Um.  Whatever.

I will admit to not parsing Kirchick's post word for word, but the unmistakeable impression was that AFSCME was accusing McConnell of being a closeted gay.   Kirchick's absurd conclusion from this was that McCain should be applauded for not engaging in gay-baiting.  How a sane mind gets from point A to point B, I don't know.

However, it now appears clear that it was Kirchick who was smearing AFSCME by associating it with that weird handbill of no known origin.  Does this surprise anyone?  It surely doesn't surprise me.  

I am loathe to call for anyone to be fired for their opinions, however loathsome.  But this really is beyond the pale, and Kirchick's defense is worse than lame, right up there with the claim that Obama's use of the hoary "lipstick on a pig" metaphor was sexist.  Kirchick disgraces himself and he disgraces TNR.  His ideas are juvenile, at best, and he continually stoops to the low smear by association by association.  We learn nothing from him other than that he is an appalling person.  Time for this turd to be shown the door.  

What's all this about being"fair" Kirchick?   Are unions too ethnic for you?  Does "fairness require" you to use coded racism to attack the afscme?

King is absolutely right:  

The ad does not "quite clearly raise[] the allegation that Mitch McConnell was discharged from the military for homosexual conduct some 40 years ago." It seems to raise the issue obliquely. That's not to defend the ad, which is weird and unattractive -- who cares why he was discharged from the military forty years ago? -- and certainly not to defend the flier. But "quite clearly" implies that the claim is stated outright or is blatantly obvious from the context. This is not the case.

James, reread what you wrote:

"The ad quite clearly raises the allegation that Mitch McConnell was discharged from the military for homosexual conduct some 40 years ago. AFSCME thinks this is very important for the voters of Kentucky to understand. In case that advertisement is too subtle, take a look at this flyer, which allegedly has been circulated to 150,000 people in the state:"

This clearly, strongly suggests that the flyer is related to the AFSCME campaign. Words matter. In English more than most languages, the order in which words are used matters. In particular, pronouns inherit antecedents. Your switch from one sentence to the next from "that" ad you identify explicitly as AFSCME to "this" flyer whose authorship you don't identify carries the clear and necessary implication of AFSCME's authorship of the flyer.

Really, read aloud the following sentences:

"Melville thinks this is very important for readers to understand. In case that novel is too subtle, take a look at this short story, which allegedly has sold 150,000 copies:"

And then try to tell anyone else within earshot that the reader is not meant to understand that Melville is the author of both the novel and the short story. As a former editor who took great pride in mentoring young journalists, I urge you to seek meaningful editorial review of all of your work, including your blog posts. Whatever native talent you may have, the work you present here is on average badly written, badly reasoned, often dishonest in fundamental and disturbing ways, and of a standard I would not accept from a high-school reporter. The good news is that journalism is largely craft, and craft can be learned.

Oh, you never said directly that the flyer was circulated by AFSCME.  But Elizabeth Dole never said that Kay Hagen herself was godless.  It's the association that counts, and your association was (typically) sleazy.

I don't have anything substantive to add to this discussion I just want to say, Kirchick sucks.

Rhubarbs: you have way too much patience with this - I'll not resort to the expletive that is at the tip of my fingers, but "person" would give this cretin too much credit.

Unscrupulous, unethical, sneering, snarky, sarcastic, lazy - and, the worst crime of all, a terrible writer.

I get the feeling that he went to a third-rate law school - you know, one of those schools where they teach you that law is about being clever with words and leaving yourself an out if you are called on an incorrect citation.  I have seen more than one lawyer embarrassed in court not only by opposing counsel, but by judges ("Ah, I see.  Right." Is usually the deadly come back by the judge.).

He was forced to retract a similarly sleazy article a while back and then was sent to the dog house; he's been busy shitting in his own bed, it would seem, not learning anything at all.  TNR is in danger of landing itself in a lawsuit one of these days; they would do well to pay attention to this rogue "journalist".

It's unclear to me why Kirchick is still allowed to post on The Plank.  He's done some good work as a researcher/reported (the Ron Paul stuff was priceless), but at this point, the good seems to outweigh the bad.

Surely there should be someone keeping an eye on Mr. Kirchick before he posts.  He is damaging the reputation of The New Republic with the previous post and this non-apology apology.

Jamie, I have to say, you REALLY should have disclosed that the flyer was not affiliated with the union. Maybe I missed the fine print, but after reading your post I absolutely thought that the flyer and the ad were part of a coordinated effort by the same entity. The fact that they weren't casts an entirely different light on the radio ad. "Tell politician 'X' to be straight with constituency 'Y'" is hardly a novel phrase; you hear it all the time in campaigns.

I think the ad was dirty simply because it trades in the kind of sinister innuendo that Karl Rove will forever be identified with ("Why won't Senator Smith say whether or not he has ever molested his pet cat?"), but that's a far cry from the ad being "clear" gay-baiting.

An aside: How is this guy from AFSCME still your friend? I'd kick your ass...