IN RESPONSE TO A COMMENT BY TONY PIERCE following this post by Jeff Jarvis, I want to make the following disclaimer for the benefit of any readers who haven't been paying attention:
1. InstaPundit is not an unbiased news service. It consists entirely of my opinions and such links to factual items as I find interesting. Its whole purpose is as a vehicle for my biases, in fact. It is not unbiased and objective in any fashion, but rather is opinionated and slanted, much like other, more respectable, outlets such as The New York Times and TonyPierce.com.
2. I do, in fact, support the reelection of George W. Bush, for reasons that should be clear to long-term readers. While I'm not overjoyed with Bush (I'd prefer Lieberman/Cheney, or Cheney/Lieberman), I think that electing John F. Kerry at this juncture would be like electing the ugly bastard child of Jimmy Carter and Millard Fillmore -- in 1940. (I could be wrong, of course, and if Kerry should happen to be elected, I fervently hope to be proven so. But that's how it seems to me. I mean, Jesus, just look at the guy.)
3. If this bothers you, please sod off and go read Atrios or Kos.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Dierk Meierbachtol emails that the above comparison is unfair to Millard Fillmore. Sorry, Millard! (Maybe Bill Maher's take is better: "John Kerry is like a Frankenstein of other Democratic candidates that they have pieced together. He is a droning bore, like Al Gore. He is a Massachusetts liberal, like Dukakis. He is a policy wonk, like Jimmy... Jimmy Carter. Right. And he is a sap, sapling tree like Gore. They put all these together and made this one guy." Mostly, he's just a guy I find it impossible to imagine as an effective commander in chief, and that's what matters to me.)
Meanwhile, further down in the comments, Oliver Willis calls me "partisan." In the sense of supporting a candidate, sure, since I pretty much gave up on Kerry quite a while ago, but not in the sense of supporting a party regardless of candidate. I'm not, you know, a paid flack for one party like, say, Oliver, and part of my disgust with the Democrats stems from their stubborn unwillingness to be serious about the war, or to tolerate candidates who are. If the Democrats had put forth somebody decent on this front I'd likely have voted for him/her. But it's not as if I pretend not to have opinions. I think that Oliver mistakes a reluctance to engage in name-calling with a facade of above-the-fray I-have-no-opinions "nonpartisanship." But in fact, it's possible to have opinions, even strong ones, and to express them in a non-abusive fashion. That's probably easy to forget when you work for David Brock, but I hope that he'll grow out of this confusion, eventually.
MORE: Reader Holger Uhl emails:
Hey is your disclaimer copyrighted, or can I send it to my local newspaper? ;)
Every media outlet should have one like it:
[Put name of your prefered media outlet] is not an unbiased news service. It consists entirely of opinions and such links to factual items as we find interesting. Its whole purpose is as a vehicle for our biases, in fact. It is not unbiased and objective in any fashion, but rather is opinionated and slanted.
We do, in fact, support the [re ]election of [insert candidate], for reasons that should be clear to long-term readers.