It would be pretty silly to expect his "right-wing allies" to continue to be such when he attacks so many of them on such scurrilous grounds. I've only watched his feud with Stacy McCain, but that's enough for me.
It would be pretty silly to expect his "right-wing allies" to continue to be such when he attacks so many of them on such scurrilous grounds. I've only watched his feud with Stacy McCain, but that's enough for me.
Just because he's pro-science doesn't mean he's liberal per se.
(Disclaimer: I never read the comment threads on LGF, only his postings. The threads I saw were dreadful to me.)
He also has too many fixations that are characteristic of the Left/new style liberals for me to take that self-characterization very seriously.
"I've been telling people for a long time, if they wanted to listen, that I was a social liberal. I actually fought against being classified as a right-wing blog for a long time."
Read more at that link; that plus a little Google Fu shows that his issues with the "right-wing" go way beyond the "hateful religious right".
ADDED: Ah, here's his "Why I Parted Ways With The Right" essay (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35243_Why_I_Parted_W...). Very little of that has to do with "the hateful religious right" or even the GOP.
Seriously?
Or are you questioning my "as the jihadist threat receded"? In that case, I mean that it's receded in the minds of Americans due to a lack of successful attacks in the West or on Westerners (e.g. Bali). India, for example, has a rather different interpretation on that, and of course we in the US have seen at least three serious attacks in 2009, two successful (at that Arkansas recruiting center, Ft. Hood and of course the Knicker Bomber).