website statistics

Archive for the 'Comment Sections' Category

Links, Context and Little Green Footballs

Published by William Beutler on January 23, 2010 in 9/11 Attacks, Blog Fights, Comment Sections, Internecine Battles, Rightosphere, Technology, Television, Terrorism and William Beutler. 3 Comments

The New York Times Sunday Magazine this weekend features a long article about the fallout between Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs fame and the rest of the anti-jihadist rightosphere. If nothing else it provides a solid overview for anyone who has noticed LGF’s change in focus over the past year, or read his November post “Why I Parted Ways With the Right” but didn’t remember too much about the controversy surrounding the presence of a representative from fringe Finnish political party Vlaams Belang at a 2007 Brussels conference that presaged it. You can get a good sense of the dispute by reading posts by Johnson and his enemies at Memeorandum; for context, I especially recommend Patterico and R.S. McCain.

But what interests me even more is the intellectual framework writer Jonathan Dee imposes on the proceedings. While there certainly appears to be a personal element involved for Johnson — one Dee apparently wasn’t quite able to crack — there is also the possibility that events occurred as they did because the Internet elevates the importance of links and the act of linking, opening the possibility for the forging of novel (and possibly false) relationships. On the Internet, the possibility of creating new contexts is limited only by any one person’s imagination. It’s impossible for me to say whether this is true in Johnson’s case, but Dee at least presents a persuasive case.

Key excerpts:

Whatever you think of him, Johnson is a smart man, a gifted synthesizer of information gathered by other people. But just as for anyone in his position, there is an inevitable limit to what he can learn about places, people, political organizations, etc., without actually encountering them. Instead of causes and effects, motivations and consequences, observation and behavior, his means of intellectual synthesis is, instead, the link: the indiscriminate connection established via search engine. …

Regardless of whether Johnson’s view of Vlaams Belang is correct, it is notable that the party is defined for him entirely by the trail it has left on the Internet. This isn’t necessarily unfair — a speech, say, given by Dewinter isn’t any more or less valuable as evidence of his political positions depending on whether you read it (or watch it) on a screen or listen to it in a crowd — but it does have a certain flattening effect in terms of time: that hypothetical speech exists on the Internet in exactly the same way whether it was delivered in 2007 or 1997.

Fans of Don DeLillo may recall the final pages of his 1997 novel “Underworld” (no relation to the graphic novels, film series nor English techno artists) where the characters Sister Edgar and J. Edgar Hoover are joined for eternity in cyberspace, “a single fluctuating impulse now, a piece of coded information. Everything is connected in the end.” Well, I did, anyway.

Meanwhile, Dee makes a secondary point that this blurring of context may contribute to a conflation of conflicting perceptions which one may find too often in online discourse:

Not only can the past never really be erased; it co-exists, in cyberspace, with the present, and an important type of context is destroyed. This is one reason that intellectual inflexibility has become such a hallmark of modern political discourse, and why, so often, no distinction is recognized between hypocrisy and changing your mind. …

The soundest conclusion seems to be that he has indeed changed his mind — less about issues (though there are a few, global warming chief among them, on which he will admit to having gradually reversed positions) than about the people with whom he is willing to share the stage, or, perhaps, about his willingness to share the stage at all. Not that changing your mind, even in today’s political environment, makes you into some kind of intellectual hero. People change their minds all the time, for all kinds of reasons.

I cannot say that is what is happening here — I’m certainly not about to be pulled into a discussion of Vlaams Belang. And while misreadings of intentions are not new to online discourse, I think there is a “flattening effect” or, to borrow a metaphor from television, “time-shifting” of opinion which can sometimes confuse more than enlighten. Such confusion may be innocent, but it is also open to exploitation. With no information online separated by more than a few clicks, anyone can choose their own context. And in the blogosphere, some choose contexts incompatible with others’ — even if only for the sake of argument.

Putting a CAP on Yglesias

Published by William Beutler on December 22, 2008 in Beltway media, Comment Sections, Daily Kos, Memeorandum, Netroots, Public policy, Think tanks, Tough Crowd and William Beutler. 11 Comments

It’s been awhile since there’s been a good, old fashioned “you can’t do that in the blogosphere” controversy, but this morning Memeorandum brings us one in the form of a public rebuke to nomadic Center for American Progress (CAP) blogger Matthew Yglesias by CAP interim chief executive Jennifer Palmieri. Not just that, but Palmieri commandeered Yglesias’ blog to do so. Here’s the full text:

A Special Note Re: Third Way

This is Jennifer Palmieri, acting CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Most readers know that the views expressed on Matt’s blog are his own and don’t always reflect the views of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Such is the case with regard to Matt’s comments about Third Way. Our institution has partnered with Third Way on a number of important projects – including a homeland security transition project – and have a great deal of respect for their critical thinking and excellent work product. They are key leaders in the progressive movement and we look forward to working with them in the future.

What had Yglesias written to deserve this treatment? Two days prior, this:

Third Way is a neat organization — I used to work across the hall from them. And they do a lot of clever messaging stuff that a lot of candidates find very useful. But their domestic policy agenda is hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit.

It shouldn’t take long to figure out what the reaction would be. And it took only three minutes for the first comment, by “The CAP Cleaning Staff”, to appear:

Maybe it’s just me, but this post is kind of creepy.

Around the blogosphere, reactions have been much the same. Lefty bloggers from the netroots and academia, such as Matt Stoller and Brad DeLong, rallied to his side. Markos Moulitsas, who has a few more institutional relationships than most, was somewhat muted in his response, the first line simply being:

The Center for American Progress should not make a habit of doing this.

And I concur. The post was, as Yglesias friend Julian Sanchez put it, profoundly tone deaf. It makes CAP look less like a think tank and more like a message machine (something that is true of most DC research institutions, but few let their guard slip so badly) and it will bring yet more scrutiny to Third Way [Update: About which, great comparison here].

Yet this is also exactly the way of things, as James Joyner matter-of-factly explans:

CAP employs Matt to write a blog for them and, contrary to the views of some commenters, it’s absurd to expect that they should simply let him post whatever he feels like posting. Institutions start blogs with the purpose of advancing their institutional agenda. Writing for CAP is different from writing for a general interest magazine or on one’s own space, both of which Matt did previously.

What’s more, left-leaning but independent-minded Brendan Nyhan had already imagined just this scenario, and does not believe this will be an isolated incident:

There’s no way that this sort of reaction won’t create a chilling effect on Yglesias. How could he not think twice about criticizing Third Way or other CAP partners in the future? It’s the reason we need smart bloggers like him at independent outlets like The Atlantic that won’t enforce a party line.

It’s already having an effect on his comment section. To be sure, Yglesias’ commenters have been irritatingly wry and weirdly intelligent for years, but in response to this throwaway joke post this morning…

Deep Thought

The fact that the weather has swung rapidly from unseasonably warm to incredibly cold conclusively debunks concerns about man-made climate change.

…this was the first comment:

Now we know Jennifer Palmieri’s views on the weather. Also Third Way’s official opinions.

Just remember, Matt Yglesias is no longer writing on this blog. It’s been hijacked by Palmieri, CEO of Center for American Progress. Sad, that.

This is really sad.

I don’t think I’d go that far. But it is a reminder that the blogosphere is still subject to constraints from the outside world.

The Most Comment-Spammed Blog in America

Published by William Beutler on November 2, 2008 in Comment Sections, E-mail, Metapost, SEO, Search engines, Seriously, Site Traffic, Spam, Technorati and William Beutler. 11 Comments

All irritation at being notified of new comment spam is equal, but the amusements to be found in some spams are more equal than others:

The last time I wrote about comment spam was in April, when I received maybe five to ten such submissions per week. In the final months of 2008 that number is up to something like five to ten per day. There’s no good reason why this should be — as you may have noticed, the second half of the year has been observably less bloggy than the first, and notwithstanding a few spiky links from big traffic-drivers, the daily visitor count has been at best unpromising. So why the surge?

My guess is that unsophisticated pliers of the trade have become a little more sophisticated, and so must be trying — and failing — more often and in greater numbers. I don’t think these are the Russo-Turkic schemers akin to Jonathan Franzen’s Gitanas Misevicius. Much of that, I believe, now defaults to spam filters.

Instead, these comments make it all the way to the moderation queue and seem to come from native English-speakers who have a website to promote, know a little bit about how search engines work, and aim to elevate the PageRank of their meager obsessions (or unwitting clients) in the sections of a blog they found on Google or Technorati. My blog, in fact.

And sometimes they come back. Earlier today, an algorithmic process denied a now-deleted comment access to my latest post, about the Phillips Foundation’s Journalism Fellowship Program. It went something like:

Grants to become a journalist, what’s next, grants to become a lawyer?

Not exactly a constructive comment, but snarky enough to wave through… except for the business e-mail account and URL of said business pasted into the address field. And the business? A Welsh company selling organic meat (a tautology, if you ask me) on the open Interwebs.

I hadn’t even noticed it until I received an angry e-mail from the bon mot’s possessive owner, someone whom I’d wager fits the above description. In the interests of unusually equal amusement, here’s the e-mail exchange in full:

In retrospect, I believe he was genuinely confused by the phrase “SEO strategy” — after all, if he wasn’t, he probably wouldn’t have left a comment in the first place.

P.S. And to my erstwhile correspondent: If you leave a comment this time, what the heck: I’ll give you one free non-piscatory fish out of the Akismet spam filter.

Update: In case you’re wondering, “I love reading Blog P.I. because…” is the default opening line if you start from the Contact page. And speaking of defaults, I wish WordPress wouldn’t promise that the “blog admin … will be able to restore it immediately.” I’ll decide when I’m able to restore it.

N.B. The title is a reference to DeLillo’s Most Photographed Barn in America. Beyond the explicit nod to “The Corrections”, I count at least three more literary references that I swear were not premeditated.

The Swift Boating of John McCain

Published by William Beutler on June 30, 2008 in 527s, Comment Sections, John McCain, White House '08 and William Beutler. 1 Comment

It’s an article of faith among among Democrats that John Kerry, a war hero, was unduly smeared by a group of fellow veterans who did not know him or his accomplishments. I took more a mixed view of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, finding some of their claims worthy of discussion (Kerry’s involvement with the Winter Soldier Investigation) and others unworthy (Kerry’s supposed “war crimes”). So I hesitate to use the phrase in the title, but I think it’s warranted.

Four years later, some on the left are doing the exact same thing to John McCain. The Politico has already taken note of two in particular. One is Gen. Wesley Clark, who is likely to get some major press coverage. Less likely to generate interest offline, but still likely to be influential, is this John Aravosis post:

Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?

It’s not “nice” to ask the question, but it’s actually a pretty good question. … A lot of people don’t know, however, that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity. Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain’s military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief? It’s not like McCain rose to the level of general or something. He’s a vet. We get it. But simply being a vet, as laudable as it is, doesn’t really tell you much about someone’s qualifications for being commander in chief.

One might think that Aravosis would think twice about taking this line of attack, considering his support for John Kerry in 2004. On the other hand, AMERICAblog spent most of that year trying to make President Bush sound like a deserter. And in fact, Aravosis has been pushing this McCain-is-not-a-war-hero line for awhile.

But let’s answer the points Aravosis avoids: McCain spent more than a half-decade as a prisoner of war. Significantly, he refused an offer of early release in 1968, remaining behind with his fellow POWs and denying the North Vietnamese a propaganda victory (McCain’s father was a four-star admiral leading the U.S. Pacific Command).

Meanwhile, Aravosis portrays John McCain as participating in a propaganda video as if McCain did so of his own volition, rather than being held captive. To the contrary, McCain often made trouble for his captors — cheering the bombing of the North with his fellow soldiers — and spent significant time in solitary confinement. I don’t refer people to Wikipedia as a matter of course, but these sections are very well-supported, and the bibliography is a credible one.

Meanwhile, based on the comments to Aravosis’ post, it sounds like McCain’s critics are likely to try pinning the 1967 USS Forrestal disaster on him as well. Oh, and there’s this lovely comment:

HOW ABOUT A LITTLE WATERBOARDING FOR THIS CLOWN

Meanwhile, Aravosis’ 2004 candidate was “merely a vet” who spent just four months in combat, gave time to slanders against his fellow soldiers and whose convictions on the Iraq war developed late, at best. But I don’t want to argue about John Kerry; that may be the point. In fact, Barack Obama’s lack of a military record is an unlikely plus: he grew up at a time when military service was neither obligated nor obligatory.

Aravosis’ post by itself is deliberately inflammatory and poorly reasoned. Alone, it wouldn’t demand a response. But with liberal 527s outspending their conservative counterparts, it will be very interesting to see how far Obama supporters pursue this line of attack in the coming weeks and months.

Everything in Moderation: A Closer Look at Comment Spam

Published by William Beutler on April 19, 2008 in Comment Sections, Google, Metapost, SEO, Sock puppets, Spam and William Beutler. 8 Comments

At my ever more occasionally updated personal blog, I’ve long published a series of posts called “Great Spams of the Internet” wherein I highlight a particularly amusing bit of e-mail spam and even the occasional e-mail interaction. Once when a 419 scammer tried to get me to call him on the telephone, I replied:

Regrettably, I was born with no mouth.

He was very understanding, writing back the next day:

thank you sir thank for your mail all is understood well i can question you just of the condition you gave any please kindly make a way we can both talk

At least I think he understood. In any case, this is the long way around getting to my real point.

As you may know, I run a blog here. As you can probably guess, I get my share of spam comments; most are caught by the Akismet plug-in for WordPress. But then, most are fully automated and advertise prescription drugs, gambling websites or sex acts that would probably boost my unique visitor counts if I mentioned them, but I don’t need that kind of traffic.

However, a small percentage of it manages to evade Akismet’s filters and find its way into my moderation queue. In some cases, they are only barely distinguishable from real comments. In some cases not listed here, I’ve approved comments that I am sure were intended only to improve the SEO of the website linked, but were interesting enough to allow through on their own merits.

Most are not, but this doesn’t mean they’re entirely without value. Some of them are clever, some are just amusing. I’ve been holding onto a few of them to discuss here, so let’s open up the queue, if for no other reason than now I can finally delete them:

Example spam comment received at Blog P.I.

Here, somebody is pushing what appears to be a YouTube clone, even using a joking nickname YouTube acquired once the site itself was acquired by Google. In fact, the site turns out to be a combination of Google’s input forms. Though the IP address indeed traces back to the United Kingdom, the author is not especially concerned with proper English spelling or punctuation. They also have no system for keeping track of which websites they have already hit, or they just don’t care. I’m leaning toward the latter.

Example spam comment received at Blog P.I.

Here is one that, at first glance, looks like a genuine comment: This was intended for a post that mentioned Ron Paul, just as the one above tried attaching itself to a post discussing Google and YouTube. But if you follow the link, it goes to a blog whose posts consist of only of one YouTube video and sometimes-relevant text copied from other websites — “scraped” as it’s called. And there’s a good reason why it sounds like a real comment: It was scraped from another comment from the same thread.

Example spam comment received at Blog P.I.

This one promotes yet another inscrutable blog, this time in a foreign language that I presume to be Turkish. I guess this because the IP address resolves to Izmir, Turkey. The one above resolves to Istanbul, Turkey. The two cities are not close by, so they are probably not the same person. But if Turkey is a hotbed of comment spam, that’s news to me.

Example spam comment received at Blog P.I.

Undoubtedly, this one is my favorite. Like the Wikipedia vandal whose edit summary consisted of “Blanked the page” or the panhandler who admits he needs the money for booze, “Sohbet” is admirably honest about his intentions. I might even consider throwing him a link, except that the website no longer exists — less than a month after he was trying to extract Google juice/build traffic for it. Also of note: the IP address resolves to Antalya, Turkey. Still, if Turkish comment spam is a known phenomenon, I can’t find any discussion about it.

Example spam comment received at Blog P.I.

Funny at first, but tedious. I get a lot of these, and it’s kind of similar to another common tactic I’ll get to in just a bit. Flattery will get you everywhere with some people, but not me. Also, the linked site is in Russian. Russian spam at least I am familiar with.

Example spam comment received at Blog P.I.

Better than YouTube! Quite a claim. Surprisingly, the website is well-designed, coherent and legitimate. For someone who just wanted to find videos related to a presidential or prospective VP candidate, it might actually be better than YouTube. So here we can start to draw a clear distinction: Some spam comment campaigns aim to promote fake websites that seek ad revenue or to promote another website. Others are spammy promotions for real websites; it’s very possible the creators of this website don’t know exactly what their SEO is up to. But I’m not particularly offended by this comment. It doesn’t add to the conversation so I won’t approve it, but it got the general subject matter of this website correct, it’s vaguely conversational, and it doesn’t represent itself as anything other than what it is: a pitch.

Example spam comment received at Blog P.I.

Lastly, this one I’m including not because it’s compelling, but because it’s so common. Also, because it represents the dishonest counterpoint to the previous example. Here, the commenter announces enthusiasm for the targeted website (in this case mine), then immediately starts pitching another website. Notice that his subject matter is completely off-base with what Blog P.I. is about. The targeted post — which I wrote in July, 2006 — included exactly one use of the word “wedding,” in a throwaway reference to New York Times announcements page thereof.

Predictably, the website being promoted is commercial in nature, but doesn’t offer anything for sale itself. What it does, though, is link to pages on a real wedding supply website, which presumably hired the spammer to boost their search engine ranking. A bit of rudimentary sleuthing reveals the SEO’s identity and company; he’s using his real name (which is something, I guess) and he didn’t even register the URL anonymously.

But I’m not going to single him out with a link or textual mention that could turn up in a search engine. He’s not doing anything illegal and, as noted above, similar practices are exceedingly common. I’ve been a critic of certain SEO practices, but I’m fascinated by also them, and clearly I think some tactics are better than others. The way I see it, if you’re going to do black hat SEO, why not do it with some style?

Also, the joke is on them: Every link in my comment section is automatically assigned a nofollow attribute.

Matt Stoller Fails to Consolidate the Netroots

Published by Not Paul Begala on January 31, 2008 in Barack Obama, Comment Sections, Democrats, Guest Bloggers, Netroots, Online Polling and Straw Polls. 2 Comments

[Note: It's been awhile since we've heard from Not Paul Begala, but he's back today, for at least one more post.]

Matt Stoller, on Edwards’ departure from the race:

It’s entirely unclear who the Edwards voters are going to turn to, but we do know that Clinton picked up no activist support in the blogosphere. Obama has fully consolidated the netroots, from last month when there was a split with Edwards. I expect to see internal pressure from heavily creative class dominated institutions who emerged from 1998-2006 to move into Obama’s camp.

To paraphrase Dan Akroyd: Stoller, you ignorant slut. Or at least, you misreader of Internet polls. While dKos straw polls have consistently shown big leads for Edwards and Obama, with shifts to Dodd and Richardson, the full survey results of MoveOn.org — a measure the netroots once used to figure out what blog readers looked like — was always very different, showing stronger support for Clinton and Kucinich, but not Dodd and Richardson.

MoveOn December 2007 poll

Stoller of all people should know, you can’t use a straw poll on one blog to claim the collective wisdom of the netroots. And it’s become all but tradition for the first comment on a Stoller post to call him out:

What does this mean?

“heavily creative class dominated institutions who emerged from 1998-2006 to move into Obama’s camp.

Sheesh, can you be more obtuse? Also, re-read your post. There was no split with Edwards, better re-write to be clear. That doesn’t mean Obama has “consolidated” the netroots at all. Let’s see what Edwards does re. an endorsement. Right now, he’s seeing how the two move forward on his issues. Clinton is better on health care than Obama, frankly.

This is hardly worth posting unless you are going to make a clear argument that we can discuss.

Epic fail.

Update: Yep. Hillary Clinton got nearly 30% support in MoveOn’s head-to-head poll, and just 11% from Daily Kos. They both favor Obama, but their memberships have different mindsets.

Who Was the First White House Blogger?

Published by William Beutler on August 6, 2007 in Comment Sections, Earned Media, Journalist Bloggers, MSM vs. Blogs and Urban Legends. 2 Comments

You know that HBO special where actor Robert Wuhl knocks down popular misconceptions about American history in a classroom setting? Well, that’s what we’re doing here, because of an assertion contained in this morning’s techPresdent Daily Digest. All right, hit the lights:

tP guest blogger Garrett M. Graff (the first blogger to get officially credentialed to cover the White House, by the way) argues that,

That’s enough, turn them back on.

I’m not surprised tP’s Micah Sifry believes that Graff was the first blogger credentialed to attend briefings at the White House. After all, Graff announced at the time that he’d been approved, got leading lights of the political and tech blogospheres to help write the legend, and subsequently proclaimed himself a figure of historical interest. Today, it’s the first thing he mentions in his speakers bureau listing.

It’s a good line. I can see why he ran with it.

The problem is, Graff was not the first accredited blogger at the White House. I know this because the real first blogger is my good friend and former colleague Eric Pfeiffer, then employed as a blogger by National Review Online. Pfeiffer sought and obtained credentials to cover the White House press briefings, and on March 1 he covered that morning’s gaggle with Scott McClellan in a post appropriately titled “Notes from the Gaggle.” Graff’s credentials weren’t approved until three days later.

This isn’t the first time I’ve brought this up — in fact, at the time I pointed it out to WashingtonPost.com’s Dan Froomkin, who followed up in a column some weeks later:

It has come to my attention that Garrett M. Graff, the much-celebrated “first blogger in the White House,” was, technically speaking, the “second blogger in the White House.” … Eric Pfeiffer, who writes the Beltway Buzz blog for National Review Online, blogged from the briefing room on March 1 … almost a full week before Graff made it in. Pfeiffer just didn’t make a big deal out of it.

That’s true enough — squeaky wheels get the grease, and self-promoters get the column inches. Yet others called foul at the time, arguing that professional status and a corporate-designed website disqualified one from being “a blogger”:

The “blogger” is Garrett M. Graff, a 23-year-old employee of a company called Mediabistro.com. His official title is “editor.” The “blog” is FishbowlDC, a site decorated with all the little corporate features sites like Yahoo have. A contact email address which doesn’t go to the “blogger.” A disclaimer. A copyright notice. A site map. The “blog” has no comments, and there are no trackbacks.

Froomkin also tried to draw a distinction between Pfeiffer working for a magazine vs. Graff working for a media site. I’m not sure I go in for these careful distinctions. They did the same kind of work for websites more alike than different, neither of which allowed for comments. So it makes for an interesting debate, but not too interesting, because that “credentialed” condition actually matters — neither were the first to report from the White House in blog format.

That distinction goes to non-journalist and non-Washingtonian Rex Hammock, a veteran of the technology and business blogosphere, who wrote about a private meeting with President Bush in February 2004 — more than a year before Pfeiffer (and was also covered by Froomkin). He wasn’t credentialed, but obviously some would say that qualifies him all the more.

I have no illusions that this post will retire the myth of Garrett Graff as the first blogger credentialed to the White House; it’s been repeated too many times in too many outlets in the past two years. I don’t know him personally and don’t wish him a lot of trouble over this. But at the same time, I don’t think it’s fair to keep crediting him with a milestone he didn’t reach first.

Mr. Robinson’s Neighborhood II: CFRed and the Globalist Conspiracy

Published by William Beutler on July 24, 2007 in 9/11 Attacks, Comment Sections, Conspiracy Theories, Fred Thompson, Libertarians, Republicans, Ron Paul, Sock puppets and White House '08. 24 Comments

Earlier this month, Blog P.I. tracked a multi-monikered Internet troll whose sole enjoyment in life appears to derive from supplying blog comment sections with underwhelming arguments against Fred Thompson (disclosure).

I promised then to look a little closer at the identity of this dedicated anti-Fredhead, and while I later thought I had thought the better of it, Christopher Caldwell’s piece in the most recent New York Times Magazine afforded me the opportunity to re-rethink that decision.

And so this post exists… in three interminable parts. I don’t often use the below-the-fold feature on WordPress, but this post won’t appeal to everyone, and I don’t want it to get in everyone’s way. But if you’re game, then follow me…

Continue reading ‘Mr. Robinson’s Neighborhood II: CFRed and the Globalist Conspiracy’

Mister Robinson’s Neighborhood, or: Hey, RepublicansAgainstFred! Why Don’t You Leave A Comment Here?

Published by William Beutler on July 10, 2007 in Comment Sections, Fred Thompson, Online Campaigns, Republicans and White House '08. 13 Comments

As my now-standard disclosure should make pretty clear, lately I’ve been keeping a close eye on Fred Thompson-related Internet discussion. And before that, I’d been writing plenty about overzealous online campaigns. Well, here the twain meet.

It’s one thing to offer relevant criticisms of a candidate (or potential candidate), but making things up out of whole cloth is an obvious sign of desperation. From what I’ve seen, some people are desperately afraid of no one so much as Fred. Which people? Savvy readers will be able to guess for themselves, but I’ll save my comments on that for later.

This post tracks the activities of one (I assume it’s just one) shape-shifting anti-Fredhead and the ridiculous lengths to which he (I assume it’s a he) has gone in recent weeks to attack Fred in many a comment section across the left- and rightosphere. Let’s dig in:

I can’t remember where I first noticed somebody named “Jim Robinson” going after Fred, but thanks to the Oracle of Mountain View, it was not difficult to track his hilariously ineffective mau-mauing across the blogosphere. Early on, he sounded like a Rudy fan:

This guy is a joke and delussional if he thinks people qill vote for him because they like Arthur Branch. He has absolutely no executive experience and is less qualified for the job than Barack Huessein Obama. Posted by: Jim Robinson | May 31, 2007 at 12:26 PM

This comment is a rarity not just for its expression of support for Giuliani, but also because it was posted at Gina Cobb’s website and hers only (the typos, as we shall see, were not a rarity). This next comment, on the other hand, found its way to at least three dozen comment sections, sometimes as Jim Robinson and sometimes as Thompson Truth File:

During his eight years in the Senate, Thompson won his free trade credentials with his votes to extend the president’s fast-track trade promotion authority and to approve permanent trading relations with China. One right-wing critic in a widely circulated internet column called Thompson a “neocon globalist” for his immigration, free trade, and foreign policy positions. Social conservatives are also likely to question Thompson’s “liberal” voting record on immigration. Although Thompson has recently written and spoken out about the need for strong border control, while in the Senate he voted to increase visas for skilled foreign workers and to increase permits for unskilled foreign farm workers. Overall, Americans for Better Immigration, an anti-immigration lobbying group, gives Thompson a career grade of C for his mixed voting record. Thompson will likely come under withering criticism from anti-immigrant candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), who mixes his social conservatism with a heavy dose of nationalism and anti-corporate populism. Posted by Thompson Truth File | June 11, 2007 4:26 PM

I particularly enjoy the bit about “one right-wing critic.” One assumes that the critic being quoted is either a figment of the author’s imagination or someone so fringey and insignifcant their name would provoke, at best, a quizzical look. Here our Mr. Robinson sounds more like a supporter of Rep. Tancredo — quite a leap for a recent Rudy-booster. Also weird is the detached, matter-of-fact nature of these statements, as if these are not the writer’s opinions, but perhaps you might be interested to know… know what? Fred is not an “anti-corporate populist”? Gee, that’s helpful.

Another comment, both too long and too slanderous to repeat here, was posted to a couple dozen different comment sections during the month of June — on conservative blogs such as Frank J’s IMAO and Steven Taylor’s PoliBlog, liberal blogs like Crooks and Liars and The Hollywood Liberal, even mainstream newspapers like the Denver Post and gossip site TMZ.com.

It may be a clue that “Jim Robinson” is almost surely stolen from Jim Robinson, the owner and operator of Free Republic. If you’re wondering, here’s what the real Jim Robinson thinks of Fred:

Unlike RudyMcRomney, Thompson/Hunter are not the media’s choice. Nor are they the Republican leadership’s choice. They’re the grassroots conservatives’ choice! Great concept, eh? … now that we have fine conservatives like Thompson, Hunter, Tancredo, et al, making solid progress … I’m starting to get optimistic about our chances.

Now, here’s “our” Jim at Michael van der Galien’s site, upon the news that Fred was (at the time) planning a trip to Israel:

Fred Thompson is going to Isreal to campaign for the US PResidency but cant be bothered with getting on the campaign trail and meeting actual US citizens. Thats rich. Sound like a globalist.

Oh Fred, you globalist, you! And see this from Wizbang Blue:

Thompson is a puppet of Karl Rove who is pushing an amnesty bill on a public that clearly doesnt want it. Why doesnt someone ask Thompson about his ties to Rove ans whether or not he supports theamnesty bill. So far Fred refuses to answer any questions and later this month he will be traveling to Isreal and London to campaign for the United States Presidency. Something very shady is going on and the people have a right to know who exactly Fred Thompson is. Posted by Jim Robinson | June 12, 2007 4:27 PM

What’s that? Fred, a supporter of the misbegotten “comprehensive” immigration bill? Now, that’s worse than wrong — that’s outright dishonest. Fred has been speaking out against the bill in radio and web commentaries and at speeches in Virginia and Connecticut — listen to Fred in his own words.

Meanwhile, our pseudonymous critic actually stepped up this line of attack. Shedding “Jim Robinson” and adopting “FredsForAmnesty” — this may be my favorite handle — he decided to invent a quote and push it as far across the blogosphere as possible. See this comment, deposited on at least two dozen blogs in late June, here from The Jawa Report:

“We can not deport 12 million illegal aliens.” Fred Thompson Posted by: FredsForAmnesty at June 20, 2007 05:45 PM

It’s easy to isolate because he spelled “cannot” as “can not.” Many people have said this, but Fred Thompson has not been among them.

Even more hilariously, this individual set up an account just to plant this made-up quote at lefty netroots homebase MyDD. Even better, a MyDD contributor actually told him where to go — indicating that this line of argument works on neither conservatives nor liberals. It’s almost too much.

And we haven’t even gotten to the other ridiculous nom-de-blog mentioned in the title, “RepublicansAgainstFred.” This moniker has been used at least three dozen times, on some of the most prominent blogs on the right. At Wizbang proper:

He is nothing more than a puppet of Roves and if he manages to fool the GOP primary voters into giving him the nomination, the GOP will get creamed in the general. If Fred Thompson wins the nomination, I will immediately go out and register as an independent. I can not in good conscience vote for a completly inept and dishonest candidate. There is too much at stake. Posted by RepublicansAgainstFred | June 19, 2007 1:49 PM

At Captain’s Quarters:

I dont care who endorses Freddie or comes out against him. I will never vote for Freddie. not in the primary and not in the general. He is a politcal HACK! Posted by: RepublicansAgainstFred at July 2, 2007 12:41 PM

My favorite among these coincided with Fred’s recent trip to London, which included a meeting with Lady Thatcher and a speech before a private (not public, like the schools) center-right think tank. Here’s what he posted to California Yankee:

Who the hell does this guy think he is going to London and making statements about foreign policy? Last time I checked he was only a private citizen and he cleary has no authority to do so. He is out of line. WAY out of line. Posted by: RepublicansAgainstFred | Tuesday, June 19, 2007 at 05:53 PM

Okay, now that’s just funny. And before I forget — RepublicanWomenAgainstFred? Definitely the same guy.

Anyway, I think I’ve made my point — some falsehood-spreading moron with way too much time on his hands has launched a comment-section crusade against Fred Thompson. If bloggers who have received his comments are interested in forwarding his IP address to me, I will gladly look into it further. It doesn’t really matter, though — the good news is that it doesn’t seem to be having any effect whatsoever. The bad news, such as it is, will be discussed in my next post.

In the meantime, feel free to suggest any additional instances of this laughable conspiracy of one in the comments.

Probably Elizabeth or: Comment Registration Makes Good Neighbors

Published by William Beutler on April 19, 2007 in Asymmetrical Media, Blogs vs. MSM, Comment Sections, Metapost and White House '08. 3 Comments

Since last week, D.G. Hall (née Joe Tobacco) of Cadillac Tight has been trying to nail down the identities of a couple of interesting commenters on his blog, who abruptly appeared this past week, then just as abruptly left. And you probably already know exactly who one of them is.

Elizabeth Edwards vs. Monty JohnsonThe saga begins with the AP story from last Wednesday, about Elizabeth Edwards’ feud (if it wasn’t one already, it was about to be) with Monty Johnson, a neighbor in Raleigh, North Carolina. Said by Mrs. Edwards to be a “rabid, rabid Republican” (albeit one with a “Go Rudy Giuliani 2008″ sign in his yard, so how much of an extremist could he really be?), Mr. Johnson had once “brought out a gun while chasing workers investigating a right of way near his property,” and maintains a “slummy” lot, to which Johnson replied, “I have to budget. I have to live within my means.”

If nothing else, it was an off-message moment for John Edwards’ campaign and for Elizabeth (or as we like to call her, EE) as well.

Hall noticed the story and posted an excerpt, “wondering” why the leftosphere hadn’t noticed this. On which post, of all people, EE (or someone purporting to be her) left a comment advancing her side of the story:

I don’t hate him. I don’t know him. He is not my neighbor. He invests in property near ours, which, I understand, is under contract for above $1.5M. He owns at least 15 different pieces of property … When workers were hooking up power in the area, the Duke Power folks complained that he had threatened them with a gun when they were in the power easement right-of-way at the street in front of his property … The Rudy sign is fine: it gives us a way to tell people where to turn.

Hall welcomed her to the site and asked for confirmation that she really said of Johnson, “I wouldn’t be nice to him, anyway.” The following morning, EE responded once more:

I would always be nice to someone. (I am a Southerner; we are nice to everyone and particularly nice to those with whom we disagree. And North Carolina is a pretty divided state politically, so we all get a lot of chances to practice that.) He had previously said I wasn’t nice to him. As far as I know, I have never laid eyes on him.

To which another commenter asked:

Ah, but Mrs. Edwards, the question was…Is the above quote accurate?

EE didn’t return, and as of Friday afternoon, that was that. Until yesterday, that is, when the same post received a comment from one Ronda Johnson, claiming to be the daughter of old man Johnson:

Thank you to Mrs. Edwards for her investigative reporting, but she is completely incorrect! It is actually quite scary to myself and the rest of my family that she has went so far as to investigate my father, Monty Johnson! Unfortunately, she is not up to date or accurate at all ! Again, the property on Ivey road sold several years ago in order to keep his current proprty across the street from her where he has lived since his grand daughter was born 9 years ago! He has never owned proprty on Union Grove Church Road, though his son does in his son’s name! The rest of the lot’s and acreage are located right across the street from her and mostly filled with mobile homes! As far as the incident that occurred with Duke Power, Monty was not in town and the sherriff was called and Duke Power made to leave because they were in the wrong! I know because the incident occurred with me! As for her being friendly, well I never seen that! I was volunteer coordinator for Emma,s class last year and couldn’t even get money for a pack of pansies donated by them or for any other project we asked for help or money on! I never even got a phone call returned! John attended 1 party for the teachers birthday and sat directly across from me and never spoke! Though he did maintain a smile the entire time, even while eating! I must say that the silky pony will be the prettiest president we’ve ever had, should he succeed! Elizabeth hasn’t been rich long enough to have rich friends and too long to have poor friends, so I guess the lonely sole will just investigate and pick on her neighbors!

There’s something curious about the fact that every single one of Ms. Johnson’s sentences ends with an exclamation point! It doesn’t exactly come across as a sign of sincerity! Nor does the “silky pony” reference! But you never know, maybe Ronda Johnson reads blogs! After all, Elizabeth Edwards does!

Plus, there is a Ronda Johnson listed (Google her name, or call their new 411 service) as living in Raleigh. Same h-less spelling, too. Hall tried calling it, but couldn’t get an answer.

Hall had also matched EE’s e-mail address to other plausible EE registrations, such as one at My Left Wing. The address (Hall says the account is bouncing now) is probablyElizabeth at johnedwards.com, perhaps mischievously, suggesting the user knew other blog readers would question its provenance. Plus, being a minor scholar of EE’s blogospheric participaticipation, I’d say it certainly sounds like her.

As Hall graciously notes in his wrap-up post, he contacted me and I lived up to the name of this blog by matching the IP addresses to the possible commenters’ probable locations. As he puts it:

1) The IP address for Ronda Johnson resolves to the correct geographical area, and the comment left here matches up nicely with a comment Ronda Johnson left at Bill Quick’s site on April 12th, when this story was breaking. I can’t imagine anyone running around the internet impersonating Mr. Johnson’s daughter, but there is always a possibility someone is doing so. Caveat emptor on this one. 2) The IP address for Elizabeth Edwards resolves to Orlando, FL, which isn’t consistent with Mrs. Edwards’ location. However, John Edwards was in Fort Myers, FL on April 15th (thanks again, William), so it’s entirely plausible that his wife could have been using an Orlando based dial-up ISP to leave those comments. Still, we can’t be sure, so Caveat emptor.

That sounds about right. Could be both, maybe even neither — but it’s probably at least one of them (EE), and someone who knows the other one (RJ). If all is as it seems, an AP story reporting some offhand comments fueled a lingering resentment between two neighboring families, subsequently breaking out into the comment section of an interested but uninvolved blogger.

Heck, they’re practically the Montagues and Capulets of the Research Triangle. Sort of not really. But just think of how it’ll play at the next PTA night.

Bonus observation! Fifteen years ago, there wasn’t a blogosphere to hash out neighborly disputes like this one. But they did have something arguably better.