Actually, the Economist didn't mention our names at all, but it was obvious whom they were talking about, at least in part. Writing about American reaction to the "No" vote on the EU Constitution in France, the Economist said:

Many conservatives broke their self-imposed embargo on French products to pop the champagne. The grand non didn't just mean the humiliation of Mr Chirac, the grand fromage in the Axis of Weasel. It meant the humiliation of a political class that has been a thorn in the side of America since the second world war. Right-wing blogs crowed about the imminent collapse of Eurosocialism. One even produced a map of the “red” parts of France that had voted “no”—and noted its similarity with the 2004 map of the “red” parts of America that had voted for Mr Bush.

It would be churlish to deny the White House some pleasure. But that does not mean following those conservative mapmakers all the way to their eccentric conclusions.

We were, of course, the ones with the red state/blue state map of France, although we were not the "mapmakers"--we stole it from Le Monde. But read my post: where does the Economist find "crowing about the imminent collapse of Eurosocialism" or "eccentric conclusions"? What we did do was provide links to foreign press coverage and as nuanced a discussion of the reasons for the vote breakdown as I've seen anywhere, for example here and here. Once again, no crowing about the "imminent collapse of Eurosocialism" and certainly no "eccentric conclusions" about the meaning of the French election.

We expect this kind of mischaracterization from some of the lefty blogs, but it's sad to see it coming from the Economist.

UPDATE: I wasn't kidding about people who misspell our names. Via InstaPundit.

Posted by John at 04:27 PM  |    |