Redstate

Although I don't have a link and forget if it was a typical news article, or an op-ed, but sometime since the weekend, the Philly Inquirer had made mention of your departure and linked it to differences at RedState, I believe.

I'll try to dig it up for you if I can.

While I personally think  you have every right to resign without giving your reasons it seems to me that you wish to have it both ways.  You want to be able to publicly state that you're resigning while remaining mum about the reasons.

I don't think you can do both.  You can either fade into the sunset or you can go out in a blaze of glory.  By publicly stating that you are resigning but with no public reason you are giving people room to speculate.  And generally people will speculate in ways that appeal to their biases.  

The only way you will crush the speculation is by stating why you resigned.  I'm not saying you should.  Honestly, I think that people will move on from this story on their own relatively quickly.  But if you really don't want that "meme" to spread then the only thing you can do is go public.

but I guess it wasn't as bad as I had remembered and didn't link it to your leaving RS. My mistake.

You'll need a Philly.com logon to see the whole thing.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/columnists/dick_polman/12554080.htm

It is eerie, but true: The 9/11 terrorist attacks occurred nearly nine months into President Bush's first term, and nature's devastating attack on New Orleans occurred at virtually the same point in his second term.

But that may prove to be the sole parallel. Every national disaster has political ramifications, and while 9/11 boosted Bush's commander-in-chief bona fides, the Gulf Coast crisis has the potential to drain more of his public support. That would be a grim prospect for a president who is seeking to craft a legacy.

These remarks, which appeared online the other day, frame Bush's challenge: "Fairly or not, his perceived engagement with the de facto loss of a major American city is now the single most important issue affecting his second-term agenda." However, Bush's initial response was "truly disastrous"; he "seems disengaged"; and that perception "may well represent a ripping away of the facade of the president-as-protector that won him reelection."

This was no liberal's lament. The author of those remarks was Josh Trevino, a noted conservative blogger at www.redstate.org. His remarks were quickly seconded on the site by others who had supported Bush - until the hurricane struck. ("I've had it," one correspondent said. "It's one thing to be politically tone deaf. It's another thing to be seen as completely divorced from reality.")

It's quite easy for me to limit the room for speculation by addressing what is not true.

That shuts me up!

If you choose to fight the fight go right ahead.  But as long as there is room to speculate people will speculate.  And the people who will make the wildest speculations are probably the people you agree with least.  Why?  Because they will try to further their own political agenda.  

Crazy Liberal Blog guy: "Josh Trevino left because he was sick of the lunatic Right Wing agenda pervasive at Red State".

Josh Trevino:"Absolutely untrue.  You have no idea what you are talking about"

CLBG:"Well why did you leave then?"

JT:"That is private information."

CLBG:"That proves that I was right since you won't admit the truth!!!"

The fact that you are being honest and the other doesn't have a clue is meaningless in this context.

Jerome Armstrong's partisanship outweighs his senses of decency and honesty...

Boo hoo, cry me a river.

But as you note, given that the interlocutor is crazy, it's a pointless exercise in any case.

We'll just clobber you at the polls. Again.

Oh, I know. 2006 will be the one. Just like 2002, when America was sick of Enron and Bush's crazyfascistcorporatistrightwing agenda. Or was that 2004?

Or 2008?

At least try to defend yourself. Even if you are unarmed.

A good guy, I'll have to give him a ring.

for this.

Why? You have that act down pat. And by the way, any evidence for your charge that Josh was thrown out? Or is this yet another instance when the "reality-based community" is revealed to be anything but?

Armstrong has the credibility of Daniel Onu who is currently emailing me from Nigeria asking for my bank account information to wire me large sums of money.

He's sending me money too.  It's a small world.

There are multiple ways to bow out of a weblog.  The most painless is just to stop writing there, leaving the occasional commenter to mutter, "I wonder where trevino went."  And it's not like you posted regularly here anyway, so it would've real easy just to fade out.  

You didn't do that.  

Though it wasn't front-paged, you went public in two places, announcing your resignation, severing editorship ties with a website you co-founded.  The obvious question on anyone's mind is why, and a vague sentence about "differences in vision and purpose" doesn't cut it.  I can make an educated guess, and I think I'd be pretty close, but many other readers will off by a long shot, especially the intolerant uncivil illiberal kind.  Rather than playing whack-a-mole with the Jeromes of the world, I suggest that it's better to get it out of the way now rather than leave people to think the worst, or the just plain wrong.  

If Redstate is the site it should be, we should be strong enough to handle some frank and forthright words about our direction and whatnot.  A little laundry-airing can be a good thing, and saying your piece may even move the environment closer to your side.  Or not.  In either case, I think it's worth doing it straight away.

I've never heard of him before, but where exactly did he do anything out of line?  How is he fishing for a scandal?  By asking you if Jerome's speculation is true?  Sounds like reporting integrity to me.

The guy writes a column called the 'Beltway Blogroll'.  Your departure from Redstate was very visible, as is your status in political blogging.  He would be incompetent if he didn't write about your departure.  He would also be incompetent if he didn't request, ever so politely, for you to give more detail around your decision to resign from Redstate.  Why must you assume that he wrote you that e-mail as a 'left-wing media fishing' expedition.  His actions make perfect sense regardless of his political leanings.

In this case, I'm not assuming. I know the intent here.

I'm not sure the intent is all that important here. Are some liberals and liberal blogs having fun with your departure and concocting various scenarios? Sure. But does that really matter? Not really.

For those of us who have enjoyed your commentary and leadership of this site - whether we agree or disagree with your positions - your departure is a disappointment, and more to the point, is mysterious.

And there is an element of "doth protest too much" going on here. There has now been an entire diary coming up on 20 posts that is discussing why you won't discuss the reasons for your departure. Perhaps if you allocated the same energy to explaining why you're leaving that you are complaining about what others are assuming are the reasons for explaining, your time would be better spetn.

Either explain your reasons for leaving in greater detail or stop talking about it altogether.

Moreover, with respect to the widespread assumptions (accurate or not) that you left because of disagreements with the editorial board and/or your criticism of Bush post-Katrina, it is not unreasonable for many people to conclude, as the saying goes, that "sometimes the simplest explanation is the best one."

You seem to hint at various reasons why you've left, but none to this point, do anything to contradict the simplest, most basic explanation for why you left: your Bush-bashing and editorial disagreements.

Again, I'm not saying this is why you left. You seem to suggest it is not, and I take you at your word.

But it seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too by refusing to explain why you left but then complaining and attacking those who make basic assumptions for lack of any evidence to the contrary.

kos took a shellacking on his own website when he tried to slam some of his own people anonymously and got caught?

If I remember correctly, kid oakland left dKurse in disgust.

You are fighting Lake Pontchatrain.

You have integrity wit and accomplishment. You are a natural target for media types to misrepresent.

Your fighting it will likely only confirm it in the bizarre processes that pass for 'thought' in their minds.

Seriously, do you want people to play 20 questions?  "Is your resignation bigger than a breadbox?"  If you don't want to discuss it then don't.  Coming on here and saying "I didn't say why I left and someone guessed wrong and now I'm mad" really just sounds like sour grapes.

How about this example of "having it both ways": you can't run a site to gain notoriety and then expect people to respect your privacy concerning a major decision about said site.

Good analogy--I get that email at least twice a year... What is it people say about the definition of insanity? When you keep doing something again and again, and expect a different result? Hmm...