And now, from the ‘Things You Already Knew” category, this piece from the Bull Moose Blog pointing out that Atrios is a vicious hack who will slander anyone.
Shocking. [/sarcasm]
No Kidding
by John Cole| 52 Comments
This post is in: Blogospheric Navel-Gazing, General Stupidity
Jack Roy
Oh, give me a break. Atrios says Joe Lieberman’s not a real Democrat, that any real Democrat would be ashamed to go to the National Review party and sit with Rush Limbaugh and Bill Buckley, and quotes one of the more deplorable passages from that magazine in order to drive home precisely how ashamed Lieberman ought to be, and what is the conservative response?
Predictably: Atrios is calling him a racist!
I’ll be sure to file this one along side “[blank] is defaming our troops!”, “Paul Krugman is shrill!” and “Michael Moore is fat!”
One, it ain’t slander, and two, grow a pair. I normally like coming by. But this was idiotic.
raymond
“slander” is a pretty strong charge, John. Care to back it up in any way? Can you point to the slanderous statement in the Atrios post?
or was that a slander in itself?
John Cole
Um. Did you read the Bull Moose’s post?
And that isn’t what Atrios said at all. He distinctly tried to tie Joe Liberman into an anti civil rights posture.
demimondian
By showing up at that party, he explicitly gave support to the National Review. Guess what? NR used to be — and, I would argue, still is — a racist, white-supremacist rag.
Lieberman showed terrible judgement in going to that party.
Ancient Purple
So, let me get this right.
As long as I marched in Selma and joined in the Stonewall riots, it is perfectly acceptable for me to attend the anniversary dinner of the founding of Bob Jones University.
Got it.
Anderson
The Bull Moose is full of bull on this one. Sorry, John.
Atrios notes Lieberman’s attendance at the NR party, then notes NR’s past support of segregation. It’s called “parataxis”: placing two elements side-by-side without explaining their relationship.
Marshall goes off the deep end with “McCarthyite,” etc. Nothing in Atrios’s post suggests that Lieberman is a racist. More plausibly, it suggests that Lieberman is happy to celebrate a magazine with a racist past.
Whether NR’s ever expressly repudiated its support for racism, I do not know. Does the Moose? Does Balloon Juice?
God knows, Lieberman just needs to become a Republican and be done with it. I still think Gore might’ve won with a real Dem for VP.
Defense Guy
Amazing that some folks can embrace an admitted former Klan member as long as he is on ‘their side’ and then turn around and pretend that 1957 is still the current year for NRO or anyone who has positive things to say about them.
W.B. Reeves
Sorry John, I read the Atrios post and the qualifier “distinctly” in your response speaks volumes. If Atrios actually said any such thing you ought to be able to present a quote that establishes that beyond dispute. If you can’t, we are in the territory of characterization and there is nothing distinct about it. My impression is that Atrios was accusing Lieberman of hypocrisy and/or betraying his own political history. Whether that amounts to slander is debatable. Given your recent defense of Bill Bennett, your attitude here seems problematic.
raymond
yes, I did read the bull moose post, john. it doesn’t support you in a charge of slander.
maybe you are clueless as to why people get so ticked at Joe. it’s not what his policies are. it’s who his chums are. it’s the way he’s always softer on the republican party, even as it slides into madness, than on his own.
he was a more strident critic of bill clinton than of dick cheney in 2000, and helped lose the election that way. he said of howard dean that “he’s crawled into his own spider hole of denial”, regarding a comment that I still find accurate. try finding anything he’s said about Buckley, Bush, or Cheney that’s anywhere near that harsh.
DJAnyReason
What’s most hypocritical about the Moose’s post is that he accuses “the bloggers [of] employ[ing] the most obscene guilt-by-association tactics”, as evidenced by Atrios’ post. Nowhere in the Kos post is the NR’s former civil-rights position mentioned, or civil rights whatsoever. So, basically, the Bull Moose is employing guilt-by-association on this point to “slander” Kos.
I’d post this in the Bull Moose comments section, but he doesn’t have one.
KC
I read both of Kos’s and Atrios’s comments about Joe Lieberman and thought they were pretty unfair. Honestly, if you’re going to construe things so that Lieberman’s character as a politician is judged by the fact he attended a magazine bash for a magazine that fifty or more years ago was in favor of segregation and discrimination, well, that’s just cheap. It’s almost no different than saying that since the Democratic Party was pro-segregation fifty or more years ago, Lieberman must have some sort of heart for segregation now since he’s a Dem. The logic is just stupid and childish.
KC
Oh yeah, just want to mention, Daily Kos specifically links to Atrios with respect to Lieberman’s attendance at the National Review bash. I wonder why?
Anderson
KC, an anniversary bash, just about by definition, celebrates the history of the magazine.
That history includes their racist positions. Now, as I said above, I don’t know if NR has repudiated same, and that would make a difference. Do you know?
If they’ve never done so, then that’s a problem. Just as if Lieberman had been a racist 50 years ago, never repudiated same, and NR put him on their cover to celebrate n years of Joe Lieberman, Great American.
The REAL problem, of course, is this: what the hell is a Dem senator doing at a National Review party?
John Cole
That is the dumbest damn thing I have heard in a longh while. I can’t wait until July 4th, when you are celebrating, to call you objectively pro-slavery, Anderson.
And what you did with those Japanese during WWII was terrible.
What Atrios was doing was crystal clear, Marshall called him on it, and you guys defending him look silly.
Anderson
Goodness, John, you’re a little bilious today.
Last I checked, the U.S. had openly repudiated slavery and even the WW2 internments.
I reread what I wrote and don’t find it silly at all. If Magazine X was pro-Stalin or pro-Hitler and *never took it back,* then shouldn’t we have a problem with that?
Even if you disagree, it’s arguable, enough so that the only person “slandered” has been Duncan Black, “a vicious hack who will slander anyone.” Right now, that looks like a better description of some other bloggers.
Vladi G
John, I like you and your site a lot, but far too often, you let your irrational hatred of Arios and Kos get the better of you.
Davebo
Shorter Perfessor Cole
It’s Kos and Atrios and the stuff they don’t write but Whittman divines from their posts that keep my head firmly entrenched up my ass, and a member of the GOP.
John Cole
I don’t hate Kos at all. Even have friendly email exchanges from time to time, and agree on a number of issues that would alarm both you guys and my friends at Red State.
Atrios is another story.
Jon H
Perhaps Lieberman’s civil rights work was just a ‘youthful indiscretion’.
Davebo
Revised Shorter Perfessor Cole
Since it turns out Kos didn’t do any of the stuff Whittman claimed I now point out that Kos and I are buddies from way way back.
This despite the dozens of vitriolic posts I’ve made concerning him in the past…
My value system honors flexibility above all other attributes…
Ancient Purple
I fail to understand why it is “cheap.” It is a legitimate question: Why would a staunch civil rights advocate like Sen. Liberman go to a National Review celebration considering what that magazine stands for and has stood for?
If it is just an issue of Liberman wanting to have a fun night out with the boys, then let him rent out Christopher Martins in downtown New Haven and have the guys over for Pimm’s Cup and tawdry jokes.
Otherwise, it still remains a legitimate question.
James C.
http://nospeedbumps.com/?p=374
This is a link address to a very long list of classy quotes by the ever popular and articulate Duncan atrios Black.
John Cole
Davebo- I don;t know if you are on Atrios’s payroll or what, but I never even mentioned Kos until someone else did. All Kos did was point out he went. It was Duncan who was trying to juxtapose Liberman with racism.
Quit making shit up. I am not revising anything. I didn’t think Kos deserved the criticism that he received from Marshall- I did and do think Atrios deserves it.
Slide
I love this part from Bull Moose:
Damn, guilt-by-association. Is that like linking David Duke and Cindy Sheehan?
jg
I’d hate Atrios too if he linked to my site and caused a bunch of anti-Bush posters to drive out my right wing readership but this is such a weak attempt to drive out the former Atrios readers and win back Nash and captain coridially.
Davebo
Cole,
No, you linked to Bull Moose who mentioned Kos as well as Atrios making absolutely no distinction between the two.
Other than that link your post offered nothing but a feeble attempt at claiming slander that does not in anyway exist in either post.
So since the only point of your post was to scream SLANDER!! one would think you’d be willing to support the charge in your ongoing comments.
But one would be dissapointed.
Davebo
Oh wait.. I get it.
It’s obviously a case of Subliminableble Slander
Long recognized as the most devious type of slander…
Kimmitt
For a guy with his voting record, Lieberman hangs out with the weirdest damn people, and it’s perfectly reasonable to point that out.
Otto Man
So Atrios notes that the National Review has a documented past supporting segregation, and Bull Moose notes that Lieberman has a past fighting segregation.
Together, these facts suggest that Lieberman and NR make strange bedfellows today.
Um…. Wasn’t that Atrios’s point?
DougJ
I don’t think Atrios cares what you say about him, as long as you spell his name right.
ppGaz
What Lieberman is cannot be tied to what Atrios is.
Lieberman is a self-serving prick who is widely despised by those who want to free the Democratic Party from the DLC and the old guard in Washington. Lieberman is a damned fool who thinks that the antidote to partisanship is to cozy up to the other party. The antidote to partisanship is to lead the fray above partisanship, not to faux cordiality, but to loftier purpose and better ideas. Lieberman is a huckster who pimps the Bathosphere; his every utterance would sound better through a clenched hankerchief.
America is approaching a fork in the road at which it will strongly question the integrity and usefulness of institutions. Nothing wrong with that, it’s what makes America great. The thing about Lieberman is that he is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Bruce from Missouri
Joe Lieberman is a Vichy Democrat. That’s why we despise him. He’s such a collaborater it makes you wonder if he’s on the Republican payroll.
And if you hang out with the wrong crowd, you should expect to be called on it.
DougJ
I despise Lieberman for his views on torture and for being a whore for the financial firms. But I think Atrios’ point is silly. I also think Atrios likes to make silly points every once and a while to get people to talk about him so that he remains relevant.
James C.
DougJ says: “I also think Atrios likes to make silly points every once and a while to get people to talk about him so that he remains relevant.” Right. The points made by atrios are as relevant as a syphilitic canker is to a five dollar whore.
Vlad
If Jesse Jackson had gone to the dinner, it would’ve been noteworthy for exactly the same reason. No self-respecting civil-rights type should have anything to do with an event glorifying the history of TNR.
Steve S
I don’t know. It’s pretty much impossible to defend Loserman going to a National Review party.
Sinequanon
John,
So, I’m trying to understand what exactly Atrios said on his site which compelled you to post such a nasty comment in the first place. Looks like a lot of venting for no discernible reason to me on your end. Atrios doesn’t owe anyone an apology..and, neither does KOS as implied by BullMoose (whom I thank for the data on Lieberman’s civil rights lineage). Atrios didn’t actually do anything at all except post an article from the National Review’s early history. Perhaps you misinterpreted. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt because I believe you are actually a good guy. I see it as Atrios saying to Lieberman, indirectly, ‘remember where these guys roots are – why are you celebrating with them?’
John, may I add you just said much much worse about Atrios, basically smeared him, i.e.:
KOS: Remember, Buckley helped fellow neocon Lieberman win his Senate seat by ousting the then-liberal Republican Weicker with a challenge from the right. (Weicker is now a liberal independent, still well to the left of Lieberman.)
Update: As noted in the comments, Lieberman didn’t just attend, but he sat at the head table with Buckley and Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh says they had a nice chat.
Lieberman is more of a Republican than he is a Democrat on most issues and he votes that way too, regardless of his civil rights past. It doesn’t absolve him of his stance on the war nor the Patriot Act among many other issues. I agree with the guy on about 1 or 2 out of 10 issues. Not a good record in my book.
-enough said
Sinequanon
There is nothing linke a like of context to make your point moot.
Sinequanon
ppGAZ? Can I be your new best friend?
Sinequanon
Sheesh, typing all day on my thesis and I seem to be running foul of my keyboard:
I meant 2 posts previous:
There is nothing like a lack of context to make your point moot.
Slide
Sinequanon said:
Looks like its personal. John, did Atrios every humiliate you by pointing out someone demonstrably stupid you said? I know from personal experience you don’t deal with that very well.
Andrew J. Lazarus
You know, when you look at Lieberman’s voting record it’s not that bad (from my liberal standpoint). But his behavior is all wrong. I’m not saying you don’t shake Rush Limbaugh’s hand when you meet him, but Lieberman seems to crave acceptance from the right-wing while blasting fellow Democrats who are pretty near him politically. Sort of the political equivalent of a fag hag.
Doesn’t it tell you something that he was the only one there? Not Ben Nelson? Not Max Baucus? Leaving aside, for the moment, that AFAIK the National Review has never stopped to acknowledge or even to contemplate that there was something badly off-target in their strand of conservatism that supported segregation, what was Lieberman doing at their party?
In isolation, this might be overlooked, but when you add in his oh-so-gracious swan dive in the 2000 VP debate and his oh-so-gracious concession on potentially fraudulent absentee ballots (made against specific instructions from the Gore legal team), I see a pattern. Count me in with Atrios on this one.
ppGaz
Sure. Just send along your credit card numbers and expiration dates, and I will see to everything.
But serially …. I’m an obnoxious meanie considered nearly intolerable by John and many others around here. Being my friend can be hazardous to your health ….
chadwig
Pot, meet kettle…
Krista
And you were also “serially” not paying attention when you wrote that, were you?
ppGaz
All seriousness aside, I am always paying attention. I just don’t always know what to.
Fledermaus
Ppgaz, Stop dangling your participle, this is a family blog!!!
Rome Again
Birds of a feather flock together (did Zell have a previous engagement?).
Slide
Steve Gilliard has a response to this whole “slander” nonsense that Bull Moose, Cole and their ilk are tying smear Atrios, Kos and others that rightly excoriated Liberman for his sitting at the table with Rush Limbaugh and Bill Buckley at NR’s 50th anniversary.
Krista
Can’t take him anywhere, can we?
Davebo
John’s good personal friend Kos finds it all quite humorous as do I.
I get that Wittman has a creepy attachment to Lieberman. I’ll let the pop psychologists try to parse that one. But regardless, defamation is a pretty serious charge and an attack on my character. Perhaps I should demand, DEMAND! an apology. But nah, I won’t sweat it.
I’m not a Lieberman-loving wuss who refers to himself in the third person as an animal (check out his blog if you don’t know what I’m talking about). He’s got enough problems as it is. I’ll spare him further hassles.
Kimmitt
You’d think that Byrd’s lack of attendance at such events would shut down discussion of his current views, but no . . .
;)