Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

Second rate reporter says what?

If you are still in the GOP, you are an extremist.

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

I’m pretty sure there’s only one Jack Smith.

Let us savor the impending downfall of lawless scoundrels who richly deserve the trouble barreling their way.

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

People are complicated. Love is not.

Today’s GOP: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires

I did not have this on my fuck 2022 bingo card.

Yeah, with this crowd one never knows.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

Eh, that’s media spin. biden’s health is fine and he’s doing a good job.

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

Bark louder, little dog.

Republicans in disarray!

You are here: Home / Give Me A Break

Reader Interactions

22Comments

  1. 1.

    mark

    Can you imagine the campaign commercials now against Dean? I am assuming that the trial will take place during the campaign here, and Dean will have to defend himself for following a policy that WOULD HAVE KEPT SADDAM IN POWER. I acnnot stress that last point enough. DEAN SUPPORTED A POLICY KEEPING SADDAM IN POWER. And when all the evidence comes out at trial about Saddam’s regime, Dean will be very uncomfortable SUPPORTING A POLICY KEEPING SADDAM IN POWER.

  3. 3.

    Andrew Lazarus

    John, my take on the “Progessive Values” ad is that it would have been fair game for Bush to use in the general election. What I don’t like AT ALL is that

    1. the group behind it is essentially anonymous and

    2. to the extent we can figure out who it is, it’s Dean’s PRIMARY opponents. As such, it’s part of a scorched-earth tactic: if I can’t have the nomination, then I’ll give Bush ammo for the general election that will make it worthless for you, Dean. The probability that it will help Bush in the general election is far greater than the probability it will vault Gephardt (unlikely) or Kerry (near-impossible) into to nomination. If these candidates were sincere in their desire for a Democratic victory in 04, they wouldn’t be making the road steeper uphill. (Compare: lack of discipline in Senate Democrats.)

  4. 4.

    Kimmitt

    If Howard Dean had his way, the Taliban wouldn’t control swathes of Afghanistan and bin Laden wouldn’t still be at large. That knife cuts both ways.

  5. 5.

    Ricky

    On cue, Oliver does as you predicted in your last paragraph.

    It sure is a shame to see him having such a bad day to end a bad week.

  6. 6.

    Oliver

    You guys would want to ditch Republicans that acted like Democrats as well, why the double standard? Yeah, “I’m having a bad week”. Stop trying to read my mind, Ricky.

  7. 7.

    mark

    I just think that adding emphasis with all caps to the fact that DEAN’S POLICY WOULD HAVE KEPT SADDAM IN POWER is a good reminder. And watch for the commercials soon from his democratic opponents.

  8. 8.

    Terry

    One of the more surprising aspects to this nonsense was to see Talk Left signed on along with the true lefty flakes, such as atrios. I haven’t visited her site in upwards of a year, but she must have changed in that her site used to reflect a certain amount of grounding in liberal reality…not the nutcake looniness of the atrios of the world.

  9. 9.

    TonyV

    My most obvious objection to the ad is that it implicitly concedes that Bush is strong on foreign policy. I don’t believe that is the case, and I don’t believe any of the Democratic candidates, or their surrogates, should imply that.

  10. 10.

    Jaybird

    Well, it’s better than implying that he’s weak on foreign policy. If you want credibility in the commercial, anyway.

    The democrats would be better off either ignoring the topic as if it did not exist. Bringing it up begs the listener to compare Bush’s foreign policy to democrat X’s, and most voters seem to have preconceived notions about Bush’s strength when it comes to foreign policy.

    For some reason.

  11. 11.

    Kimmitt

    I think that the fact that, until recently, no Democrat has made a competing case is a major relevant factor.

    Once people start to ask themselves, “Hey, what happened to bin Laden anyway?” we’ll start having an interesting discussion again.

  12. 12.

    TonyV

    Well, dead skunks are “strong”. Perhaps I should have used a different word – like “wise”, or, to use an old-fashioned word, “prudent”.

  15. 15.

    Kimmitt

    I think Senator Lieberman thinks that if he can’t be the Democratic nominee for President, then the Republican nominee ought to win. Pretty impressive hubris, but a horrifying sign of what may come to pass if the Party fails to unite behind a candidate. The problem is, I can’t blame him without being too hypocrtical — the fact of the matter is, if Lieberman had won the nomination, I would not have sent him any money or effort and would have considered voting Green. Why vote for Bush-lite when you can get the real thing?

  16. 16.

    Lydia

    By ignoring issues like threats to Taiwan, political repression, and imprisonment of Christians trying to practice their faith in public, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS KEEPING THE EVIL COMMUNIST CHINA REGIME IN POWER.

    Just saying.

  17. 17.

    Eric Sivula

    ‘Dean’s policy would have KEPT HUNDREDS OF AMERICAN MEN AND WOMEN ALIVE AND UNHARMED.’ — Jon H

    Dean’s ‘policy’ would have also allowed Saddam to kill THOUSANDS (~13,500) OF INNOCENT IRAQIS, spend MILLIONS to aid Ham-ass and Islamic Jihad, and stregthen (if possible) his ties to Islamist terror groups.

  18. 18.

    Kimmitt

    Actually, since Dean is not beholden to the tax haven interests of some of the less ethical wealthy, I think he would likely have had more success in freezing Iraq’s assets and denying Saddam access to Palestine.

    In addition, and I don’t know why people don’t grasp this, for all we know, Dean might have actually ended up invading Iraq, just doing it later with more support. Dean isn’t contemptuous of our allies, and he could bring on board people like Clinton and Clark who have threaded the various needles associated with pulling together international coalitions. Hell, as a Democrat, Dean could make the humanitarian argument with a straight face. And if Afghanistan were a little more under control, with bin Laden captured and in the pipeline for receiving a full and fair trial, we would have gotten important “lessons learned” from the Afghan reconstruction which could then have been applied to Iraq.

    Or, maybe not. Maybe he would have held to the US’s tradition of making war only when attacked. With the threat of genocide contained, he may have decided that America’s antiterror interests would have been served better by intervening in the Sudan or any of a number of other festering wounds.

    What I do know is that he would have been level with the American people about the likely costs and benefits of any war, would not cast about to blame others for failures within the Administration, and, most importantly, that I would trust him to do what he believes is best for this country, based on facts and analysis, rather than faith and isolation.

    That’s why I’m going to vote for him. It’s also why others should.

  19. 19.

    Dean

    Kimmitt:

    Small wonder you didn’t want to raise the question of the legitimacy of our response in Korea.

    Since North Korea neither invaded the US, nor invaded a treaty ally, I can only conclude, based on your view of an American “tradition of making war only when attacked” that you do not, in fact, believe the Korean War was justified.

    OTOH, I find the idea of intervening viz. Sudan as part of the WoT at least as laughable as that of attacking Saddam Hussein. If there were no Iraqis aboard any of the aircraft, surely there were no Sudanese, either?

  20. 20.

    Kimmitt

    The Korean War is a weird anamoly. I have no idea why South Korea was arbitrarily excluded from the areas we are and were willing to defend, especially because we obviously were willing to put American lives at risk for it.

  21. 21.

    Andrew Lazarus

    Dean, I’m not an expert on the Korean War, but as we had been responsible for setting the South Korean govt up after the Japanese Occupation, wouldn’t it be reasonable to see us as its guarantor against external aggression?

Comments are closed.