Leon is still hopping mad, and still doesn’t get it. In another post, he takes me to task (or tries) for continuing to drink the kool-aid (and I won’t even address his lame attempt to claim that I have been brainwashed by the left-wing commentariat here):
I also feel compelled to point out something that John himself was once aware of, which is the ubiquituous use of predominantly black churches as PACs by the Democrats.
When you start with this kind of reasoning, you just gota know this argument is going downhill fast. I am still aware that churches have been used inappropriately in the past (and probably, to some extent, still) by the Democrats. And I am sure you will agree with me that behavior is inappropriate.
Now here is where it gets tricky, because this is the part that has eluded Republicans party loyalists for the past few years- just because someone else is breaking the law doesn’t mean we get a free pass for breaking the law. Someone elses transgressions don’t give the greenlight to the GOP for misbehaving. Let’s take, for example, torture.
Are there jihadists and terrorists out there who want to kill us? Yes. Will they cut off our heads on camera if it serves their purposes? Are they the very definition of evil? Yes and yes. Does that make it right for us to engage in torture? No.
You see- in this crazy world of ours, two things can simultaneously be wrong. Bob Ney is still a crook even though William Jefferson is a crook.
Leon continues on:
No, John, the non-sequitur is your link between a guy campaigning in a church and your assertion that the Republican party (or even the religious right) is seeking people to worship in a certain way. Also, what the hell do his positions on abortion have to do with worship at all? I don’t need to deny something, when it’s ridiculous on its face. Your point (as you know full well) had nothing to do with the connection between Kline’s religious values and his positions on abortion, your point was that he was on the verge of instituting some state religion.
Who is Phill Kline? Well, Phill Kline is a man whose religious beliefs are the foundation for his political beliefs, and it is his religious beliefs which have led him on a crusade to end the teaching of evolution and to ban abortion:
“Study Kansas history,” he said the other day, words tumbling out in an eager rush. “We were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement, the women’s suffrage movement, prohibition…. Then we got conservatism and recognized the importance of faith.”
Kline is a member of the fringe right who has made the Republican party their toy, and wish for all of us to live in accordance to their desires. He represents a group of people who are afraid that modern society is going to corrupt their children, end society, whatever, and the GOP has siezed upon that fear and exploited it for electoral gain (a partial run-down can be found here in this Kansas editorial endorsing Democrats). But what really has Leon upset is this statement of mine:
Modern Republicans don’t want a society in which they are free to worship as they choose- they want a society in which you are free to worship as they choose.
Given the authoritarianism of the current Republican party and the religious right (is there a difference?), given their attempts to drive the debate to frame everything in religious terms, given the excesses during Terri Schiavo, the prosyletization at the military academies- I don’t think it is hyperbole. I really do believe there is a radical group of Christians who wish to force their version of Christianity on all of us, and they have entirely too much power right now. I am not alone:
Paul Morrison, a career prosecutor who specializes in putting killers behind bars, has the bulletproof résumé and the rugged looks of a law-and-order Republican, which is what he was until last year. That was when he announced he would run for attorney general — as a Democrat.
He is now running neck-and-neck with Republican Phill Kline, an iconic social conservative who made headlines by seeking the names of abortion-clinic patients and vowing to defend science-teaching standards that challenge Darwinian evolution. What’s more, Morrison is raising money faster than Kline and pulling more cash from Republicans than Democrats.
Nor is Morrison alone. In a state that voted nearly 2 to 1 for President Bush in 2004, nine former Republicans will be on the November ballot as Democrats. Among them is Mark Parkinson, a former chairman of the Kansas Republican Party, who changed parties to run for lieutenant governor with the popular Democratic governor, Kathleen Sebelius.
As I was writing this response, I see Dan has posted a remark, so I might as well include it here:
Leon, I’m not sure there is any longer much point in arguing with John Cole. That’s sad – most of us here have never had less than cordial relations with John – but no less true for being sad. I don’t know what we did to personally offend him such that he sees the need to open both barrels at this website with such regularity, but the bottom line is that (1) the Democratic party stands for modern liberalism in all its forms, and (2) John has chosen to advance both the short- and long-term interests of that party, including by engaging in the pretense that strictly political features present in the GOP (partisanship, rhetorical excess, corrupt officials, etc.) are somehow not present in significant force in the party of his choice.
You haven’t offended me personally Dan, and I generally think of you all still as friends. But you have chosen to enable and assist a corrupt (both morally and legally, btw) Republican party because the Democrats are ‘worse’ or the party of ‘modern liberalism.’ You refuse to take your partyy to task because the other guys are ‘worse.’ And the sad thing is, where that once was true, it no longer is- the Democrats may have a bunch of ideas that are ‘worse,’ but on the whole, the Republican party is where you go these days for corruption, sleaze, deceit, power-grabs, influence-peddling, cover-ups, excuse-making, and bad and failed policies. You all have spent so much time drinking the GOP kool-aid that there is literally NOTHING that the Republicans can do that you all can not find a way to explain away or excuse.
Am I sometimes tougher on the Red State folks? I don’t really think so, but I do feel a sense of betrayal by you all- you have chosen to sell yourselves and the soul of the party down the river for political expediency and political power. Sure- you make your token statements every now and then displaying your disapproval with the GOP. But they are just that- tokens, as the very next day you have a post up explaining why Nancy Pelosi would be the worst Speaker ever and that is why you have to vote for the GOP. I can almost see you winking at John Boehner when you write the posts.
It’s really no longer relevant what kind of government, what kind of ideas, or what kind of blogosphere John thinks he is promoting, because the fact is that he strives to bring about precisely the same results that Kos and Atrios do, and by means of the same methods of argumentation.
We know, Dan- we can all sing it in unison- “The Democrats are worse.” And I am really not sure if I want to take argumentation advice from you all, given Red State’s propensity to smear the past few months. In fact, if I were a front page poster at Red State, I would probably point out that Phill Kline has taken money from the Phelps family and, like a good smear merchant, neglect to point out that Kline returned the money.
Throw these bums out of office, start over, and I will be right there with you fighting all the bad ideas that Democrats are sure to have. Until then, some house-cleaning is in order. My roommates at Red State won’t help me clean, so I am breaking out the wet-vac and the power-washer and going to town by myself.
Take solice in the fact that Krempasky’s old boss, Richard Viguerie agrees with you. Mr. Viguerie states:
I wonder if Leon will make a “RedHot” post about Mr. Viguerie drinking the kool-aid. My guess is he won’t.
Shorter John: You’re not going to help clean up, Red Staters? Then get the fuck out of the way.
WHOOSSSHHHHH! [commence power spraying]
You go girl!
The idea is that the Republicans should be ‘in the wilderness’ for X number of years so we should vote Democrat (a position I agree with).
I think what they fear the most is that we might look back and see that 1994-2006 was the Democrat’s wilderness years. I believe the Dems held Congress for 40(?) years the last time.
Redstate really did change a few months back. Everyday now it is filled with YouTube screens filled with attack ads.
What about constructive ideas?
Their intellectual leadership comes from Rush.
I don’t even think half the editors bother to read the diaries anymore.
Like I said in a previous comment thread, RS went downhill when Erick took over daily operations.
Seriously, what the FUCK is this “no one is responsible for themsevles” DISEASE that has completely engulfed the GOP? See, Caretaker Cole didn’t change his mind/use logic/realize duplicity…..his commenters CONVERTED him!!!
Fuck you DougJ, ppGaz, the myriad Steves, and Darrell–it’s all your fault we’re stuck with Bitter and Insightful Cole. It’s all your faults…if Krista and Pb hadn’t come in here all shooting “facts” and “truths” and shit, this never would have happened.
So glad to see ANOTHER Republican so unable to take responsibility. And to think…..that JC changed on his own…how ignorant.
Like RS is going to listen to Richard Viguerie or any of the other John Coles of the Gay Cat-Marrying Left. They’re all unrepentant moonbats, intent on the destruction of America.
My favorite part of the conversion process was when we had Cindy Sheehan and George Galloway take turns waterboarding John. That was fun.
The people at Red State are good examples of what Nietzsche called Masters of Inverse Alchemy – preachers of morals who turn gold into lead, morality into the defense of the immoral and outright shameful. Elmer Gantry come to virtual life.
John Cole is right. Honest conservatives don’t belong at a Republican hate site.
John, you don’t get to use the “we” anymore, do you? You’re now a Democrat in fact, so shouldn’t you get busy cleaning up the Democrat party? You can cross the state line from Kansas to Missouri and start cleaning there. Congressman Cleaver is a minister, and has combined his ministry with a life in politics for a generation. Let’s really look closely at that, where his money comes from, where he campaigns and preaches and raises funds. Just because someone else is breaking the law doesn’t give you and your new party licence, does it?
You’re like a jilted lover, aren’t you? Always focused on the last relationship, and not on the new one.
Finally, you repeatedly assert that Kline wants to end the teaching of evolution. That’s simply a lie–again, not that you care, because if you did care, you would have investigated before casually throwing a false charge out. Kline, as AG in Kansas, isn’t responsible for curricular decisions in Kansas; that’s done by the elected officials at the state board of education and by local school boards.
We can discuss Kansas politics in more detail if you’d like. I don’t think you understand the subject well.
The Other Steve
I didn’t realize I was so powerful. Let’s see if this works…
John Cole, I command you to give me all of your money, your women, and your cat!
This just might be the absolute dumbest thing I’ve ever read in defense of why we shouldn’t use ESCs.
Not to mention that YES, literally, stem cells are grown on trees. Specifically, in their stems. Somebody send this guy a botony textbook, stat.
The Other Steve
If you aren’t with us, you are against us.
As I said yesterday… Don’t go to Mexico City.
The best laugh I’m going to have in a long time is when some Democrat President decides people like the RedStaters are enemy combatants and round them all up with their new fangled, Republican approved, RedState loving powers.
Since John is now apparantly a member of the ‘reality based’ community he probably knows there is no such thing as the ‘Democrat Party’.
The Disenfranchised Voter
The way I see it, you can see one of the root causes of the division between the Republicans in this passage by Leon:
Republicans like Leon do not believe a majority of the religious right want a Christian Theocracy in this country. Of course, the fact that a majority of the religious right do want a Christian Nation is evident to people like myself and John.
Republicans like Leon still cannot see the forest for the trees and I believe that is one of the major divisions in the current GOP.
Hopefully there are enough Republicans, like John, who are willing to see that the religious right’s view of this great land of ours goes against just about everything we stand for–not to mention how utterly flawed their vision of the US is.
John, your link to the LA Times story on Kline is broken.
Fixed. Because Dan Riehl said so.
I can say with 100% certainty that he does want to end the teaching of evolution- he just can’t, and is instead holding behind the scenes close-door meetings with the Board of Education to do what he can to discredit evolution.
And welcome to 2006- I can read about Kansas politics on the intertrons. Perhaps you should use the intertrons to look up “incrementalism”- that is the approach the religious right has been using for the past decade to advance their agenda. I am not as confused as you, so I understand that the incremental changes (stickers on books discrediting evolution) are not the end-game. The end-game is, as I have stated, ending the teaching of evolution.
And then Kline and his ilk can move on to another bogeyman. And Kline understand incrementalisms it is why he is subpoenaing abortion records…
The rest of your comment is nothing more than petty attacks, and I would note that were you to behave this way at Red State, they would ban you.
The Other Steve
We’re seriously fucked long term, IMHO. I’ve been fighting this deficit thing since the 1980s, and just when you think you’re turning the corner some jackass Republican will come along and kneecap you just out of spite.
At one time I used to agree with John that the real problem was cutting spending. I once was advocating 10% across the board cuts, just to do it.
But it’s not. If you look at the numbers, there really isn’t anything there left to cut.
The most worthless part of the budget is the $400 billion we spending on interest for the Reagan/Bush debt. But how can we get rid of it?
Here’s the dirty secret. The best way to eliminate debt is…
Is Leon trying to insinuate that anything illegal took place here? If so, I’d like to see a cite. Here, I’ll help–check out Herb Lusk. Oh wait, did you say Democrats? I think you’re confused.
Oh yeah, you’ve entirely lost it now. In my mind, Leon has just relegated himself to a laughable parody of a hopeless shill. Which is sad, because he was one of the more reasonable people over there, if I’m remembering him correctly–I’d hate to see whatever’s left of the rest of the bunch now.
I’m too lazy to look this up for a more thorough debunking (or too busy with actual work, take your pick), but the thing you call a lie does not relate to the statement you follow it with. Just because Kline doesn’t have power over school curriculums (direct, enumerated power), doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to make a certain change to them, which is what John said. And just because that power isn’t specifically and explicitly his, certainly doesn’t make his intention irrelevant. Does your logic skip some steps that I didn’t look up on my own, or did you just see a connection where there wasn’t any?
Yeah, stop criticizing us, because you’re a liberal now!
How adult of you, Thomas.
Thomas, like Darrell, you need to spend some more time absorbing the lessons of the New Testament and less time lying. What exactly is Mr. Kline doing behind closed doors with the Board?
Why are you ashamed of what y’all really want? Please, just stop lying about it and come out of the closet.
Pass a budget deficit bill like the Democrats did in 1993, which helped to produce the best economy in our history.
Yes, because the only way liberalism can spread is if we abduct our victims to a secret lab, brainwash them, and implant a chip to control their thoughts. Remember, Cindy Sheehan never had any views or thoughts of her own until The Left got ahold of her–and then she was suddenly the unwitting, naïve, hapless dupe of The Left and their Shadowy Agenda–at least until she ascended to the America-hater traitor High Council along with Ward Churchill and George Soros and Hugo Chavez and Osama bin Laden and whoever the hell else is secretly controlling the Democrats this week. That thing about her son getting killed in Iraq? Total coincidence.
And incidentally I do find all the talk of brainwashing amongst Bush cultists to be thoroughly amusing–I wonder how often that sort of thing shows up on the RNC talking points, or if any particular Republican pundit is more responsible for propagating it.
Here’s some backup.
John, I can similarly say with 100% certainty that Kline isn’t interested in ending the teaching of evolution at all, and that no one in Kansas has proposed anything of the sort. The most outlandish proposal in Kansas was to downplay the importance of evolution and to include a discussion of supposed alternatives to the theory.
The meetings Kline had with members of the board of education discussed whether Kline, as AG, would defend in court certain actions that the board might taken.
Yes, you can read about Kansas politics on the internet. You apparently read about Kansas politics as reported by … the Washington Post. Really, there’s insight for you. I live in Kansas. So I know where the ‘reality based’ community will look.
I don’t think the charges I made are petty. I think they go to your core.
srv, read John’s post again: “just because someone else is breaking the law doesn’t mean we get a free pass for breaking the law.” If that’s right, then John and you should clean up your house. Not my house, your house.
Whoops, got the quote turned around. Sorry
AkaDad, or they could pass a budget bill like Bush Sr. and the Democrats did in 1990, which gave us the worst economy in a generation, or whatever crap you all were selling in 1992. Raising taxes is always a good idea, except when it isn’t…
I’m not a dem, dumbass. And neither is John.
Back to you now, and your silly binary interpretation of the world.
Charming. Evidently, if you disagree with what the GOP has become, you are either an evil baby-killing, gay cat-marrying Democrats, or a poor feeble-minded victim who has been horribly brainwashed by the seductive powers of Thymezone’s belligerent rants.
That answers that question.
Seriously, though- I am cleaning up my party. Or trying to, despite your best efforts to keep enabling them.
John, you support Democrats, don’t you? That makes you a Democrat, not a Republican, right? So, clean up your new party.
Well, I can’t argue with that. Kathy Martin didn’t explicitly propose that evolution should be eliminated from the curriculum. She just thinks that:
Nothing left to cut? Um, how about, you know, bridges to nowhere?
I guess I see what you mean, that the major problems are not caused by a billion-dollar budget for the NEA or whatever. And while I would support across-the-board military cuts in general — or at least, slowing the growth; I’m glad as hell Bush’s “son of Star Wars” hasn’t gone anywhere yet — fixing the Pentagon’s budget is a distant second to unfucking its Iraq policy. Buuut there sure as hell are things to do about the ridiculous pork and cronyism, even if not by the usual obvious ways of controlling spending.
While we’re at it, maybe I should apologize to any sane Alaskan who reads this blog. There’s probably some people up there just as offended to be associated with their Congressional delegation as Duncan Black is offended by Rick “Google bomb” Santorum. But, well, us in New England have got used to stuff like “Massachusetts liberal” being used as an insult for years, so it’s only fair that some other part of the country gets the same.
Wow, you’re a moron.
Here’s a tip–I’m not registered as either a Democrat or a Republican. And yet, I’ll likely be voting for Democrats, or largely for Democrats, in this election. That doesn’t make me a Democrat, though–it makes me a voter.
I didn’t. What a liar.
I’ve supported Democrats and Republicans over the years, yet I am neither. How mysterious this voter registration process is!
OK, Thomas has outed himself as a spoof. No righty worth his weight in sand (pounded, of course) would be so dumb as to make this statement.
So, I support gay marriage, so I must be gay, eh? I support the Chicago Bears, so I’m now a member of the Bears? Sawheet.
Is George W. Bush a spoof?
You support The Terrorists, so you must be a Terrorist?
Thomas, with all his volumous knowledge of Kansas, leaves out the salient parts:
In 2005, Kline met behind closed doors with the radical members of the board. Since there were six of them, and meeting with all of them at one time would trigger a sunshine violation, he met with three of them at a time. The remainder of the board was not invited to these conversations.
Thomas, in Kansas, do they teach you what a Scientific Theory is? Or common sense? The non-extremist members of the board shouldn’t be met with over legal defenses the AG would cover?
Come out of the closet, man. If you don’t believe in evolution, and want ID and creationism in the textbooks, at least be man enough to admit it. Stop playing games.
So you don’t really care what Republicans do, they just wear the right uniform. GO TEAM!
Cool. I’m not even an American, and yet, magically, I’m now a member of the Democratic party!
Do I count?
check out the cover story of the latest Rolling Stone–very interesting, hard-hitting article titled “The Worst Congress Ever.”
Thanks for that link Ryan. Sometimes a picture truly does equal a thousand words.
Those graphs show that the worst deficits in our history were produced by “small Government” Republican Presidents.
The Bush Administration supports torture, so they must be torturers.
Ehh…I don’t think I’m doing this right.
How about the tens of billions in corporate welfare?
In the 1950’s the top tax rate on the rich was 90%, yet jobs were created and the economy grew.
There is not one shred of evidence or data that shows high income taxes on the rich hurts the economy.
yet another jeff
Ya know, it just occurred to me, in the spirit of the GOP’s projection of whatever they accuse the Democratic Party of doing, they are doing…I’ve been thinking about how the GOP is becoming more and more shrill…and this thread finally made something click as the rhetoric of RS approaches LGF levels.
This is what today’s GOP expects from the non-true believers. Must be a way to describe this without using their lexicon…but this is really sounding like the rage of an abusive husband when his battered wife finally leaves him.
The Other Steve
Didn’t you guys learn from the Ohio evolution battle? Lying about what you are trying to do just makes it worse for you.
I really don’t care. The fact that you guys continue to make a laughing stock of yourselves benefits me. Companies working in advanced modern science refuse to look at Kansas as a viable location to expand.
And we have plenty of real estate for them here.
The Other Steve
The Frist filibuster folly, you’ll note was explained away by Republicans with “Look at what you are making us do.”
What’s a puny 26 million new jobs during an eight-year period as compared to the much larger 6 million in six years of the Bushies?
It hurts the economy for yacht-makers, jewelers and other high-end goods and services industries.
And you have to feel bad for the guy trying to sell the $15 million yacht or the $500,000 watch.
I know I do.
The perfect compliment to the worst POTUS ever.
yet another jeff
“He doesn’t have the authority to end the teaching of evolution” sure sounds like a winning campaign slogan to me.
you should check out http://www.anklebitingpundits.com….I think I was banned there in approximately 4.1 seconds.
Or the rage of an abusive party when the country finally leaves them.
This report has a nice graph of gross Job creation (“solely a measure of labor demand”) from 1990 – 2004 (Figure C) — it was holding pretty steady at 8% or so until Bush came along…
Wow..because John is very angry about how his political party has betrayed the very things it used to stand for and is choosing to vote to get the radical extremists, corrupt and inept yahoos out of power… that somehow makes him a Democrat.
There really is no middle way for you folks? You are apparantly the only ones allowed righteous anger. John Cole could not have arrived at his current views all by himself..it HAD to be his Crazy Commenters…honestly, he came to his own decisions IN SPITE of us, not because of us.
yet another jeff
Or “Lonesome” Rhodes at the end of Face in the Crowd…but yeah, a whole lot of “I hate you but don’t you dare leave me!” going on.
Cause, meet effect.
Ya know…Red State might be right. Perhaps if John had simply banned dissenting voices like they do, he might still be ONE OF THEM.
I guess I’m naive in thinking that if you argue for and support the election of members of a political party, that’s your party. Apparently people believe that, in a two party electoral system, you can argue for and support the election of members of only one political party while simultaneously being a member of the other. I’m not familiar with that phenomenom. But here goes: I’m a Democrat. I’m going to clean house on the whole lot of the antidemocratic, elitist, lying, cheating, corrupt lot of them, er, I mean, us. John, you keep working on that other party.
srv, I believe in evolution. I don’t have any problem saying that. I haven’t supported and probably wouldn’t support anyone who would ban the teaching of evolution.
Hey Thomas..vote for whoever you want, that’s the great thing about being an American. I can vote for either party, or any party while still being registered and identifying with a particular party. Have done it in fact on numerous occasions in the past. Not now, not when the GOP has so thoroughly screwed the pooch for the past six and counting.
I’d like to go back to that feeling that if a candidate, whatever party, is the best one for me I’ll vote for him.
See, you are not able to get past the either or thing.
Thomas apparently missed some of the more acrimonious moments between John and his commentariot. Weird, because there were certainly plenty of them over the past year and a half.
Honestly I’m amazed JC didn’t just chuck the blog.
Sorry, I referred to Thomas above when I was actually talking about RedState.
If you can’t count, that’s an even bigger problem than the question of your sanity.
If John had a long history of this you might have a point.
Do you think John’s voting for Democrats this fall because he has the warm fuzzies for them? Or could it be that he sees it as the best way to try to restore his own party to what it once was?
Oh crap..I just reread that RS post…he compared BJ to Atrios. What next? The suggestion that because John had mentioned Cindy Sheehan on one or two occasions, he must be a supporter?
Well, now we know Thomas is from the “lyin’ for Jesus” crowd. I sat here in Ks. and listened to the Bd. of Ed. members say that they wanted to (and in one case did) teach creationism in science class; that at some point you have to choose between evolution and the bible; that evolution is absolutely unsupported by science; etc. And the LFJ crowd will still claim they never wanted to eliminate evolution. Up until the Dover case, they were all for replacing evolution with Intelligent Design; now they’re all “teach the controversy.” Call it what you will, lyin’ Thomas; they want evolution gone, and Phill will help any way he can–that’s his base.
yet another jeff
Unless you’re rewarding bad behavior, you’re the enemy. Does that sum it up?
I think somebody should start a quiz:
DougJ or Redstate
With pairs of quotes. Which one came from a prominent Redstate contributor, and which came from DougJ?
Can I tee that up any nicer for you?
You’re not naive. You’re just ignorant.
As people have already tried to tell you, even if you support gay marriage, it doesn’t mean you’re gay.
If you think in terms of party before country, then I can easily see how you could arrive at such a useless position that vocalizing support for one party means you play for the other team. But when you think in terms of being an American first, and a Republican second, then you might begin to see just how assinine your statement really is.
I’m not going to hold my breathe for you though.
“…that vocalizing support for one party means you play for the other team.”
should read: …that vocalizing support for one party means you play for that team.
The Disenfranchised Voter
ONE OF US! ONE OF US! ONE OF US!
Lol. That immediately popped into my head. Can’t remember what TV show or movie it was from though…
yet another jeff
No, you had it right. I think that’s the crux, vocalizing support for Democratic candidates means you’re gay.
capelza, I’ve voted for Democrats and for Libertarians. I don’t think someone has to be “pure” in their support for a political party to be considered a member of that party. But if you think that one of the two major parties is evil, and you think that almost all of the members of that same party are dangers to the Republic, and you argue for the defeat of *all* of the members of that party at the polls, it seems to me you’re not a member of that party.
les, I’m Phill’s base, aren’t I. And I want schools to teach evolution. No problem with it at all. Is Kline pandering to me, or not?
Jeeze, how far off the reservation did John have to go to be
defenestratedasked to leave the Big Tent?
But Thomas already said:
Can someone please ask Thomas to actually say what he means?
Twilight Zone, I do believe.
Or, one might not like the current players in the party they belong to, and feel the only option they have is to vote for the other party, until the party they belong to has changed their “evil” ways.
yet another jeff
No, “one of us, one of us….” if from the movie Freaks.
If a gang of worthless criminals took control of the Democratic party, I would root like hell for them to lose. I don’t gain anything by having my “team” running the country into the ground, except the pyrrhic victory of having conservatives even madder about it than I am (remember that part because it explains a lot right now). As long as said criminals stay in power who is going to reform the party? As long as the money flows they could give two shits what I have to say.
If I wanted the Democratic party to come back to planet Earth I would have to do everything I could to see the criminals go down, preferably in disgrace and ideally to jail. Only then would I have the chance of electing people who might resuscitate the party’s reputation.
So I ask you, Thomas, at what point in that process would I become a Republican? It looks to me as if I had a perfectly consistent set of principles from start to finish. To claim otherwise, as you do, suggests a painfully shortsighted view of national politics.
Even if John was a Democrat…a rip-roaring NOT-gay-bashing, NOT-jesus-freaking, NOT-torture-promoting, NOT-constitution-shredding, NOT-pork-spending, NOT-America-dividing, NOT-fear-mongering, NOT-catapulting-the-propaganda, NOT-bald-face-lying Democrat.
Would that be so bad?
Well, Thomas, it’s not apparent Phill needs to pander to you. You’ll support him no matter what he does. If I’m supposed to believe that because you claim to support the teaching of evolution–and I’ve had enough discussions to know what a huge lie that can be, when your compatriots are done defining it–that the KBOE, Phill and his not-quite flat earthers don’t want it gone, well, sorry. Would you like to define “kinds” for us? Oh, sorry, you haven’t actually provided support for any of your assertions yet.
Well, no, les, I wouldn’t support Phil no matter what. I’ve voted for Democrats and for Libertarians and for others. I’m a Republican, but that’s not all there is to it.
It’s not that I claim to support the teaching of evolution; I do support it. Right here. If I thought electing Phill Kline as AG would mean that Kansas schools wouldn’t teach evolution any more, I wouldn’t vote for him.
Andrei, can you name a Republican running for election that John supports? One? That’s what I mean.
Shortsighted is all they know. They’ll vote for Corker cuz Ford is just some white woman-lovin’ n*****, they’ll vote for Allen cuz Webb wrote some sexy stuff in a fiction novel, and watch Jean Schmidt win again in Ohio because….she goes to church on Sunday. If that’s not shortsighted, I don’t know what is…
Brainwashing causes people to change their views about political parties? I’ll have to check that out with my co-worker who told me years ago, “If you want things to go right, just vote Republican” but about 6 months ago was mad and ranting about Republicans and called Bush and Cheney “oil maggots.” I think there’s a lot of Republicans who agree with John. They may not read blogs and many probably won’t vote Democrat. A lot probably won’t vote at all this time.
Can you name one he SHOULD support if his stated goal is to send his party into a time out?
The Disenfranchised Voter
That should tell you more about the current Republican party than it should about John…
Thomas, here’s what you don’t realize:
Your elected Republican leaders suck.
Supporting them is self-defeating, except to those leaders themselves.
Cole realizes this; you do not.
If a banana lover goes to a fruitstand and finds that all the bananas are brown and mushy and opts for a peach instead, does that now make him a peach lover, and if so, should the banana lover have eaten the rotten fruit instead? Go away hungry? Grow a banana tree? Invade Iraq and interrogate and torture people intil they tell you where they keep their bananas?
Hmmm…tough one. I don’t know the answer to this conundrum, but I do know that peaches are pretty tasty. So, do what you must, but whatever you do, don’t eat the commie-bastard melons.
Do you have a link to back that up?
And what does that prove? Obviously, in your world view you think that somehow translates that he’s now a Democrat. Fine. Live in that fantasy world. But you need to take responsibility for your own view of the situation as it’s not the facts. This sort of leap of logic that you make is partly what gets so many of us left-center, right-center and independents so pissed off.
It’s that whole bullshit “If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists” meme. It’s petty, useless and unproductive, especially in a Democracy. Not unproductive for me necessarily, but for you. The only way it’s unproductive for me is that it sometimes has a slight margin of people like you voting in ways from a petty position of what’s going on in this country and the world. (Like when Bush beats out Kerry by basically 2% to 3% because of the fringe elements voting in blocks while the opposite votng block stays at home.)
And it pisses me off.
As for Cole, he’s just pissed off at his own party for a variety of reasons he’s already stated, so he punishing them by voting for the other or not voting at all. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Occam’s Razor perhaps?
[For the record, it should be noted that Cole’s commentors are largely centrists. There are a few die hard leftists with the obivous rightwing types like scs and Darrell, but by and large, my experience of this commenrting board is that people who comment on it when pressed would admit they are more left of center or independents, but not diehard leftists types.]
But do they swallow?
Enquiring minds and alla that.
I’m a slightly right-of-center independent, though Darrell keeps mistaking me for a Moonbat(TM).
From the comments I’ve seen here over the last year or two, I’m probably to the right of most of the sane commentators, but not by a huge amount. Smart money says I’m left of John Cole, though.
Still going with the possibility of only two choices. Like Rush and his “MJF is either off his meds or he’s acting.” Nothing else possible. Everything in 2D. So if you vote for members of one party, then you must be of that party. No way it’s a three dimensional world. Couldn’t be that you’re simply voting for the best candidates regardless of their party label.
That’s how I’ve always voted. Until this election cycle when I mailed in my ballot this week. Because I was mindful of the president’s words: “You’re either with us or against us.” Republicans for the past six years have demanded conformity to that mantra. The tent has been in lock down to ensure compliance. “Mavericks” like McCain and Graham have shown they’ll go ass up in an instant to be faithful lap dogs after a momentary growl.
So the president told me my two choices this week was either voting for a current leadership that is not fit to be in the same room with an American flag or not. I chose not. For the first time there was not even one Republican for a state office on my ballot. Two-dimensional either/or Republican jokes like Thomas can call bullshit if they like, I really don’t give a fuck.
Given the extremism of the GOP faithful these days John D., while you and I might measure you as right of center, you’re probably in the “independent” tag, which is defined as the entire fuzzy area completely surrounding the political center with no balance going either direction. It includes the left of center, center and right of center positions.
I’m not sure given the nature of the rhetoric in politics these days, anyone can claim being right of center at this point in time. The way in which the rabid idiots all across the punditry class and blogosphere blast their mesage and drown out any real discussion prove that everything to the right contains no shades of gray. It’s all binary to them.
Right of center has been lost for the short term.
Being to the right of 2 or 3 people proves nothing, you know.
Why don’t you ask moonbat Democrat Peggy Noonan about that…
I agree–it’s one of the things I find appealing about this place. Most commentors are more about finding the best solutions to issues we face than finding the left- or right-wing solution (or adherence to said solution). Everybody has their leanings to one side or the other, but they’re generally mild and certainly not calcified.
More like the “center” has been dragged way to the right, leaving a lot of moderate people stranded and exposing the essential toolishness of people like Beinart and Broder, who value “centrism” over principles.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I’ll bet Mark Foley does…
I think Foley is the swallowee, not the swallower.
OMG, I cannot believe I just said that. In print and all.
Tsulagi, John doesn’t support the best candidate regardless of the label. He doesn’t care about the quality of the candidates; if they’re Republicans, he won’t vote for them. That’s true for you as well, according to your post. Good for you and all, but I don’t see how that helps your point. I think you’ve made mine.
Andrei, I’m not a long-time reader of John’s, so perhaps I’ve misinterpreted or misunderstood his point. But the hatred and contempt he has for *every* elected Republican official mentioned on the blog and for their supporters is unmistakeable. I very much doubt that John will ever vote for a Republican again, though of course I’d like to be wrong about that. I don’t mean to chase John out of the party, not that I could–I’m posting here, I’m not someone important, and John obviously thinks for himself. It just seems to me that if you’ve switched your political allegiance, you’ve switched, and being honest and forthright about it is the best way to go, even if you no longer get to use the “even John Cole, Republican, thinks…” line.
Don;t be a total disingenuous idiot, please.
I have been voting for good Republican (or so I thought) candidates for almost 20 years. In Presidential elections I have voted for a man named Bush three times. I am not going to sit her and let you pretend I am some sort of Democrat stalwart.
Are there Republicans who I would support running this year? As individuals, there are a number of Republicans I like (although not in WV where I vote- Raese is crooked and vile)- but that isn’t what is at stake here. I am choosing not to vote Republican not because they are bad as individuals, but because collectively, no matter how independent they may pretend to be, they vote the party line. Look at every vote on issues that matter- they vote the party line, whether out of fear, cowardice, who knows.
And the decisions the GOP leadership have made are, across the board, disastrous. Supporting any Republican in this election, no matter how much I like them as an individual, would enable the party and administration. the party is corrupt, soulless, and devoid of ideas and solutions. it is as crooked as Forrest Gump’s back. And I will not be voting for them this fall, and do not see me voting for the GOP in 2008, barring some big changes.
N ow that might be too nuanced for a halfwit like you, but it is most certainly not a matter of me simply being a Republican hater or having switched allegiances. THE GOP is rotten, they must be destroyed. Although if you are a typical example of a current Republican (and it sure sounds like it- you are ful of the talking points and the inability to recognize life is not simply binary coinstructs), if I did hate you, it would be justified. Now go away or quit lying about me.
Before clicking the submit button and having all those letters and stuff go flying across the internets, maybe you should’ve first savored the stuff in bold, especially considering the Carnac-the-Magnificentness of the stuff in italics.
You have obviously ignored my comment above. To reiterate, this point of yours only makes sense if you approach politics with no functioning long-term memory. If somebody cares about their party and hates to see it led by idiotic crooks then sometimes the best thing he can do is wish for the crooks to go down in disgrace. To pretend that that person has suddenly become anti-their party in general is shortsighted to the point of pathology.
John, tell me, which issues do you think matter? Looking at the front page, one would think that the issues that matter to you are gay marriage, torture, evolution, abortion, first amendment/religious freedom and establishment of religion issues, corruption, border security, and stem cell research. Those are, in my limited experience, the issues you blog about the most. And the Republican party isn’t united on those, and doesn’t enforce discipline on any of them. For example, whatever the party line is on stem cell research or immigration–I’m not sure what you’d say it is–there are dissenters, and the dissenters are in good standing.
I think that if you believe, as apparently you do, that these are the big issues in American politics today, and that the Republicans are, in the main, wrong on them and the Democrats are, in the main, right on them, then you’ve become a Democrat.
Robert Byrd? Dear god, man.
As it happens, there are a lot of Republicans out there that should (that is, deserve to) lose this year, and many more that if they lose, well, what’s the loss. I’m not sending my money or pulling for Burns. But I’m certainly not pulling for Menendez to survive either. Lots of other Democrats fall in that category.
And as it happens, I think that many Republicans should win. I want Jim Talent to be reelected; he’s a good senator for Missouri. I think Phill Kline’s done a fine job as AG in KS. Some Democrats fall in that category as well–Senator Nelson from FL should win, for example.
I just looked at the cover of SI. Sports Illustrated must think Chad Johnson is the most important athlete in the world.
I give up. You are a waste of my time.
You have missed John’s point, which I will now illustrate for you. One could say that the party has dissenters on stem cell research. That sounds great, yet the policy remains a disaster. Somehow these bright-eyed, well-meaning people failed to prevent their party from enacting truly awful legislation. Whether by active patricipation or a failure to intervene the “good” Republicans have counted for less than nothing these past six years.
Maybe the Republican party would be a worthwhile body again if these good folks took up the leadership. I think that you and John would agree on that. Without a doubt the fastest way to do that would be to clear out the current leadership so they can advance. As I see it, if you don’t stand with the crazy wing of the GOP then you ought to be standing right beside John, rooting for a thorough cleaning so that the good guys can have their party back.
( Mr. Cole’s head just exploded )
The ‘good’ Republicans are irrelevant- they serve to do nothing morethan vote for the leadership, who then can implement Rove/Bush’s legislative agenda.
Actually, they’re much more than that. They act as Poster Boys for Moderation and Centrism. When Specter goes all stem celly on TV, the headlines blare that some (read: one) Republicans endorse it. They have Hagel go out and diss the Iraq war, so that the media reports that some (one) R’s are being realistic. This way, Americans don’t see just how out of touch they truly are.
It’s genius, really. Because they then vote with the WH anyway, and nobody cares at that point.
At least they’re not Democrats, you gay cat-marrying Sheehan-lover.
Either an interesting misspelling or the Firefox 2.0 spellchecker has a hidden liberal agenda.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Yea because you know that is a lost hope. Menendez has that seat locked.
I am not a Democrat but I too will be voting straight party line democrat and hold my nose when I do so because of how utterly atrocious the current Republican party is.
I’m not voting for Menendez, I’m voting against Kean.
But I guess I’m now a Democrat too.
You know, given how fucked up this all is, the fact that this is even going to be close is very depressing.
Yes, we have no bananas.
Thomas: So you “believe in” evolution and you don’t want to ban it from high school science classes. That’s a bold stand, sparky — all power to you, out there on the front lines fighting for the advancement of human knowledge, as long as it doesn’t make anybody think they might be some kind of monkey.
Evolution isn’t transubstantiation. Evolution happens, independent of human belief. Do you understand why evolution is a valid scientific theory? (Hint: hypothesis, testable predictions, reproducible results) If so, you must understand why intelligent design* is not a valid scientific theory, and you won’t be surprised by the fact that ID has produced 00.00** peer-reviewed articles.
So please explain why you think ID should be taught in high school science classes at all. If ID’s in, then what’s out? Is it really turtles all the way down?
(Not to pick on Kansas — Republicans all over the country have declared War on Science.)
Thomas, does being a Republican mean anything other than not voting for a Democrat? You say it does, but define your terms. And explain how your Son of Big Tent view comports with the “message discipline” ruthlessly enforced over the past six years.
John Cole, I’m enjoying your post-conflicted posts — and it’s clear you are, too. Your ability to change your mind in the face of changing facts, even at your advanced age, is most admirable. I eagerly await the day when we’re once again on opposing political sides.
*This is the dress creationism wears for constitutional review.
**There may be some rounding error.
John, I’ve been a reader for a few weeks, and those issues seem to be the constant theme. Am I missing something? I mean, I think you’re writing about ridiculous stuff, but I was under the impression that you thought the stuff you wrote about was important. I know it’s just hot air, but is it really just meaningless hot air? Fine by me if it is.
vetiver, is there something I haven’t made clear? There was some suggestion that I want to ban the teaching of evolution. I don’t, and so I made that clear–not because it’s some exceptional stance, but because the mistaken suggestion was made. I don’t have any problem with evolution. I believe in evolution. Where the heck did I say I want ID taught? Did I miss something? Point it out to me, before making more of these reckless John-Cole-type baseless charges. Do you all bother to read anything before spouting off?
Disenfranchised, great to see the kind of quality you’re voting for there in NJ. You’re absolutely entitled to your view, which apparently is that the US Senate needs more corrupt Democrats and fewer clean and moderate northeastern Republicans.
Tim F., referring to stem cell research you say “Somehow these bright-eyed, well-meaning people failed to prevent their party from enacting truly awful legislation.” The only bill passed by Congress on stem cell research would have provided funding for embryonic stem cell research. Do I understand you to be opposed to that bill? Or are you just absolutely incoherent?
babyjane, I’m happy to play Carnac. Would you care to place a wager on my prediction? We can return to this same spot every two years. John’s told us the answer for this year and for ’08, so we’re talking about ’10 and beyond.
As you say, you’re new here, so let me clue you in to a few of the positions that a Republican like John Cole and some others here would endorse:
Government keeps its nose out of private decisions (Schaivo)
Government balances the budget(bridge to nowhere and Medicare Prescription Drugs)
Congress does its Constitutional duty and acts as an oversight body on the executive branch (Gitmo, private contractors in Iraq, signing statements, etc.)
Wrongdoing and incompetence by public officials is exposed, investigated and dealt with in public (Abramoff, the Katrina disaster)
Torture does not become the official policy of the United States of America in violation of the Constitution and human decency
I could go on, but will only say that I, like John Cole, will be voting a straight ticket this year for the first time in my 35 odd years of voting. That ticket will be Democratic. Not because I think the Democrats are all that great or because I agree with all their positions, but because the party which is currently in power is pushing my country in a direction which appalls me and the only way to make them stop is to get rid of them.
Incidentally, thanks to whoever it was who put up the link to the Rolling Stones article. It’s the scariest thing I’ve read in a while and effectively summarizes many of the reasons this Republican Congressional majority has to go.
Congratulations John, you’re now the Jane Hamsher of the right. Or the new Andrew Sullivan, or something like that.
I am writing about issues that are important, but also are issues I can do something about. Most of the bigger issueshave been decided, and decided incorrectly, and there is nothing that can be done about them until a new congress and new President are elected.
For example, Iraq- It is a disaster, and it is my opinion it is over. But Bush is not going anywhere, and the Republicans in Congress refuse to do anything- no more troops, no oversight, no calls for new strategy. In short, there is nothing that can be done, and we are at the whim and pleasure of an obstinate fool (Bush) and his lackeys (Rumsfeld and a servile Congress). What is the point of talking about it? Nothing can be done.
Or torture- the debate is over. There is nothing that can be done. It was passed, and it is the law of the land until we hand the keys over to a new government.
The issues are right about are still relevant because something can be done. Additionally, the issues I write about are important to many, but the reason they are really important is because they are what the GOP is using to get themselves elected again- so they can continue to do nothing about the issues you and I agree are more pressing.
Finally, teaching intelligent design, gay-bashing, etc., are, in and of themselves important issues.
While keeping score of somebody else’s personal decisions is certainly a tempting offer, I’ll have to pass. See, I have slightly more pressing things to monitor, such as which fastfood chain is likely to have the best dollar-menu next April, so I can get the most bang out of my tax-break buck.
Besides, Mr. Cole seems like a swell guy and if you ask him nicely, maybe he’ll sneak a handicam into the voting booth under his tie-dye Che Guevara t-shirt and record all the damage for you. If he declines, well, what can you do? Maybe try asking again and again and again, until you catch him on a day when his birkenstock blisters aren’t acting up.
In any case, over the millennia, my inner Shirley McClaine has taught me well the value of patience, so I’ll have no problem waiting until Mr. Cole appears on Oprah and dances on her couch while proclaiming, “I love Nancy Pelosi!” I won’t be a bit surprised by this though, since I’ve known about this perversion of his for some time. But, I kept it under the rug, as I refuse to be a bay-gaiter.
I’ve gotta go now. My husband Rover and I are about to leave for our bible study class, for which we built a wonderful papier mache Triceratops, so I really don’t want be late.
Before I leave, maybe you can help answer this nagging trivia question that got me stumped: What ever became of all the milkmen?
Speaking of Sully and conservatism, I thought this bit from one of his readers was interesting:
Thomas, your reading comprehension is awfully poor. Between you and the Kansas Board of Ed, I’m getting an unflattering portrait of your state’s educational standards.
You said: The most outlandish proposal in Kansas was to downplay the importance of evolution and to include a discussion of supposed alternatives to the theory.
Though you decribed the proposal as “outlandish,” you didn’t mention that it also was supported 6-4 by the board. All six pro-ID members were Republicans. (One declared evolution “biologically, genetically, mathematically, chemically, metaphysically and etc. wildly and utterly impossible.”) You also didn’t express any particular concern that this “outlandish” notion came so close to being enacted, with the support of your party.
In fact, the 2006 Kansas State Republican Party Platform states: “Kansas students should be allowed and encouraged to fully discuss and critique all science-based theories for the origin of life in science curricula.” This is especially incoherent (e.g., evolution doesn’t address “the origin of life”) but similar anti-evolution statements are found in the Republican platforms of several other states, including Texas. (Sorry — could only find links to PDFs. Try the google.)
You seem to be A-OK with your party’s efforts to debase science and scientific education, and so I asked: [P]lease explain why you think ID should be taught in high school science classes at all. If ID’s in, then what’s out? Is it really turtles all the way down?
In response, you simply repeat that you “believe in” evolution–a comfort, I’m sure, to evolutionary biologists everywhere–and throw a hissy-fit at me.
So what are you doing to defend this particular aspect of science from your party’s war against it? Obviously, carping at John “Quisling” Cole takes up a lot of your time but, valuable as that effort is, surely you’re working on this issue, too.
And FYI, you might want to read the “wedge document”.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Just about the whole Republican Party–when it comes to the federal level–is corrupt IMHO. Even moderates like Shays and Chafee tow the party line on the important issues.
I see no reason why Kean wouldn’t do the same.