Comments on: Uh oh. Somebody cut the cake. I told them to wait for you, but they cut it anyway. There is still some left, though, if you hurry back.

By: newshutz

newshutz — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 22:07:36 +0000

“Just like the Republicans, only somewhat slightly less so”

Of course if you check out the republicans, they are saying they have to stop being just like the democrats, only somewhat less so.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:10:20 +0000

The cake is a lie!

By: rea

rea — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:38:58 +0000

. . . a tempest in a weak teapot, evidently . . .

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:01:29 +0000

Yglesias needs to get with the program: hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit is the new black, and we’re all gonna party like it’s 1993. If he keeps deviating from the “Just like the Republicans, only somewhat slightly less so” orthodoxy he’s not going to be invited to any more good parties.

By: nick s

nick s — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:49:51 +0000

You can never have too many Portal references.

Third Way has just ensured that it will be associated with this little incident (and thus will inspire the same reaction as ‘DLC’ in certain circles on the left) for the years to come. Nice work, peeps.

By: politicalfootball

politicalfootball — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:28:05 +0000

It’s interesting that the critique here is essentially operational – what Palmieri did was bad because it didn’t work. I’d propose that:

1 – Third Way wanted to throw it’s weight around and make sure that Yglesias understood that Third Way had enough pull to reach into his blog.
2 – Palmieri abetted this.
3 – Yglesias allowed this.
4 – Yglesias’s readers objected.

Of these events, No. 4 is the only one that seems unambiguously okay.

By: Tom West

Tom West — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:03:00 +0000

It’s a mistake in the sense of being massively counterproductive, since it drew 100,000 times as much attention to MY’s original comment than it would otherwise have received.

Externally, the comment was probably not a net plus. However, if it managed to stall some massive infighting, bad feelings, etc. inside the organizations, it was still a wise thing to do.

Egos are delicate, and way too many organizations that are nominally pointing in the same direction spend their time fighting each other rather than all pushing together because of past indiscretions.

By: liza

liza — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:00:21 +0000

you the whole brou-ha-ha debate just for that Portals reference.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:08:27 +0000

I think only a Congressperson, powerful lobbyist or high WH staffer would have the clout, the ego, and the stupidity to make this happen. Check out the names at Third Way.

By: SocraticGadfly

SocraticGadfly — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:54:43 +0000

I try to invoke the Stalin Corollary, rather than the original version of Godwin; jazzes things up a bit.

By: Aaron Swartz

Aaron Swartz — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:44:24 +0000

WTF? Who let GlaDOS into the Pentagon? Military contractors were bad enough! Jesus, people…

By: Steve LaBonne

Steve LaBonne — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:25:46 +0000

I’d say that when you attempt damage-control PR and it makes the damage a lot worse instead, then yeah, you deserve criticism. When on top of it you also call your star blogger’s editorial independence (as well your thinktank’s intellectual independence from Village groupthink and logrolling) into question by intruding yourself into his blog, that doesns’t exactly make it better. It’s not immoral or anything, just not very bright.

By: Watson Aname

Watson Aname — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:08:47 +0000

It’s also remarkably tone-deaf for someone in her position.

By: alkali

alkali — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:08:37 +0000

It’s a mistake in the sense of being massively counterproductive, since it drew 100,000 times as much attention to MY’s original comment than it would otherwise have received.

I don’t deny that it’s come in for a lot of criticism; the question is whether the criticism is really warranted.

By: Steve LaBonne

Steve LaBonne — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:06:10 +0000

I’m not even sure that this is a mistake.

It’s a mistake in the sense of being massively counterproductive, since it drew 100,000 times as much attention to MY’s original comment than it would otherwise have received.