Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

They punch you in the face and then start crying because their fist hurts.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.

If you don’t believe freedom is for everybody, then the thing you love isn’t freedom, it is privilege.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

The republican caucus is covering themselves with something, and it is not glory.

Second rate reporter says what?

Republicans don’t lie to be believed, they lie to be repeated.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

Also, are you sure you want people to rate your comments?

Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

Trumpflation is an intolerable hardship for every American, and it’s Trump’s fault.

In my day, never was longer.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

When I was faster i was always behind.

Every decision we make has lots of baggage with it, known or unknown.

Democracy cannot function without a free press.

Wait, what?

So many bastards, so little time.

Not all heroes wear capes.

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

Hot air and ill-informed banter

A fool as well as an oath-breaker.

You are here: Home / Archives for 2004

Archives for 2004

Being Matt Yglesias

by | 3 Comments

This post is in: 

Big Media Matt states that Euegene Volokh is close to jumping the shark:

Meanwhile, Eugene Volokh seems to be poised precariously above the shark tank.

Why? Because Volokh thinks it probably isn’t the best thing for a sitting US Senator to criticize the administration’s Middle East policies in an interview with a newspaper from the Middle East. Says Volokh:

I realize that anything one says in any newspaper may get into the Arabic press. But when the readers in the Arab world, likely including Iraq, know the statement has been made to an Arab newspaper, it seems to me that the perceived force of the statement would be magnified: “The American opposition wants us to know that even they think that the U.S. is in trouble.” (The interview was with a British Arabic language newspaper, but naturally the material would be reprinted in other publications in the Arab and Muslim world — the quote in the Best of the Web story is from Brunei Online, with an Agence France Press dateline of Beirut — and the readers will likely perceive the statement as having been made to the Arab community.)

Seems to me that the very likely effect of statements such as this is to magnify the resolve of those who are trying to defeat us, to kill our soldiers, and to take over Iraq (despite the line about “could not abandon Iraq,” which many Iraqis would assume could change if America’s “trouble” only got big enough). It is especially likely to magnify their resolve to keep fighting until the election, rather than to surrender and be seen as giving Bush a victory. And the standard (and often quite persuasive) justification for such criticism even during wartime, which is that Americans need to hear all the arguments to decide whom to vote for, is at its least forceful with a statement such as this one.

As Volokh notes, Sen. Clinton is free to say what she wants, but perhaps consideringthe venue might be a tactful idea. Considering she is a Senator, and she is, after all, and one who sits on the Armed Services committee. Asking people to think aboutthe effect their words will have is not stifling dissent, you know.

If that sort of sensible reproach to bad behavior on the part of Sen. Clinton is close to jumping the shark, I can only ask:

How was the landing when you jumped, Matt?

Being Matt YglesiasPost + Comments (3)

We Can Hope

by | 7 Comments

This post is in: 

I think I speak for many when I say that we can only hope the 9/11 Commission hearings today were this productive.

Personally, after watching the shameless behavior of the commission members (Yes, you- Ms. Gorelick and Mr. Ben Veniste), I don’t give two hoots in hell what they have to say, what their final report concludes, and what happens from their now absurd proceedings.

The goal of this commission should have been to find ways to help secure us for the future, and instead it seems like it is nothing more than partisan finger-pointing.

Bill Clinton is not to blame for 9/11, and I reject any statement to that effect.

George Bush, similarly, is not to blame for 9/11.

The people who planned and executed this attack are to blame, and this commission should be focussed on the prevention of future attacks. Unfortunately, this is an election year, and the Democrats are out of power. Not that I am wholly convinced Republicans would act any different were the roles reversed- I did live through the 90’s, after all.

We Can HopePost + Comments (7)

The Sound You Hear

by | 2 Comments

This post is in: 

The sounds you now hear are not thunder, but Lee Atwater having a deep belly-laugh in heaven:

In what may be a surprising move to some political circles, Democratic Presidential Candidate Senator John Kerry
(D-Massachusetts) has issued an invitation to former Democratic Primary rival Rev. Al Sharpton to address this summer’s Democratic National Convention in Boston…

On Rev. Al Sharpton as a Speaker at the DNC …

Kerry: “I hope so. Sure … That’s my call … If he wants to do it, he can do it … Let me just say to you … if he wants to do it, I’d like him to do it. I think he’d do a terrific job. I think he’ll add something … there’s no plea necessary. It’s my invitation.”

Next on my wish list are Ralph Nader, Jim McDermott, Cynthia McKinney, Patty Murray, and Jesse Jackson. The Democratic Convention could become Must-See-TV.

In all seriousness, this probably means that the Democrats have some seriously troubling internal polling data regarding the African-American vote.

I also enjoyed Neal Boortz’s preview of the DNC Convention activities:

6:00pm- Opening flag burning ceremony.
6:30pm- Anti-war rally no. 1.
6:40pm- Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
7:00pm- Tribute theme to France.
7:10pm- Collect offerings for al-Zawahri and al-Sadr defense fund.
7:20pm- Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
7:25pm- Tribute theme to Spain.
7:45pm- Anti-war rally no. 2. (Moderated by Michael Moore)
8:00pm- John Kerry presents one side of the issues
8:25pm- Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:30pm- Terrorist appeasement workshop.
9:00pm- Gay marriage ceremony.
9:30pm- * Intermission * (Refreshments hosted by Ted Kennedy)
10:00pm- Flag stomping and defacing ceremony
10:15pm- Re-enactment of Kerry’s fake medal toss.
10:30pm- Cameo by Dean ‘Yeeearrrrrrrg!’
10:40pm- Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
10:50pm- Pledge of allegiance to the UN.
11:00pm- Double gay marriage ceremony.
11:15pm- Maximizing Welfare workshop.
11:20pm- John Kerry presents the other side of the issues
11:30pm- ‘Free Saddam’ pep rally.
11:59pm- Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
12:00am – Nomination of Democrat candidate.

The Sound You HearPost + Comments (2)

Shameless Self Promotion and Some Other Things

by | Leave a Comment

This post is in: 

I see via Joe Gandelman that Larry Sabato has released his latest issue of the crystal ball, and the issue contained his predictions for Kerry’s Veep. Chief on the list is Evan Bayh from Indiana. JUst thought I would point out that I predicted Evan Bayh as a the VP candidate in December.

Unfortunately, I though he would be Dean’s running mate. Moving right along.

Joe also has some comments on the Lautenberg/Kerry/Chickenhawk nonsense that you might want to check out.

Shameless Self Promotion and Some Other ThingsPost + Comments

When You Have Lost The Washington Post

by | 1 Comment

This post is in: 

Maybe now they will stop whining. Read this editorial and let it sink in. In particular, pay attention to these two paragraphs:

On one level, there’s nothing wrong with chewing over the history and the biographies. Choices each candidate made along the way can tell voters something about the candidate’s character, and character is partly shaped by youthful experiences. Besides, if Mr. Kerry wants to base his candidacy in part on his wartime service, as he is entitled to do, then it’s fair for his opponents to inquire into the totality of his record, both in Vietnam and as a protester after his return…

That’s why the Kerry campaign’s response to Mr. Cheney’s speech this week was so inadequate. In his address in Fulton, Mo., Mr. Cheney was unsparing in his criticism of Mr. Kerry, but his line of attack had nothing to do with Vietnam. Rather, Mr. Cheney questioned Mr. Kerry’s record on defense and foreign policy, asserting that he “has given us ample grounds to doubt the judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security.” Some of his points were unfair; for instance, Mr. Kerry’s proposed cuts in the intelligence budget a decade ago aren’t evidence, as Mr. Cheney would have it, of a “deeply irresponsible” attitude toward funding the war on terrorism. But the vice president’s recitation of what he termed Mr. Kerry’s “inconsistencies and changing rationales” on Iraq, from the Persian Gulf War to the present, gets to the heart of what this campaign needs to be about: America’s place in the world, the right and wrong times to use force and similar weighty questions. Recalling Mr. Cheney’s multiple draft deferments isn’t a rebuttal; both campaigns need to engage on the merits.

I undertsand that attaining victim status is the ultimate goal for every Democrats, and given Kerry’s record, I understand why he would not want to discuss his plethora of positioins on every issue, but really- once the Washington Post calls you to the carpet, sin’t it time to re-think your strategy?

When You Have Lost The Washington PostPost + Comments (1)

Ressurecting the Clenis

by | 13 Comments

This post is in: 

Oliver writes:

One of the questions I hear from the other side (here, here, and here) is “how do Democrats equate their support for Kerry’s military service with Clinton’s protesting against the war”?

One of the heres in the above quote was this site, and I would like to just note that I have never asked such a question. I may have been curious how Oliver and others attack President Bush’s completed service in the National Guard while never batting an eye at Clinton’s avoidance of service, but I already know the answer to that-

You are partisan hypocrites.

Other than that, the rest of Oliver’s answer demonstrates some of the damage done when faulty references to Vietnam are made regarding every foreign conflict in which the United States is involved. Oliver writes:

President Bush and Vice President Cheney, on the other hand, both got out of serving (in Bush’s case, without honors or distinction or even a complete record). Yet, they still embrace the right-wing philosophy that Vietnam was the right thing to do (at least publicly, I bet the sentiment is different behind closed doors). As such, their philosophy of war contains none of the lessons learned from Vietnam and other conflicts, their ivory tower perspective is that the soldiers are grunts to be used at their whim. They don’t have a problem with throwing our troops into the fire because they never served (unlike Kerry) and refuse to point out the obvious futility of the Vietnam era (unlike Clinton and Kerry).

Besides his utter inability to stop lying about Bush’s miitary service and the projection about what they really think behind closed doors, this is amusing for several reasons. I guess that all I have to say right now, so that I don’t get too nasty and start questioning Oliver’s credentials on military history, military deployment, and military strategy and tactics, as well as his personal service in the military, is to point out that Dick Cheney has been serving the country honorably on and off since 1974, served as Defense Secretary, and might just have a little more in his pockets than a ‘right wing philosophy’ with which to make his decisions.

I would say he is at least as qualified and knowledgeable as a 20-something behind a computer in Boston, and it probably isn’t based on rigid ideology. The same can not be said about Oliver.

Ressurecting the ClenisPost + Comments (13)

If The Democrats Were Honest

by | 21 Comments

This post is in: 

If the Democrats were honest, this is the memo they would send out tomorrow:

Dear Mary and Elizabeth Cheney,

We thought it would be appropriate to let you know that the centerpiece of our efforst to elect Sen. Kerry in November is the assertion that you were conceived solely to keep your father out of Vietnam. I hope you understand this is nothing personal, just part of our discussion of the important issues of the day.

Yours Truly,

Terry McAuliffe
DNC Chairman

PS: Everyone knows Dick hates you because you are gay, Mary.

If The Democrats Were HonestPost + Comments (21)