to the clueless millions.

        1. Huh, speaking of reporting fishy emails…

  35. This weeks lesson?

    Don’t talk copious amounts of shit and expect to keep your job if you are in the public eye.

    1. Next week’s lesson?

      punctuation

    2. Another lesson: E-mails to groups of 200 people are NOT private.

  36. Oh, as for the apology, here’s my suggestion, “Like most people on the planet, when I suggested Matt Drudge should go full frontal Quang Duc, I was talking squarely out of my ass. I don’t think world class fucktards like Drudge should kill themselves nor do I think other should murder them in cold blood–even if their home address is readily available on the Internet and the key to his front door is hidden under the potted plant on the porch. I’m sorry some idiots think I should resign over this. I’m sorry I was stupid enough to write anything down on the fucking Internet and expect it to be confidential. And I’m sorry those sorry bastards at H&R get to play “Deliverance” with my reputation for the next week.

    1. That sounds like the sort of thing he wants to say (although you forgot that vital element of rodent-coitus). Mind you, if he says it, he’ll end up showing himself to be even more of a squealin’ pig.

  37. Screams down stairs: “Hey ma, put two extra spoons of Nestle in my chocolate milk before you bring it up!”

    Sets back with his feet up, reading WaPo blog posts cursing his name, thinks to himself, ‘It’s good to be king.’

  38. I read lots of people I disagree with a lot more than Weigel, but none who have the ability to come off with as much smugness and as little self-consciousness.

    Ask yourself this – is anything Weigel said on the private list surprising? Now, if you found out that Radley Balko had said the same things about police unions or law-and-order types, would you be surprised? I certainly would. And the latter deserve far more opprobrium than the former.

    There’s a difference between strenuous disagreement (ok) and outright, venomous contempt, and Weigel crossed it. Most of the defenses of him I’ve seen have come from people who know him personally, and I’m sure he’s fun to hang out with. But for those of us who run in different circles, do non-beltway things for a living, and have never met him, he comes across as a screaming douchebag. Sorry if that offends any of his friends reading this, but maybe you should pass that along so he can tone it down.

  39. I think it’s a damn shame. But, Dave will be fine. This is a big learning experience and big time columnists will sympathize with him if they have any heart or brains. He’ll find a new job, he just won’t be talking to a doctrinaire libertarian or conservative audience. Hopefully he can move forward like Chistopher Hitchens in spite of assholes on both sides yammering and grumbling. I, for one, respect David Weigel for his independence.

    Also, wishing that more people realized that he isn’t always a pure libertarian is different than wishing that he would lose his job. Plus, Drudge Report does suck, lots of Tea Partiers are backwards dumbasses while Rand Paul does deserve to be defended. What is wrong with someone saying that? What is even wrong with someone who says that arguing for HC reform? Who cares? It’s fun to have variety.

    1. I don’t wish him death or long-term unemployment, but my sympathy is limited because I feel he and the WaPo were less than honest in their representation of him.

      His job seemed to be to report on the “Right” (including much of the libertarian-leaning world) in the most negative way possible. Whether that was by design of his employer or of his own design, I can’t claim to know.

    2. big time columnists will sympathize with him if they have any heart or brains

      Oops.

    3. Independence? How is being a flak fro the Democrats independent? Spinning stories to make them look better?

      It’s not him insulting people privately that’s the problem, it’s him spinning stories to make Democrats look good. (and admitting to it).

    4. I, for one, respect David Weigel for his independence.

      Opportunism != independence.

  40. Good riddance shill boy

  41. The funniest bit was when he asked the other reporters on JournoList to boycott the Washington Examiner because they had a gossip piece mentioning that he danced a lot at the McArdle/Suderman wedding.

    I am Weigel! And I will not be mocked, ratfucker!

  42. Unlike the anonymous coward who outed him — and also unlike many commenters criticizing him here — Weigel had the balls to put his actual fucking name on his opinions. Many of the people criticizing him here don’t even have the courage to attach their comments to a throwaway web-based e-mail.

    And being an easily identifiable professional writer, expected to meet deadlines and space limitations and all that, is a hell of a lot harder than posting off-the-cuff comments anonymously on Hit and Run.

    P.S. to the guy who outed him, if you’re reading this: Dude, at least have the courage to announce who you are. As things stand now, my neighbor’s brain-damaged kitten is less of a pussy than you.

    1. Many of the people criticizing him here don’t even have the courage to attach their comments to a throwaway web-based e-mail.

      That takes courage? What the fuck ever. Try getting thrown out of a professional organization for not going along with their bullshit.

      The first post I made here, I posted the address I mostly used for my business, only to have someone I hated (fortunately no longer around), e-mail me several times trying to debate. I have better things to do with that address than to update the spam filter every few days.

    2. Jennifer, while I still appreciate your vote you have to stay with the program .We can’t have our young progressive journalists, second tier like David, or fifth tier like you, straying from the reservation. I’m about to take a beating in the upcoming elections from the racists who ruined this country and America needs your help.These bitter clinger-ratfuckers enjoying their white privilege can’t be allowed to ruin our dream

      1. +1,000

    3. Sure, you could go after the guy who sold him out – he’s probably a douchebag too – but how about the idiot who put himself in a position to get fucked over?

      Weigel is a fucking blogger, he should know better than to trust 400 weasel journalists like himself not to pass along his juicy, bathroom quotes.

      And I say this liking his reporting. Clearly he works hard at it. But I’ve always thought the guy gave off an appearance of being a huge douchebag, and his little stunt a few weeks back in the comments section here pretty much sold me on that opinion. Hopefully the guy learns a lesson from this.

    4. Unlike the anonymous coward who outed him — and also unlike many commenters criticizing him here — Weigel had the balls to put his actual fucking name on his opinions.

      not really. the anonymous cowardpussy was the one who attached Dave Weigel’s fucking name to his actual fucking opinions for the public.

      1. ding ding ding.

        thinking weigel is somehow a victim in this is hilarious. the guy talked shit anonymously and then was called on it. oh woe is the noble weigel.

        1. “Anonymously?” He used his real name, in what was supposed to be a private forum, and then somebody craven revealed that to outsiders. I hope whoever did so is exposed; he or she is clearly a wholly untrustworthy and dishonorable person.

          1. a fucking journalist infiltrated our guild!

          2. So maybe this is a lesson in discretion. Look, if anything, the emails reveal that the hotshot political bloggers are just like you and me, and in a forum where they feel safe, they take petty shots at those they oppose using name-calling. Unfortunately for Dave, he misplaced his trust. I feel like this is one of the bedrock issues that made me realize I was a liberty-loving type of person. That is, look out for number 1 more than anything, and that the only person I can 100% take care of is myself. When Weigel sends emails to hundreds of fellow journalists describing the subjects of his mostly neutral columns as “ratfuckers,” he should either be certain that no one will betray his trust or be prepared for the consequences when the truth comes out. Clearly, Dave did not know everyone on the email list well enough to trust them. It’s his own fault for making this miscalculation. How many “be careful what you say on the internet,” stories do we need to hear? Anyways, I’m in the camp that says these emails reveal how hard Dave tries to fit in with the cool kids.

    5. Whatever – I agree the idiot that leaked it is childish, but in a world where HR departments routinely google names and search facebook it’s rational to want anonymous speech.

      1. plus infinity

    6. I think the constant inbreeding at the “other” Forum has fucked you brainless Jennifer.

      Weigel did this to himself. No need for a nefarious third person for you to blame.

      1. HA!

        “brainless” is actually the polite way of putting it.Most excruciating commenter ever…

    7. Unlike the anonymous coward who outed him — and also unlike many commenters criticizing him here — Weigel had the balls to put his actual fucking name on his opinions.

      Blog comments != WaPo columns.

      And being an easily identifiable professional writer, expected to meet deadlines and space limitations and all that, is a hell of a lot harder than posting off-the-cuff comments anonymously on Hit and Run.

      Nobody but you was suggesting that they were the same. Pro writers *want* bylines; blog commenters, not necessarily so.

      Tilt at windmills often?

    8. There’s nothing courageous about putting your own name to a statement to a group of like-minded people whom you expect to keep their mouths shut.

    9. Yeah, Jen, it is. And Weigel gets PAID for his work while the rest of us are tarting up the Reason page for free. It’s the difference between a job and a hobby. By the way, I don’t disagree that outing him was a chickenshit move… but posting on a forum and thinking it’s going to stay there is pure idiocy. And the guy who posted about the wedding danced is right. Lighten up, Dave. You want to be a public figure, someone is going to say you were doing farm animals at some wedding you never attended. White noise.

  43. Weigel has always been a bit rash, but this seems much ado about nothing.

    1. Did he resign or get fired?

      The idea that he freaked then freaked out again and resigned when he did not need to is not out of the question.

      1. The actual sequence appears to have been something of a last-minute farce: when the first (less-damning) story on FishbowlDC broke, Weigel preemptively submitted his resignation in what was internally viewed as a bit of a pompous flourish. His editor (Raju) reviewed the story and decided Weigel could stay on.

        THEN, when The Daily Caller went ahead with Round Two (the knockout blow, with the really toxic quotes) in the morning, Weigel’s editors called him in and said that they had changed their mind and would ACCEPT his resignation after all.

        So he was basically fired, but it was done by re-accepting a resignation that Weigel would have been better advised to not have offered.

  44. I’m trying to remember the first time he really got called out here for his shilldom (shillyness?). The earliest I’ve found (mostly because I remember it) is here.

  45. I guess my Spidy sense was right. He is a petty fucktard. If even half of the email content was real he still comes off as a petty shill. Which I think tended to come through in his writing.

  46. Well, I’m curious what readers of his WaPo blog think about it…

    All 4 of them?

    But seriously, I went over to his
    “Right Now” page, and none of the comments seem viewable.

    I sympathize to a degree. Something similar once happened to someone I care about. I think the lesson is, whatever you say on the intertubes can potentially come back to haunt you.

  47. From my perspective, the worst part wasn’t the petty insults but the fact that he didn’t really seem to like what it takes to do his job at the Post. As with the recent Murray mini-flap over his tiny NYT paycheck, there are tons of people who will do that stuff for free and like it.

  48. What mouth breather at WaPo wanted to get a conservative on the right wing beat and thought to themselves, “let’s ask Ezra Klein!”

    1. All you need to know about WaPo management, right there.

  49. This crack up makes Weigel’s various smear jobs on Ron Paul all the more nauseating. And his defence of the much lesser Paul is not an excuse. Some might not remember, but Weigel was the party responsible for breaking the big news of Ron’s racism during the 2008 primary. And initially, those “racist” newsletter remarks sounded very bad; however, when read in context, it was apparent that Weigel had pulled ‘gotcha’ quotes to imply an overt racism that simply wasn’t there. In other words, he was a progressive journalist doing what progressive journalists do: pulling racist rabbits out of sanctimonious magic hats. It was just sad to see this happen in a libertarian publication.

    I’m a bit surprised at the amount of support for Weigel on this site. It’s difficult to find sympathy given that A)homeboy looks like a walking prepschool and B) he is not very clever. Weigel’s resignation is akin to losing one’s job as a result of comprimising Facebook photos or Twitter posts. Only more pathetic, because he’s ostensibly an intellectual.

    I also won’t cry for anyone who lacks the fortitude to be direct in his opinion. Not even Keith Olbermann sinks so low as to air accusations of racism from the insulation of elitist cocktail forums. He does it on TV. In contrast, Weigel has always maintained a careful veneer of ambiguity, projecting his biases in subtle, nauseating undertones. He might call it nuance (liberals love to call things nuanced), but I call it yellow.

    So, Reason: will you please employ actual libertarians as opposed to effete DC cocktail groupies from now on? Or at least have your liberaltarians call us Paultards and racists directly? I’ll even let you keep Welch.

    1. KM-W seems to swill quite A LOT of drinks in DC while maintaining her libertarian cred

    2. So, Reason: will you please employ actual libertarians as opposed to effete DC cocktail groupies from now on?

      What – and alienate pretty much all of their subscribers?

    3. Why would you be surprised by the support for him here? This place is not really run by libertarians, but my Democrat-lites.

  50. Wasn’t Davie just here the other day, after dropping the hug-bomb and bragging about great his job was, and how wonderful and supportive his new circle of friends were?!

    1. Now they’re helping him box up his things.

  51. My response is “so what?” And Gilmore is right – don’t say shit online that you might be embarrassed, etc. by later.

    I will say that having a “private” listserve is just odd to me, especially amongst a bunch of opinion journalists.

    1. My guess is that the private listserve is for people who don’t have the option of inventing entirely new online personas for themselves every few months or so. For some people, Internet anonymity can be very liberating — you can, say, be a kickass ex-French Special Forces guy one month and a happily married wealthy Southern gentleman the next — but that option isn’t available to people whose jobs force them to take on some of the “fame” that is so easily attainable (whether you want it or not) in the age of the Internet.

      1. yes, it’s a sad day when journalists cannot safely get together and pretend to be partying French aristocrats like Kevin Bacon and Joe Pesci and Tommy Lee Jones in JFK

      2. That I understand. In the blogs related to my profession, I don’t hide my identity and my e-mail is available. I also keep most of my wackjob opinions low key on those sites as well. I made the mistake one time of mentioning on one of those message boards that I accidentally lighting up a shrimp tail in my bong years ago. That came back to bite me, though not in a significant way, but enough to be more circumspect.

        1. Pardon the bad grammar, I never eat dinner and blog at the same time, but this is an extra special Friday.

          1. Sure. You’ve just had a couple of hits of bad-ass prawn. Admit it.

            1. Prawn tail smoke makes unfiltered Camels seem like a tank of pure oxygen in comparison.

      3. And some of us just have a private persona which is exactly the same as our public persona.

        1. *Glances in the direction of Urkobold*

      4. This is Grand High Poobah Ezra Klein’s rationale for creating Journalist:

        I began Journolist in February of 2007. It was an idea born from disagreement. Weeks, or maybe months, earlier, I had criticized Time’s Joe Klein over some comments he made about the Iraq War. He e-mailed a long and searching reply, and the subsequent conversation was educational for us both. Taking the conversation out of the public eye made us less defensive, less interested in scoring points. I learned about his position, and why he held it, in ways that I wouldn’t have if our argument had remained in front of an audience.

        In other words, Journalist exists because Ezra Klein is a political hack in public who can’t explain his positions without engaging in petty point-scoring, and so is everyone else on the list. Seriously. No joke.

        I don’t respect anyone on the list. If your job is opinion journalism, you had damn well better be able to explain your opinions to your Democratic fellow travelers in public.

        1. Journolist. PIMF.

          1. BS – it’s easy to create and maintain an anonymous “avatar” and a public one – even if I choose not to do so.

        2. I don’t respect anyone on the list. If your job is opinion journalism, you had damn well better be able to explain your opinions to your Democratic fellow travelers in public.

          “Journolist” always kinda creeped me out…

  52. You’ll always be welcome on my set, Dave.

    1. But that might be a bit confusing. After all, we have the same haircut! LOL!

      1. No worries. I’ll be the one dressed as a man.

  53. This Journolist thing really worked out well for lefties, didn’t it?

    1. They got Obama elected didn’t they?

    2. I always like to be reminded of how stupid the left really is. And getting the magic negro elected didn’t turn wrong into right.

      1. And getting the magic negro elected didn’t turn wrong into right.

        In say 1970 it would not be that big a feat. They had a lock on the media back then. But they got the whole country to ignore the far left wing crony policies this guy has and the fact that he was mostly an empty suit. I agree getting Obama elected through subversion lies and crushing negative stories about him is a wrong, but what i am saying that it is an impressive feat.

        1. Getting a black guy elected president in 1970 wouldn’t be that big a feat? WTF?

        2. In 1970 it would have been really really difficult since I was only two years into my first term.

          Though you can be damn sure if Obama had run against me everyone would have known about his associates, real and imaginary. I took care of that punk Voorhis when I ran for Congress and then made sure everyone knew that bitch Helen Gahagan Douglas was a pinko to the left of Kruschev. Even she knew better than to hang out with terrorists.

        3. no argument there.

  54. Reading these comments has given me a distaste for journalists. Thank God and Al Gore for the internet.

  55. Maybe Reason editor Weigel can resurrect the Reason story about reporters who show their true political colors as soon as they become columnists.

    1. That was a great article too! Why couldn’t Weigel be *that writer* full time?

  56. Clearly, having Dave Weigel cover conservatives was like sending Robert Atkins to cover a confectioners’ convention.

    I think it’s likely both Weigel and Klein misrepresented Weigel to the WaPo powers-that-be. He wasn’t “covering” conservatives and their ideas, he was attacking them. He didn’t “balance” Ezra, he abetted him. This was already fairly clear from Twitter, but when these emails came out, the tenuous remains of the facade collapsed and fully revealed the ugliness beneath.

    Also, Ezra’s claims about Journolist’s intentions are self-serving BS. You don’t need a list to have a private conversation. The purpose of Journolist was to coordinate messaging, stifle dissent, and say the nasty things about lefties think but aren’t allowed to write in major publications.

    1. Hacks do need a private list to have a conversation. Otherwise they just go into high dudgeon and start excommunicating people right away. I guess the urge to purge couldn’t be held back forever, eh?

    2. Clearly, having Dave Weigel cover conservatives was like sending Robert Atkins to cover a confectioners’ convention.

      I kind of agree.

      It was like MTV sending Chris Rock to cover the 2000? 2004? Republican convention. It’s funny, and it gets laughs, but it’s not coverage.

  57. submission…..going down, down.

    so long weigel. now get a real job and hopefully your parents’ who paid for your schooling can throw you a bone or two ya piece of shit!

  58. Damn, i love your writing WEigal, hope to see you again soon. Now would be a good time for the powers that be at Reason to bring you back. It’d definitely get me to subscribe again.

    1. Virginia Postrel would never hire that sniveling POS back. If Matt does CANCEL MY FUCKING SUBSCRIPTION!!! For a magazine called Reason

      1. AFAIK he was never let go. I doubt he’ll become a regular contributor, though.

    2. Shut up, Weigel.

  59. Weigel’s exhortion on Journolist after Martha Coakley’s loss:

    “I think pointing out Coakley’s awfulness is vital, because it’s 1) true and 2) unreasonable panic about it is doing more damage to the Democrats.”

    So that’s what he wrote privately. Here’s his putatively objective account of the loss in the Atlantic:

    “In the debate over how Democrats could possibly lose the race–which has major repercussions for President Obama’s agenda–Coakley herself is taking more and more of the blame.”

    1. This is good stuff. I’m pitching a weigel if it’s not in the follow up.

  60. I’d like for someone who knows Weigel to tell me why he got so pissed about ehe item about him dancing at the McCardle-Suderman wedding.

    I just re-read the piece and I still don’t get it. There was nothing derogatory or insulting about it.

    1. Second. I found it mildly amusing, as I tend to sweat when dancing as well.

    2. The article in question: http://www.washingtonexaminer……33064.html

      1. Conservative movement blogger David Weigel for the Washington Post was spotted dancing by himself to swing music and 1980s jams at Megan McArdle and Peter Suderman’s wedding reception last weekend.

        Hmm. Perhaps he really is a libertarian.

        1. Damn! Our trolls are lame as Hell so that was unexpected (‘fraid I’m not familiar with your work) as that was pretty good. I felt it.

    3. Over 99% of Weigel’s reactions to all this never made any sense to me.

      I think he just freaked out.

  61. Bonjournolist!

    Ha, ha!

    Charlie (ducking)

  62. tonight, shots everyone! weigel is gone.

    celebrate good times, come on. it’s a celebration.

    just being as callous as weigel towards the “moronic” normal every day person.

  63. I think he did to. I don’t like Weigel’s writing. But outing him like that was real chicken shit stuff.

    When you send broadcast emails out to 400 people, you don’t own them anymore.

  64. Hardly surprising this faux libertarian (of which 96% of Reason staff is comprised of) is nothing more than another common libtard. I am always amazed how much time Reason’s current and former staff spend slamming the tea party from the sidelines. What is it they find so threatening about a bunch of common folk who don’t like big government policies? Every chance they can, Reason tears the “Tea Party Pages” out of MSNBC’s notebook and starts in with the cries of racism and laments their less than ivy league education(s).

    1. Then again, I’m also a faux libertarian myself by supporting Big Government Republicans who will never accept me and are only taking me and the Tea Party for a ride. I’m going to look like a chump when the GOP wins back control of Congress this fall and Obamacare never gets repealed.

      Did I mention that I’m an anti-intellectual moron to boot?

      1. And how original, hacking my name and reason “account” to post from the back of the statist conga line. You HAVE to believe I’m a “big government republican” as my point hits a lil’ too close to home apparently. This is the absolute best argument you are capable of?

        1. Evil Brad is an 18 year old fanboy.

        2. Yes, and by hacking your name we now have access to your mainframe. Enjoy life without an identity, man who used to be known as Brad!

          1. I’ll have to go back to using my true name, Rahm Emanuel.

    2. You must read a different Reason than I do. They’ve been very supportive of the tea party movement and have actively challenged charges of racism.

    3. The problem with the Tea party is that a movement of mostly partisan republicans. They care little about small government when it comes to foreign policy and civil liberties.

    4. To me, the dogmatic liberatarian purists are far more insufferable than Weigel. Go to fucking Tea Party gathering… they are a bunch of people I wouldn’t trust with a potato gun surrounded by a bunch of political opportunists looking for ways to cash in.

  65. It’s a real shame. Weigel was always so keen on fair play: http://daveweigel.com/?p=739

  66. Oh, and just found this on dailykos;

    “The Washington Post almost lucked out by hiring Dave Weigel. But by firing him today, they blew it.”

    (emails reason to cancel my subscription)

  67. Always nice to see the truth of how nasty these commie pinkos really are. I hated this faggot with a passion – I haven’t forgotten how he shilled for BHO and libeled Palin. Glad Reason is finally waking up to how worthless Obama is. Welcome to the Tea Party!

    1. TROLLLLLLLLLLL! I SEEEEEE A TROLLLLLLLL! Get my trident.

      1. Verily. Ray Charles could see that troll.

        And he – sadly (very) – is dead (verily).

        1. nice namecalling. guess you can’t really argue.

      2. No. Just politically incorrect. There’s a difference.

        1. Don’t you think it’s really fucking stupid to talk about how someone else is nasty by calling them a “faggot”?

          Seriously, die in a fire. Why don’t you just call him a nigger too?

          “See how hateful and nasty all these niggers are? I told you!” – miller

          1. fluffy,
            weigle IS a faggot, literally and otherwise. it explains a lot. go back to dailykos.

  68. Weigel’s always been somewhere between lefty and libertarian, as are plenty of other writers on Reason. (Balko described himself as such in an interview, and did you guys somehow miss Welch’s article on French health care?)

    Hell, if I were covering the political beat, I’d probably start rooting for the health care bill too out of spite considering the terrible Republican arguments against it. Instead of making sensible statements about individual mandates and pharma payoffs and the mixed incentives created by employment-based systems they screeched about DEATH PANELS and cried crocodile tears for the “fiscal responsibility” they suddenly rediscovered in 2009. Yeah, the bill was crap, but so is the status quo.

    The only comment of Weigel’s that bothered me was the second point about Coakley. I don’t see what’s so bad about the rest of it besides the fact that it’s impolitic. As if the other list members never said anything embarassing, gimme a break.

    In conclusion, WHAT A RATFUCK

    1. Ratfuck? I haven’t heard that term since the Nixon administration.

    2. What garbage. It doesn’t say “death panels” in there. But it will happen.

      1. Get out.

  69. Given the position of the Washington Post where it is commonly known that the purpose of this group was to hatch out a consistent day to day party line, why would you not fire everyone on your staff associated with it? You are paying journalist for their information, opinion and analyst as the supposed purpose of professional journalist, not to give a free outlet for a fifth column.

    I was reading an AP story several days ago, and as it studiously avoided glaring facts inconvenient to the left, I had to wonder if the writer was a member of this cabal. Given there are over two hundred members that likely was the case.

  70. I guess this is what people are referring to re: Weigel’s earlier comments here: https://reason.com/blog/2010/06…..tcontainer

    “Hug” is not the word I would have used (I’d use the word “grab” or some such), but it isn’t exactly something to get up in arms about either.

  71. I have a ratfucking new blog for all you ratfucking ratfuckers out there!

    And it wouldn’t have been possible without Dave!

  72. Why all the fuss about David Weigel?

    He is 1) not a libertarian, and 2) a lightweight.

  73. Scroll down to:

    Your Friday Picker-Upper

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/

    Is it just my dirty ass mind or did Jonah post an animated hand job on teh Nat Review!

    1. It’s your dirty ass mind.

      That animation doesn’t show that at all.

      It’s a video about how you shouldn’t sexually harass your masseuse. …which is really good advise if you’re traveling in the United States, actually.

    2. Excellent link BTW

  74. Is this really a revelation? It was pretty clear after the Ron Paul hit pieces that Wiegel was a uber-lefty.

    Why did Reason ever hire him?

    1. Since when does one have to be an uber-lefty to think Ron Paul’s a loony, doddering racist-enabler? (THE MOST GENEROUS VERSION of events has him twiddling his thumbs and not noticing gobs and gobs of disgusting shit coming out under his byline.) Yes, he’s mostly right on the war and on Presidential power, but so is Pat Buchanan.

  75. So who’s the leaker? Everybody’s mad at the leaker and talking about what bold and saucy knave the leaker is, but apparently nobody has bothered to find out who the leaker is.

    1. You on the list Cav?

    2. “So who’s the leaker?”

      It could have been anyone at this point.

      From someone hitting “reply all” to someone being out of the office and having it forwarded to an assistant…

      I’ve seen email forwarded back to me through way more than seven degrees…

      So the best answer is probably “Kevin Bacon”.

      1. Someone should stomp on a fax machine while demanding to know who the leaker was.

        God, I loved that movie.

        1. I suspect someone on the cleaning crew.
          Short Mexican woman. Maybe Guatemalan.

    3. My guess is someone with a personal, not political, vendetta.

      1. No. It’s either someone who wants his job or an old Wapo guy who hates the juice boxers. I say this primarily because of the proximity to the hug controversy.

    4. I think the leaker is doing God’s work in some of the sissiest neighborhood’s in America.

    5. What the fuck are you talking about? The leaker is not the issue here, Tim. We’re talking about drawing a line in the sand, Tim. Across this line, you DO NOT…

      Also, Tim, leaker is not the preferred nomenclature. Whistleblower, please.

  76. I mean, Weigel knows who he sent it to, so it probably wouldn’t have been so obvious as that.

  77. Man, I better see if I can expunge all my old postings from the Radiohead usenet forum. I said some very partisan things about how much I dislike Phish on there.

    1. Phish sucks.

      Even their Ben & Jerry’s sucks.

      1. Of course it sucks. It tastes like phish.

  78. I’d put the IT department at WaPo on the list too–you can’t type “ratfucker” in an email message that many times and not have it clog up an internal file somewhere. At a place like the Washington Post? You know they’re scanning everybody’s email for pr0n at least. If I was in IT, and “ratfucker” showed up that many times that regularly, I might send it in and say something to Human Resources. For all we know, they’re supposed to look out for stuff like that.

    1. I’ve had to explain to a couple of people that their e-mails would have gone through if only they had known that “cockroach” was one word.

      Maybe “Rat Fucker” would have been caught in the filter, but “ratfucker” not.

    2. I think you meant “You know they’re scanning everybody’s email for Tron at least.”

  79. Three funny things about this:

    Liberals thinking Weigel was a conservative in the first place.

    Conservatives thinking Weigel is a liberal now.

    Weigel, a libertarian, mocking supporters of the man who started the most successful pro-liberty movement in the last 30 years.

    1. The third funny thing should be that some libertarians thought that a Naderite socialist rat fucker like Weigel was one of them.

      1. I admit I was fooled, right up until the Palin nomination. That’s when his posts began to sharply veer left.

    2. Apparently he’s sold out just about everyone, hasn’t he?

      1. “Selling out” implies having something to start with. When it comes to Weigel’s honest convictions, it’s altogether possible that there never has been any there there.

  80. I’d defend him, but frankly, he’s awfully pale. And I wouldn’t want anyone to get the wrong idea, as if I was defending white privilege.

  81. I wish Weigel the best, but damn it, I’m still stymied by what is suppossed to be the joke in the headline.

    1. huh, it’s either fixed or my display was all bollocks up. Before it said ‘David Weigel resigns from ‘, which thinking about it, I was guessing was a riff on how many jobs Weigel has left in the last 3 years (reason, Economist, Washington Independent, and this latest WaPo tadwaffle)

  82. The sad part is I bet the only reason Weigel said such stupid things was to impress and remain in good standing with the Journolistards.

    1. That was the Althouse take. It bears considering.

      It would certainly make the whole thing sort of pathetically tragic: poor doofus tries to impress new friends with incendiary (ha!) remarks, gets fired instead.

  83. One suggested it “would be a vastly better world” if Webmeister Matt Drudge “decided to handle his emotional problems more responsibly, and set himself on fire.”

    This is ironic. Weigel could not control his emotions and ended up burning his own career to the ground because of it.

  84. Again, why all the fuss about David Weigel?

    Can someone, anyone show me that Weigel is anything but a total lightweight.

    Name one interesting thought or insight that Weigel ever had about anything.

    1. Dave who?

  85. I don’t know if anyone is picking up the vibe, but H&R is full of folks who think the only person who should be writing for Reason is them. Personally, if Reason was an ensemble of libertarian doctrinaires… it would bore the living shit out me.

    1. Jose Ortega y Gasset,

      I don’t know what everyone else is reacting to; some are probably reacting to his apparent ideology or lack thereof.

      But people cheer for Reason ’cause they believe in the cause. People cheer on Gillespie, Cavanaugh, Welch, Bailey, Balko, Sullum and the rest because we think they’re arguing for us…

      If you suddenly found out one of them thinks half of us are a bunch of “rat-fuckers”, that isn’t about ideology. A lot of those “rat-fuckers” were rootin’ for the guy at one time or another.

      It’s like the college quarterback makin’ it to the big leagues and denouncing the people of his home town as a bunch of inbred hillbillies on television.

      Were we always “rat-fuckers” to him?

      I suspect so. And that isn’t about ideology.

      1. +1 with a +1 upon that.

  86. Some of these comments are interesting, but I’d like to see a full blog piece on this. I mean, Weigel was also fired from Reason for general self-conscious nastiness and vendetta-driven journalism, right? What’s the story? C’mon, inquiring minds want to know!

    1. Where did you hear that he was fired?

      1. Grapevine, I guess. I thought it was common knowledge. Might be wrong. That’s why I’d like to hear from Reason.

  87. Weigel’s crime was analog thinking in a binary world.

    1. Weigel’s “crimes” were

      1) voting for Ron Paul in the Republican primary and voting for Barack Obama in the general election
      2) voting for Nader, Kerry, and Obama all while being a registered Republican (sorry, but after 10 years, why would he still be in that party besides giving him an “out”)
      3) Saying blatant falsehoods about “Republicans having no solutions of their own” only about 3 or 4 months ago. This was a key talking point of people like Klein that just didn’t jive with reality. Furthermore, his criticism was waaaaaay late in the game.
      4) Implicit support of Obamacare while claiming a “libertarian” mantle. No way you slice that, can it be construed as libertarian.
      5) An anthropological style of reporting the “right” as if they were baboons in mating rituals while an entirely different reporting style when reporting the “left”
      6) a subtle, yet insufferably swarmy writing style which mocked damn near everyone who didn’t agree with him because “they just wouldn’t get it”
      7) lying to the Post about his political orientation, saying he was a “conservative,” and would give a fair hearing to the Tea Party people, yet calling them “ratfuckers,” “white supremacists,” and “bigots” every chance he got
      8) having absolutely ZERO political principles that anyone could actually determine, but instead deliberately being all over the map as a defense mechanism.
      9) Writing inane articles cheering team red defeats but not doing the same for team blue

      There are many others as others here have stated.

      The guy voted (or would have) for Nader, Kerry, Obama, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and he supported the War in Iraq = No coherent principles.

      Weigel enjoyed being controversial. Now he got it. Really this Post thing is just a redux of what occurred earlier here at Reason when people realized he’d say one thing and do another.

      1. 5) An anthropological style of reporting the “right” as if they were baboons in mating rituals while an entirely different reporting style when reporting the “left”

        5b) He also chose stories that were immaterial yet shed the right in a bad light. During the election he posted story after story about birthers. Even though no Birther was running for election and one would have to live in a cabin in the woods of Idaho to not run into a crazy Obama supporter, plus even though Romney was at one point the front runner the only coverage we got here was that he was a Mormon and Mormons are bad or some such nonsense. The presidential election was Weigel’s beat for reason and it was a mirror image of the coverage on MSNBC. Terrible biased and agenda driven to get one guy elected.

        Anyway that is how I remember it. But it was 2 years ago and my political views have shifted somewhat since then.

  88. Weigeltard.

  89. In one of the other threads, I said I never really understood the deep anti-Weigel sentiments. Somebody, probably John, said it had to do with his incessant Bush-bashing.

    I thought the invasion of Iraq was stupid and wrongheaded (if not actually illegal) and it’s hard to imagine how anybody could despise GWB more than I do; maybe that’s why I never really got overly exercised at a lot of the stuff Weigel wrote here.

    And the “Conservative movement” is, in fact, full of crackpots and idiots. Just like the “Progressive movement”.

    1. Weigel was pro-Iraq war until popular opinion shifted.

      1. Seem to recall there were many writers at reason that were pro-Iraq and pro-Afghanistan war, which is why I stopped reading the magazine and this site and went over to lewrockwell.com for my libertarian info. I disagree with a lot on LRC, but not anything as fundamental as invading other countries and murdering their people.

    2. It’s important to note that John is not a libertarian, but rather a conservative. So I understand why he didn’t like Weigel when he was here. As for others on here, that is a good question.

  90. And another thing-

    I live a sheltered life, out here in the wilderness; I have no idea who most of the protagonists in this saga are, and I really couldn’t care less about their high-school-lunchroom mating rituals.

    The world (and America) would be much better off if they all self-immolated.

  91. Weigel = you are who we thought you were.

  92. weigel is a creature of habit. so him resigning or being fired, whatever, won’t stop his constant pursuit of getting attention/twitter followers.

    i hope at least last night that fat farthead took a good luck at his shirtless ugly body in the mirror and said what have i become?

    if we’re lucky maybe he’ll go into his garage and start his car. he would maybe be missed by 20 people.

    too soon?

    hahahahaahahaha
    hahahaha

    “still smiling”

    1. When he looks at us, he doesn’t see what we see when we look at each other.

      Why would he see what we see when he looks in the mirror?

  93. I always felt sort of positive toward Weigel, after he wrote my favourite comment of the 2008 election campaign:

    10:27: Huckabee and McCain fight about their big celebrity endorsements: “I’ll send Stallone to take care of Chuck Norris! How about that! Ha, ha!” I was expecting them to whip out their cocks and start jerking, but alas.

    But, whatever. The real question now is whether “Weigel” or “Wiegal” will be more popular on Twitter.

  94. The guy is disreputable.

    Your magazine is disreputable for publishing him.

  95. Dave Weigel did no more or no less than any other Washington Post reporter or any reporter on any given days. He said some things in private no worse than anyone else. The only thing different is that his emails became public– against his will– something that could happen to anyone.

    Weigel was young. He was a blogger. He had a non-traditional background. No matter that he is a great reporter. That is the kind of guy published at the Post.

    Who keeps their job at the Post and other places?

    Those who espoused the WMD lies of the Bush administration.

    Those who have plagiarized.

    http://www.cjr.org/regret_the_…..iarist.php

    And those who have engaged in unethical or sloppy journalism.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01027.html

    1. For me, it isn’t about whether he deserved to resign. …whatever that means.

      It’s about being thought a ratfucker. I always suspected he thought we were a bunch of ratfuckers. And this feels like confirmation of that.

      I’d like to say it isn’t personal. But if he thinks I’m a ratfucker, what am I supposed to say?

      …best wishes in all your future endeavors?

      Love,

      Ratfucker?

  96. Dave Weigel did no more or no less than any other Washington Post reporter or any reporter on any given days. He said some things in private no worse than anyone else. The only thing different is that his emails became public– against his will– something that could happen to anyone.

    Weigel was young. He was a blogger. He had a non-traditional background. No matter that he is a great reporter. That is the kind of guy published at the Post.

    Who keeps their job at the Post and other places?

    Those who espoused the WMD lies of the Bush administration.

    Those who have plagiarized.

    http://www.cjr.org/regret_the_…..iarist.php

    And those who have engaged in unethical or sloppy journalism.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01027.html

  97. I would just love to have Krugman outted publicly as an unabashed leftist and hyper partisan.

    Krugman outs himself with every column he writes.

    What you wrote above is like wishing for someone to “out” a gay man who routinely has public gay buttsecks and then publishes pictures of it on Facebook.

    NTTAWWT.

  98. As another 24 hours of pointless commentary winds down…

  99. 6.14.10 NEVER FORGET!!!

    David Weigel|6.14.10 @ 5:01PM|#

    Well, I really enjoyed the two and a half years I spent here, and I’m constantly confused as to why mentions of my name lead to a lot of schoolyard insults. I really can’t figure out why they do it — lack of fulfillment seems like a good enough theory. After all, I’m here, and they’re where I left them in 2008.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to return to my rewarding job and large circle of friends. I don’t know how my ego will ever recover…

    HAHAHA! David “Douchebag” Weigel you did it all to yourself.

    1. “I’m constantly confused as to why mentions of my name lead to a lot of schoolyard insults. I really can’t figure out why they do it — lack of fulfillment seems like a good enough theory. After all, I’m here, and they’re where I left them in 2008.”

      Maybe we sensed that we were all just rat-fuckers to you, Weigel.

      In Weigel-World, I bet all the rat-fuckers aren’t offended by being thought of that way–since they’re rat-fuckers.

      1. Maybe we sensed that we were all just rat-fuckers to you, Weigel.

        Did he ever call us rat-fuckers?

        I can see the dots just like you can but I am not going to be so quick to connect them.

        1. Well I wouldn’t chalk it up to a lack of fulfillment.

          …and I don’t feel bad being left behind by Weigel.

          And, yeah, I always suspected he thought I was a ratfucker…

          That’s a lotta dots.

  100. who gives a toss salad with mayo about weigel anyways. those on here defending weigel for being a sad ugly fat piece of shit should join the ranks of his family and subsidize his living and lifestyle.

    let him do himself in. if hell exists, hopefully his own personal hell is a crawl space. he is always erect and no pussy, just a bunch of rats.

    get at em’ weigel and fuck yourself some rats.

    hahahahahahah

    hahahahaaahaa

    “still smiling”

    hahahahaha

  101. Someone asked if Weigel = Tony

    I ask does Weigel = Joe.

    They did leave at about the same time.

    Did anyone ever confirm if Joe was a real life person? He did have a fairly complex back story so it might be a reach to question this.

    Anyway just working the “Weigel was a DNC plant” conspiracy theory.

    1. Joe == Killgore Trout @lgf

    2. For a while, I was wondering if Weigel was Dave W, but somebody shot a hole in that.

  102. But can you honestly say you’ve never said to a friend that you wish Paul Krugman or Nancy Pelosi would drop dead?

    I would not wish death upon Paul Krugman or Nancy Pelosi. However, if I outlive either of them and one day read their obituary, that particular day will almost certainly be a bit happier and more enjoyable than it otherwise would be.

    If that makes me a bad human being, so be it.

  103. I’ve always thought there was something deeply conflicted within a libertarian politician, ’cause how can a real libertarian want to be a politician?

    A real libertarian can want to be a politician. If they are of the minarchist flavor, they would vote against 90% of the bills. If they were of the anarchist flavor, they would vote against 99% of the bills.

    Neither sort of purist libertarian, of course, has any chance of getting elected to any office higher than, say, neighborhood board member.

    1. I hope you see the analogy I was tryin’ to make. …that just like someone who was running for office as a libertarian shouldn’t want to force his ideas on everyone else, neither should someone who understands his libertarian readers put such emphasis on what various politicians think and how important they are…

      Matt Welch wrote a whole book about a politician without doing that; sometimes it seemed like Weigel did that twice in a blog post on a regular basis.

      The idea that it doesn’t matter what any given politician thinks is a very libertarian idea, and part of what I’ve been trying to say is that I don’t think Weigel ever got his head around it.

      I meet a lot of people like that actually. It really didn’t matter what George W. Bush thought about any given issue, there was no way I was about to support him. To me, it doesn’t really matter what Obama or any other politician says or does either. It doesn’t matter what arguments they make or where they stand on any given issue…

      There’s what I think should be done, and I’m much more interested in what Welch or prolefeed thinks about that than I am in what some jackhole president or politician thinks. There’s what I think, and no politician or personality will ever change that…

      I think that makes makes me a libertarian, and like I said, in Weigel’s World, I think that makes me a rat-fucker.

      1. just like someone who was running for office as a libertarian shouldn’t want to force his ideas on everyone else

        I think I get what you’re saying. But here’s my response:

        You mean his or her idea about not wanting anybody to be allowed to initiate force upon them, including the people from the government?

        The whole point of getting elected to office is to get one’s ideas enacted into law.

        1. The idea that it doesn’t matter what any given politician thinks is a very libertarian idea

          You mean it didn’t matter what any given politician thought among the 60 Democrats in office before the election of Scott Brown?

          I’d say it fucking well mattered immensely what each and every one of those bastards thought. And I’d say caring about the consequences of those 60 people’s thought regarding health care legislation is very libertarian.

          1. The 60 Democrats in the U.S. Senate, natch …

      2. I’m much more interested in what Welch or prolefeed thinks about that than I am in what some jackhole president or politician thinks

        I ran for the State Senate in Hawaii a few years ago. I got 46% of the vote. I got beat by a hardcore statist who is responsible for some very unlibertarian laws, laws which I would have fought tooth and nail.

        I may run again in two years. I have a decent chance of winning. If that happens, what I think will have far more consequences than those thoughts of mine do right now.

        1. I care what they do, especially if what they’re doing hurts me, I care about it a great deal. But Barack Obama’s opinion on anything has no bearing on my opinion–at all.

          I’ve heard military people say they salute the uniform, not the officer in it, and I guess you could say that’s the way I feel about the president; it’s just that when I salute the president, I do it with my middle finger…

          My problem is with the office of the president–I really don’t care who’s in it. I was against the last president, and I’m against this president too. Some might be worse than others in their own way, but it doesn’t really matter who’s in the office or what they think.

          I am also of the opinion that things won’t get better because we elect better politicians, but politicians might limit the number and scale of things they attempt to do in response to voter apathy.

          …ever notice how easy it is to get things passed when people are scared? Voter apathy may be the best thing libertarians can reasonably hope for…

          And if you’re someone who thinks like me? Then the last thing you want to see is someone making politicians out like what they think is important. Because it isn’t.

          When the terrorist strikes, they’ll give the president whatever he wants. And when the market swoons, they squander $800 billion of the taxpayer’s future earnings to bail out Wall Street investors–I’ve seen ’em do it!

          When politicians do what we want them to do, it’s because they’re cowards. Marijuana legalization won’t pass because some group of politicians stood up for what was right–it’ll pass because public opinion has shifted in such a way that the politicians are too cowardly to stand in the way of legalization.

          In the meantime, who we vote for doesn’t matter. No one ran on giving the president a blank check on Iraq–but that’s what they voted for. No one ran on using tax payer money to bail out Wall Street investors–but that’s what they voted to do. It really doesn’t matter who I vote for or what any particular politician says or what their personality is all about.

          It’s all about us. We’re the solution to our own problems–political problems too. And once enough people figure that out, Congress will be filled with libertarian minded people like you.

          Aggrandizing politicians and their ideas and their personalities pulls the rug out from underneath that–it makes people think politicians are the solution to our problems. But they’re not. What they think doesn’t matter at all.

          It’s the opinions of the rat-fuckers in this thread that are really important. The rat-fuckers and their moms and dads and the people they talk to when they’re at lunch. It’s what they think–not what Obama or Palin or an Congressman thinks. I don’t think Weigel will ever understand that.

          1. I still think you are taking Weigel too personally, Ken. I don’t care if the chef hates me; I care about what’s on the plate. I’d rather hate Weigel and have him write something interesting than like the hell out of the and have him bore me to tears. In other words, I would have preferred Weigel as a ratfucker with some insights and some writing talent. He, like most of the rest of species, has far more ambition than actual talent.

  104. The guy was transparent and had nothing original to say. The fact that Reason ever hired the guy shows its not about advancing libertarianism, but about cash flow for connected politicos not cool enough for the Atlantic.

    1. Matt Welch says that he is going to have more to say in response to these revelations later on, and I think the only fair thing to do is to reserve judgment until we hear in more detail what it is that he has to say.

      Suffice it to say though that his eventual response and whether or not they fully cut ties with this professional liar will certainly speak volumes about the true nature of this journal.

  105. Unlike the anonymous coward who outed him — and also unlike many commenters criticizing him here — Weigel had the balls to put his actual fucking name on his opinions. Many of the people criticizing him here don’t even have the courage to attach their comments to a throwaway web-based e-mail.

    Hell, I attach my comments to an email address that has my actual last name in it, and I haven’t gotten more than a couple of emails back. And it’s not like I try to be conciliatory or even particularly nice here.

    So, I don’t think it really takes much courage to post such a link, or indicates a lack thereof to not post a link.

  106. #500 BITCHES!

    1. actually that was #499

  107. Consider this the “WEIGEL THREAD” that you have been demanding since the wee small hours

    I’m telling you, Matt, if you can come up with a way to fit Weigel, Sarah Palin, and Palestine into one post, you’ll be able to retire on the ad revenue.

    1. And the Civil War. Don’t forget the Civil War. That’ll bring out the real kooks.

    2. Have mercy on us.

    3. And religion… don’t forget religion.

  108. I am much impressed by the proceedings. After the hanging, drinks in my room, da?

  109. i don’t hate weigel because he has something for rat fucking and other rodent fornication. i hate weigel because he’s gay….and he’s fat. he’s a fat gay guy who wears eyeliner.

    1. He’s not gay, but he is a pagan. Which is kinda gay.

      1. Pagan? I thought he was Jewish.

      2. The pagans I know are all “do no harm” – does that sound like Weigel?

    1. Chris Kelly

      My first post on Dave Weigel (which, like all the others, was critical of him) was almost four years ago to the day. I’ve probably left close to two hundred comments on his entries at Reason, TWI, and the WaPo, all trying to discredit him. I can’t do that without help, but I didn’t get any. Where were the teaparty types all during the period from four years ago until just a few days ago? AWOL as usual.

      Guys! If only we’d given a hand to Lonewacko! This all could’ve been avoided!

      1. He should have asked Weigel tough questions & uploaded them to Youtube.

  110. All’s well that ends well.

  111. Welch, bring Dave back in the fold. I’ve always enjoyed his reporting, and I bet others do also. It’s not un-REASONable thing to do! Heck, I’d even renew my subscription.

    1. Please folks, wait till noon to have your first drink.

  112. Apparently, even the most devoted acoloytes of elitism can lose their seats at the Circus of Paternalistic Megalomania.

  113. Did he deconstruct his own text?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.