• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The low info voters probably won’t even notice or remember by their next lap around the goldfish bowl.

Dear media: perhaps we ought to let Donald Trump speak for himself!

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

Museums are not America’s attic for its racist shit.

White supremacy is terrorism.

Stamping your little feets and demanding that they see how important you are? Not working anymore.

Giving in to doom is how authoritarians win.

The media handbook says “controversial” is the most negative description that can be used for a Republican.

When you’re in more danger from the IDF than from Russian shelling, that’s really bad.

Hey Washington Post, “Democracy Dies in Darkness” was supposed to be a warning, not a mission statement.

Books are my comfort food!

We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

There are more Russians standing up to Putin than Republicans.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

We can’t confuse what’s necessary to win elections with the policies that we want to implement when we do.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Republicans got rid of McCarthy. Democrats chose not to save him.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

It’s a good piece. click on over. but then come back!!

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

We need to vote them all out and restore sane Democratic government.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Media / Me on Radio

Me on Radio

by John Cole|  April 20, 20059:57 pm| 29 Comments

This post is in: Media

FacebookTweetEmail

I’ll be on the radio tomorrow with Jeff Goldstein and crew:

When: Thursday, 3 PM EST

Where: Rightalk Radio

Guests: John Cole, from balloon-juice.com, Michele Catalano, from a small victory.

Topics: The state of political discourse; social cons vs. traditional conservatives; privacy rights vs. government regulatory functions; Atheist Americans; lose women.

Toll-free Call-in number: 1-866-884-8255 (866-884-TALK)

Disclaimer: WE REFUSE TO BE SILENCED!

Offer: If you have any questions you

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Idiots and Immigration
Next Post: Viva Presidente! »

Reader Interactions

29Comments

  1. 1.

    CaseyL

    April 20, 2005 at 11:01 pm

    “[He’]s the current poster boy for

  2. 2.

    John Cole

    April 20, 2005 at 11:10 pm

    I can handle myself.

  3. 3.

    Jeff G

    April 20, 2005 at 11:11 pm

    Yes, Casey. You have us PEGGED!

    protein wisdom: fundie capital of the blogosphere!

  4. 4.

    Juliette

    April 21, 2005 at 12:58 am

    Casey,

    As a charter member of the religious right, I’d hardly call Bill and Jeff a couple of raging fundamentalists.

    And they say we religious types are overly excitable.

    Sheesh.

  5. 5.

    Mr Furious

    April 21, 2005 at 9:29 am

    My question to you:

    “How the hell can you still be voting Republican?”

  6. 6.

    Mikey

    April 21, 2005 at 9:36 am

    “How the hell can you still be voting Republican?”
    Well, in my case the idea of turning over the defense of the nation to the Democrats gives me the same kind of feeling as turning over whiskey and car keys to teenage boys does.

    (Thank you Mr. O’Rourke)

  7. 7.

    MT

    April 21, 2005 at 10:27 am

    So, Mikey, let me get this straight. Turning the “defense” of the nation over to Democrats will result in similar damage that whiskey and car keys in the hands of teenage boys would? You mean that there would be reckless speed and abuse of power (those car engines can go pretty fast when one is “drunk”), destruction of the environment (pity the poor trees), lying and coverups (after all, where have they been all night?) and indiscriminate killing (running that red light can cause accidents!).

    Your (and Mr. O’Rourke’s) analogy is inaccurate on so many levels. It would seem to me that the current administration, drunk on their own power, has caused a huge pile up with respect to their “defense of the nation.” (And the Iraq war IS about defense, right? After all, Iraq DID have WMDs and WERE involved in 9/11…right?)

    The comparison to teenage boys, however, does seem to fit Bush and Co. The maturity level seems about the same…

  8. 8.

    norbizness

    April 21, 2005 at 11:12 am

    I think that falls under the category of “semi-known, partially knowable unknowns” in the Rumsfeldian epistemology.

  9. 9.

    Mark

    April 21, 2005 at 11:16 am

    I would simply ask John why he roots for such an evil team like the Pittsburgh Steelers.

    Bad, bad man.

  10. 10.

    JG

    April 21, 2005 at 11:16 am

    There is no issue concerning dems and defense of the nation. The problem is that dems wouldn’t put us on the offense like the repubs do. Gore would’ve invaded Afghanistan, there’s no other way to respond to what happened to us. The difference is Gore wouldn’t have invaded Iraq. President Bush said knowing then what he knows now about the state of Iraqs weapons programs he still would’ve invaded. That measns it was policy, we were going anyway. Thats going on the offense. I doubt dems would do that. Too many domestic uses for the billions I guess, bunch of pansies.

  11. 11.

    Mikey

    April 21, 2005 at 11:26 am

    MT: The history of the last thirty years of the Twentieth Century is all the proof needed for me to distrust the Democratic Party with national defense.

  12. 12.

    Lee

    April 21, 2005 at 12:18 pm

    “Gore would’ve invaded Iraq”…. that was a good one. He’d of been biding his time in the WH inventing the iPod waiting for the UN to come to our defense….

  13. 13.

    Kimmitt

    April 21, 2005 at 12:20 pm

    Gore would’ve invaded Iraq

    Um, dude, that’s not what he said.

  14. 14.

    LEE

    April 21, 2005 at 12:32 pm

    I was never good at setting up to deliver a punchline. Meant “Afghanistan”. I’m done w/humor.

  15. 15.

    timekeeper

    April 21, 2005 at 12:49 pm

    Unless losing the election caused Gore to undergo a radical metamorphosis, rather than simply allowed him to express his true beliefs, I wonder if he would have invaded Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11. I have no doubt that CLINTON would have done so, but he was not part of the equation in 2001. But Gore was not (and is not) Clinton redux, as some of his statements since he left Washington had made quite clear.

  16. 16.

    JG

    April 21, 2005 at 12:50 pm

    I think the fact that every democrat in congress backed Bushs move to invade Afghanistan backs my claim that Gore would’ve invaded. And since he wouldn’t have pulled resources from there to ramp up the Iraq invasion we might even have captured bin Laden, Zwahiri and Mullah Omar. Remember them?. Good to see that the marginalized second rate dictator and his insane children are gone but they didn’t attack us, the ones who did are still free to plan.

  17. 17.

    BumperStickerist

    April 21, 2005 at 1:45 pm

    John’s from West Virginia –

    which begs the question:

    What’s more fun to shoot at – a water heater on the side of the road or a washin’ machine in a backyard.

    :)

  18. 18.

    Mr Furious

    April 21, 2005 at 2:13 pm

    “the history of the last thirty years of the Twentieth Century is all the proof needed for me to distrust the Democratic Party with national defense.”

    You mean the Republican revisionist version of history over the last thirty years? Because I don’t recall the country getting invaded and taken over during the nineties…

    Bush is doing a nice job killing people around the globe, but as far as actually defending the country, I’d say his record is not looking good. If the weapons he claims were in Iraq actually existed, his brilliant plan for the War accomplished exactly what it was supposed to prevent–proliferation into the hands of terrorists. He has done nothing on Iran and North Korea, or actual security here except on airplanes. Our biggest threat? Loose nukes in Russia. Nothing there either.

    A fucking bang-up job.

  19. 19.

    Hubris

    April 21, 2005 at 2:45 pm

    What’s more fun to shoot at – a water heater on the side of the road or a washin’ machine in a backyard.

    Hey, I was born and raised in West Virginia too, so watch your mouth.

    By the way, what’s a water heater?

  20. 20.

    Kimmitt

    April 21, 2005 at 3:19 pm

    I wonder if he would have invaded Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11.

    I don’t. Gore had his flaws, but unwillingness to respond to a provocation of that magnitude was not among them.

  21. 21.

    Richard Bennett

    April 22, 2005 at 4:10 am

    President Gore would have responded to 9/11 with a national year of guilt on the theme of “why do they hate us?” and then it would have been all about hybrid cars.

    If there were a god, I’d pray to him every day for saving us from a Gore presidency.

  22. 22.

    JPS

    April 22, 2005 at 11:37 am

    Kimmitt:

    “Gore had his flaws, but unwillingness to respond to a provocation of that magnitude was not among them.”

    I for one don’t doubt he would have responded. Of course he would have, But I wonder–and I swear I am not being partisan, I honestly wonder–whether he would have pursued a war until the fall of the Taliban government.

    I happen to think a large-scale conventional invasion would have been a disaster, and air strikes alone wouldn’t have done the trick.

    What do you think Gore would have said to an advisor who said, “OK, boss, how about this. We send in a few hundred guys from Special Forces. They’ll scope the place out and do recon beforehand. Then they can organize these fractious Afghan tribes who’ve been getting their asses kicked into the far corners of the country by the Taliban for the last six years, coordinate air strikes, and lead them to victory.”

    More to the point, what would the chances have been that he would have had such an advisor in a position of any influence? He would have been surrounded by the kind of advisors who knew you don’t just conquer Afghanistan; it’s been tried. and if we do it’ll start up a guerilla war like the Russians suffered for ten years.

    I think if Gore were president, we would have delivered a great deal of punishment to Afghanistan and the Taliban government. Lots of air strikes, lots of cruise missiles, until we brought that government to its knees. We might even have got them to turn over Mullah Omar, and cease their overt support for al Qaeda.

    I seriously doubt, however, that we’d have gone for anything as radical as regime change. I don’t think Gore and company would have believed we could pull it off. We’d have left them in place, and regretted it in the long run.

    And incidentally, I am surrounded at work by a lot of very smart Democrats, and most of them were convinced in week five of the Afghan campaign that we’d blown it.

  23. 23.

    Kimmitt

    April 22, 2005 at 11:57 am

    I seriously doubt, however, that we’d have gone for anything as radical as regime change. I don’t think Gore and company would have believed we could pull it off. We’d have left them in place, and regretted it in the long run.

    I just cannot agree with this. The difference between Gore and Bush would have been that unless Gore happened to have someone who shared Rumsfeld’s vision for a lighter Army, we would have had a lot more American soldiers in Afghanistan than we did. But there is just. No. Way. That Gore would not have swiftly deposed the Taliban in response to 9/11. Anyone who says otherwise is profoundly wrong about the character of Al Gore and of the Democratic Party in general.

    most of them were convinced in week five of the Afghan campaign that we’d blown it.

    Precisely my point — the Democrats you were working with were committed to the invasion and concerned that it might not work.

  24. 24.

    JPS

    April 22, 2005 at 12:22 pm

    Thanks for your response, Kimmitt.

    “unless Gore happened to have someone who shared Rumsfeld’s vision for a lighter Army, we would have had a lot more American soldiers in Afghanistan than we did.”

    Well, that’s the deal-breaker, isn’t it? I believe that if the principal military advisor to President Whoever had not had Rumsfeld’s faith in Special Forces, we would have gone for a massive conventional invasion–with the same happy results that have attended other countries’ efforts–or just pummeled the crap out of the place from afar until they cried uncle.

    Look at the way we fought in Kosovo. Look at our cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq in December ’98. This is how the Clinton National Security folks thought–why do you believe our response would have been radically different if the same (or similar-thinking) people had been in charge?

    Or let me put it another way. While we were still threatening the Taliban with war and regime change unless they played ball, Colin Powell speculated that a new government might be a coalition including “moderate Taliban.” Powell, the cautious and levelheaded adult of the Bush administration, would have been the hawk in a Gore cabinet.

    “Precisely my point — the Democrats you were working with were committed to the invasion and concerned that it might not work.”

    No. You misunderstood me. Most of them were convinced from the start that invading was folly, and around about week five, when we hadn’t won yet, they were sure they’d been proven right.

  25. 25.

    Kimmitt

    April 22, 2005 at 4:39 pm

    why do you believe our response would have been radically different if the same (or similar-thinking) people had been in charge?

    Because 9/11 was different from what came before? It’s not like Bush 43 was a paragon of decisive interventionism before 9/11.

    we would have gone for a massive conventional invasion–with the same happy results that have attended other countries’ efforts–

    I really don’t know the answer to this. The situation on the ground really did cry for us to intervene on the side of the Northen Alliance; the question was going to be how we went about doing it. The Taliban was militarily very weak. There’s no particular reason to think that we would have done things completely differently, while there are plenty of reasons to think that we would have done them somewhat differently.

    Most of them were convinced from the start that invading was folly,

    It may have been folly, but it was absolutely and utterly necessary. I hate to ask, but did your friends have a lot invested in the Kucinich primary? I’m pretty deep in the Party out here, and the only time I’ve heard any actual opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan — as versus discussion of tactics and failures to finish the job — was in a room full of Kucinich backers that I was trying to get to back Dean instead.

  26. 26.

    JPS

    April 22, 2005 at 10:24 pm

    “I hate to ask, but did your friends have a lot invested in the Kucinich primary?”

    Gee whiz, Kimmitt, how’d ya guess!

    Sorry. Yes, generally they did. Although some preferred Dean because they thought he was a bit more effective in his opposition to Bush than Kucinich was, and that Kerry was too mainstream for them. (From the dark side, I would have to agree with them.)

    All satire aside, Dean was a little too conservative for most of the academics I know.

    We’ll have to agree to disagree on the rest. If I had your faith in the Dems’ ultimate soundness on national security, I wouldn’t much care who wins elections. To me, domestic policy is important but secondary. (Meaning no offense to you–you’re an economist, right?) And if we agree that doing what we did in Afghanistan was absolutely and utterly necessary, then believe it or not we’re more or less on the same page.

    P.S.: One big Kucinich fan I know, who opposed war with Afghanistan, I asked (nicely), “What would you do?” The answer: “Freeze his [bin Laden’s] bank accounts.” And there you have it, my objection to the Kucinich foreign policy: Preferable to reality, but without a prayer of actually working.

  27. 27.

    Kimmitt

    April 23, 2005 at 1:36 pm

    Sure, but pasting Kucinich’s views onto Al Gore is like pasting Buchanan’s views onto Bush 41. If your argument is, “Some Kucinich crunchies (who probably voted for Bradley in the 2000 primary anyways) were against something, therefore Al Gore would have acted the same way,” I’m not sure I’m thrilled with agreeing to disagree.

    Meaning no offense to you–you’re an economist, right?)

    None taken; it’s kind of you to remember.

    And if we agree that doing what we did in Afghanistan was absolutely and utterly necessary, then believe it or not we’re more or less on the same page.

    Yeah, that’s kind of my point. I’m on the Left side of the Party, too (just not the far Left). The Democratic Party was overwhelmingly in favor of invading Afghanistan, and there’s just no reason to think that any of its leaders would not have implemented the national consensus policy on that issue.

  28. 28.

    JPS

    April 23, 2005 at 7:12 pm

    Kimmitt:

    “pasting Kucinich’s views onto Al Gore is like pasting Buchanan’s views onto Bush 41.”

    Oh, granted. I didn’t mean to do that at all. And I didn’t mean to suggest that because some colleagues of mine were against the Afghan campaign, Gore would have been too.

    I know Kucinich wouldn’t have invaded, and I believe I wrote I have no doubt Gore would have taken us to war.

    “If your argument is [Gore ~= Kucinich], I’m not sure I’m thrilled with agreeing to disagree.”

    Heh, as they say. No. I meant, on the question of whether a Gore administration would have seen it through to regime change. You seem sure they would have; I’m not even sure they’d have considered that an attainable goal, so I suspect they’d have punished Afghanistan until we were satisfied they wouldn’t overtly support al Qaeda anymore, maybe until they turned over Mullah Omar, then called it victory.

    I give the mainstream Democrats a lot of credit for supporting our overall policy there, but I’m just not at all convinced they’d have originated it.

  29. 29.

    Kimmitt

    April 24, 2005 at 4:27 am

    I give the mainstream Democrats a lot of credit for supporting our overall policy there, but I’m just not at all convinced they’d have originated it.

    I wish I knew what it’d take to convince you. Apparently 90% approval isn’t enough. :)

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - PaulB - Olympic Peninsula: Lake Quinault Loop Drive 5
Image by PaulB (5/19/25)

Recent Comments

  • Sister Golden Bear on Monday Evening Open Thread: Perspective (May 19, 2025 @ 9:02pm)
  • RaflW on Monday Night Open Thread (May 19, 2025 @ 9:01pm)
  • Soprano2 on Saving Biomedical Research (Open Thread) (May 19, 2025 @ 9:01pm)
  • Jay on War for Ukraine Day 1,180: The Cost (May 19, 2025 @ 8:56pm)
  • Baud on War for Ukraine Day 1,180: The Cost (May 19, 2025 @ 8:56pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!