First off, I just want top say that if William A.  Jacobson believes that exposing conservatives who commit adultery when, say, attending out-of-town conventions or legal conferences is wrong, I have no reason to question his sincerity, motivations, or  possibly overwhelming feelings of guilt  he might feel when he sits down to dinner with his family and they bow their heads in prayer to a, hopefully, forgiving God.

Bless Bill’s heart.

As for Ed Whelan: fuck him.

As if it wasn’t enough for him to have worked in Bush OLC which, if not marking him with the Sign of The Beast, at least earns him a 664, he pretty much publicly dicked himself over (ala Dan Collins)  on the internet. That isn’t to say that this wasn’t a teaching moment for Ed. He just applied the lesson to the wrong party.

Blevins desired to be unaccountable—irresponsible—for the views he set forth in the blogosphere.  He wanted to present one face to his family, friends, and colleagues and another to the blogosphere.  That’s understandable but hardly deserving of respect.

Although I find it hard to believe that Whelan’s family, colleagues, and friend were previously unaware of his anger issues and general dickishness, so maybe not.

On the 0ther hand, Whelan claims a win in this for his team, citing George Mason law professor Michael Krauss:

On the substantive debate between Blevins and Whelan, I think Whelan easily has the upper hand, but readers can decide this for themselves. On the propriety of hiding behind a pseudonym while sniping at a critic who is out in the open, I see no redeeming argument. I hope the South Texas tenure committee is watching and taking note.

As the Bushie’s say: Mission Accomplished.

(Added): I don’t want to write an additional post about this, but this comment from "John Hancock" defending Whelan and accusing publius of slander over at Washington Monthly is a work of genius wingnut Pretzel logic:

So you are quite sure that what publis said was demonstrably false?

I do not know who publis is.

In any event, yes. Publius claimed that Whelan "enjoys playing the role of know-nothing demagogue." Whether Publius is of the opinion that Whelan is "playing the role of know-nothing demagogue," Whelan has made clear by outing Publius that he does not "enjoy" it. That means Publius’s statements are demonstrably false. They constitute slander.

Posted by: John Hancock on June 7, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Yes. Another Q.E.D. Case closed. In your face. Suck it. moment.