home

TNR Has No Prestige To Salvage

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat May 30, 2009 at 12:56:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

John Cole takes a moment to laugh at Jon Chait's absurd defense of Jeffery Rosen and The New Republic. John does a nice job of it but really, is there even a point to all this anymore? Who trusts TNR on anything anymore? Who trusts Jeffery Rosen on judicial nominees? Given his track record (consider his strident defense of John Roberts) pretty much makes him someone to use as evidence of the opposite of what he argues, do we really need to debunk Rosen now?

TNR went around the bend long ago. It will take years of actual good work before we can even consider TNR and Jeffery Rosen as having any credibility at this point.

Speaking for me only

< When Will Tweety Have Liddy On Again? | Saturday Media thread: Diversity Wins Britain's Got Talent >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    TNR Has No Prestige To Salvage | 12 comments (12 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    And we know who drove TNR around that bend (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Sweet Sue on Sat May 30, 2009 at 02:03:06 PM EST
    Michael Kelly and Andrew Sullivan.

    Cole's piece was a professional smack down, ouch:) (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat May 30, 2009 at 04:23:06 PM EST


    Intolerance (2.00 / 0) (#1)
    by koshembos on Sat May 30, 2009 at 01:45:20 PM EST
    Left wing Intolerance is not justified anymore than the right wing one. There is no reason to foist TNR's history on Chait since he is a decent somewhat liberal journalist. TNR's, as any other organization, should be judged by its present and not his past. Furthermore, Chait is not automatically tainted by other journalists or editorial in TNR.

    As for Rosen, his treatment was not based on the merits but by the fact that he was negative about something you care about strongly. Jonathan Turley, whose reputation and standing in the legal community, also said that after reading Sotomayor's many written opinions that he is not impressed.

    Both opinions, Rosen and Turley, do not have to be taken by others, but disparaging their opinions is simple intolerance.

    There was no merit to Rosen's (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Anne on Sat May 30, 2009 at 02:07:02 PM EST
    article, and that's why it was criticized.  How does one find merit in an article that was built on unnamed sources, and in which Rosen admitted that while he hadn't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions, he was going to weigh in with his own opinions about her and about her qualifications?

    Rosen could have and should have done better if he wanted to be taken seriously; he chose to slap together a tabloid-style gossip piece instead and that's why he got his a$$ handed to him.

    Parent

    Is SCOTUSblog racist, too? (none / 0) (#4)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 30, 2009 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    Tom Goldstein, in July 2007 (emphasis mine):
    ... There is no reason to defer a Hispanic appointment with two highly qualified Hispanic women available. So the first seat will go to Sotomayor (to whom I now lean) or Wardlaw.

    The second seat will go to a recognized intellectual heavyweight. That means Garland, Kagan, Sullivan, or Wood. ...

    On the Light v. Heat beat, there's a useful update to Eric Posner's application of Choi/Gulati metrics, where Sotomayor fares substantially better than in Round 1 (though the reference set is much more limited).

    Was that statement racist? (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 30, 2009 at 02:45:48 PM EST
    Without question.

    Tom Goldstein is somehow immune from racism is yout thesis? You are is your thesis? I am is your thesis?

    None of is are Ron.

    That is MY thesis.  

    Parent

    Without question??? Axiomatically inarguable? (none / 0) (#8)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 30, 2009 at 08:01:57 PM EST
    I don't see anything racist in it.

    Is Sotomayor a heavyweight?

    Is she inarguably a heavyweight?

    And is racism conclusively the only reason anyone might even question the certainty that she is a heavyweight?

    Is Wardlaw also a heavyweight?  Inarguably?? And is racism the only possible explanation if anyone doubts it?
    a
    And wht principle distinguishes Al Hunt, who I'm told (against all prior history) IS a racist (if he is not simply an idiot), from Tom Goldstein, who merely publishes a racist statement?

    If we do not use words with care, we risk wearing them out.

    Parent

    Make the argument (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 30, 2009 at 08:09:41 PM EST
    when making the statement.

    rosen is certainly no heavyweight and neither is Turley. When I say that I do so from the position of having taken on their stupidity.

    This is not a johnny come lately position for me.

    I am not sure what heft Sotomayor has intellectually.

    Before I pronounce a view on it, and when I do, I will marshal my arguments for making the statement.

    I have argued that Scalia is rather slow for a SCOTUS justice and have argued why. You can look it up.

    I have argued why Roberts was an extreme ideologue when I opposed him for the SCOTUS. Some folks, maybe even you, argued otherwise.

    I think events have proven me right.

    That Rosen, Turley, Taylor and others would make the statement about Sotomayor without even trying to defend the argument when they would never ever do the same when a white male was involved is evidence of racism to me.

    What you find hard to understand in that is for you to explain.

    Parent

    WTF? (none / 0) (#10)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 30, 2009 at 10:28:01 PM EST
    Did you just assert that Rosen, Turley, Taylor, and others (Hunt? Goldstein?) would never venture such an opinion when a white male was involved?

    Is this view informed by evidence? Or simple prejudice?

    Why would you possibly make such a statement without trying to defend the argument?

    Parent

    That is precisely what I wrote (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 31, 2009 at 09:14:15 AM EST
    and I defy you to find even ONE example where they did.

    Good luck with that.

    Parent

    Can you find one example where they didn't? (none / 0) (#12)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:44:54 AM EST
    Our sample universe would consist of Rosen and Hunt commenting on Breyer (1994) ... the others not being progressive sympathizers and/or not being recognized pundits at the time ... and we'd have to agree that Breyer and Sotomayor presented similar profiles except for ethnicity and gender.

    You conclude too much from no evidence.

    Broadening the frame to include conservatives nominees ...

    As you might know, Rosen compared Alito's legal skills unfavorably to Roberts in 2004/2005, and attacked not his temperament but his honesty in 2005/2006.

    And do you recall the outcries over white males Haynsworth and Carswell's mediocrity, and Bork's temperament?

    Parent

    Missing link ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 30, 2009 at 02:31:48 PM EST
    to Posner's update

    Parent
    TNR Has No Prestige To Salvage | 12 comments (12 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment