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

The rest of the comments were smacking Boebert like she was a piñata.

Roe is not about choice. It is about freedom.

Marge, god is saying you’re stupid.

If you thought you’d already seen people saying the stupidest things possible on the internet, prepare yourselves.

The Supreme Court cannot be allowed to become the ultimate, unaccountable arbiter of everything.

Someone should tell Republicans that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, or possibly the first.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

“The defense has a certain level of trust in defendant that the government does not.”

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

I really should read my own blog.

Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires Republicans to act in good faith.

Mediocre white men think RFK Jr’s pathetic midlife crisis is inspirational. The bar is set so low for them, it’s subterranean.

“In the future, this lab will be a museum. do not touch it.”

We can show the world that autocracy can be defeated.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

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

Republicans: The threats are dire, but my tickets are non-refundable!

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

Radicalized white males who support Trump are pitching a tent in the abyss.

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

Everybody saw this coming.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

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 / Republican Stupidity / Faux Outrage

Faux Outrage

by John Cole|  January 12, 20073:28 pm| 109 Comments

This post is in: Republican Stupidity, General Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

This latest gem of fakery and distraction is priceless:

Boxer was wholly in character for her party – New York’s own two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, were predictably opportunistic – but the Golden State lawmaker earned special attention for the tasteless jibes she aimed at Rice.

Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush’s tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.

“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.”

Then, to Rice: “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”

Breathtaking.

Simply breathtaking.

We scarcely know where to begin.

The junior senator from California ap parently believes that an accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman.

Because, apparently, when you point out that someone is not going to pay a personal price or have to personally sacrifice, it is THE SAME DAMNED THING as telling them they are unqualified to make a decision. Predictably, the “Look, a rabbit” wing of the blogosphere is all over this. Better to pay attention to this newly manufactured insult than the fact that Bush is throwing more troops into an unwinnable mess and looks to be agitating a larger regional war against Syria and Iran.

But since the wingnuts think they have a winner here, let’s help them out. If you read the transcript, Boxer actually said SHE would not pay a price, either. In other words, she attacked not only Rice, but she attacked herself.

I think that is proof positive that Sen. Boxer is sexist.

*** Update ***

And I don’t know what the hell Sullivan is reading into the unremarkable remarks by Boxer, but after work I will have two of whatever he is drinking:

That’s the only word to describe Senator Boxer’s ad feminam attack on Condi Rice yesterday. There was a trace of homophobia to the smear as well. This kind of attack is like the “chickenhawk” smear and worthy of low-life liars like Michael Moore. We really should be able to debate national security without the politics of personal destruction. The senator should apologize. Today.

All Boxer said was that she and Condi will not pay a personal price for any decisions they made. Reading that as an attack on Rice’s competence, much less homophobia, is beyond silly.

For the record, if you want an attack on Rice’s competence, see Bob Novak.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The Snow Fallacy
Next Post: Harry Reid Nearly Hobbles Earmark Reform, Sets A Poor Precedent »

Reader Interactions

109Comments

  1. 1.

    demimondian

    January 12, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    B-b-b-but John! Boxer’s from *California*. Don’t they marry gays out there in San Francisco where she’s from? How can she have kids or grandkids? You see, that’s the whole point of the insult: she can’t have the children she has, any more than Nancy Pelosi can. So she has no business talking to someone who doesn’t have the children she doesn’t claim to have about the risks those children won’t face.

    Or something like that. I think.

  2. 2.

    fwiffo

    January 12, 2007 at 3:35 pm

    You’d think with as skeptical as conservatives are about how government spends other people’s money, they’d be skeptical about how the goverment spends other people’s children…

  3. 3.

    demkat620

    January 12, 2007 at 3:39 pm

    Calling someone who disagrees with you a traitor, A-ok.

    Pointing out someone is childless, outrageous.

    Get out the smelling salts I think the Faux News people are gonna faint.

  4. 4.

    Keith

    January 12, 2007 at 3:43 pm

    Even Sully bit on that one (“Vile”). All I gleaned from the statement was that Boxer accused Rice of being too detached from the personal impact of this war due to not having immediate family fighting in the war, much in the same way Boxer has a detachment. In the same way, Jim Webb, for instance *would* pay the price Boxer is talking about, as he experiences first-hand the agony of knowing one of his children is looking at at least another year of amped-up fighting.

  5. 5.

    Davebo

    January 12, 2007 at 3:47 pm

    So what?

    Even if she had kids, does anyone believe they’d be lined up at the recruiting office?

    an accomplished, seasoned diplomat

    Ok, now who are they talking about? Rice? I’d say here diplomatic career has been about as succesful as her NSA career was.

    Hell I’m amazed she hasn’t been given a Presidential Medal of Freedom yet.

  6. 6.

    RSA

    January 12, 2007 at 3:52 pm

    My impression from the snippet is that Boxer was just making a general rhetorical point: The Iraq war is a burden being shouldered by a small part of the American public, and neither she nor most of the decision-makers are among them; they’re not paying the price personally. That’s an important point that remains worth making again and again. Sometimes this escalation is described as “Bush’s gamble”. It is, in a sense, except that he’s not gambling with his own money.

  7. 7.

    Don

    January 12, 2007 at 3:55 pm

    Let’s face it, learning to get worked up over words rather than actions or inaction was the only way for conservatives to emotionally survive the last six years. If they got this worked up over the things people DO rather than SAY they’d have had to collectively commit seppuku.

  8. 8.

    John Cole

    January 12, 2007 at 3:56 pm

    My impression from the snippet is that Boxer was just making a general rhetorical point: The Iraq war is a burden being shouldered by a small part of the American public, and neither she nor most of the decision-makers are among them; they’re not paying the price personally. That’s an important point that remains worth making again and again.

    That is because you are, umm, sane.

  9. 9.

    Dave

    January 12, 2007 at 3:59 pm

    Of course the wing nuts are all up in arms about this. Since nothing’s happening in the Duke lacrosse scandal they need something to talk about.

  10. 10.

    Zifnab

    January 12, 2007 at 4:02 pm

    This kind of attack is like the “chickenhawk” smear and worthy of low-life liars like that fatty Michael Moore.

    Fixed.

    Can we come up with some sort of “Moore’s Law”? Kinda like Godwin’s Law, except incorporating exponential increase of this hackneyed slander?

  11. 11.

    jaime

    January 12, 2007 at 4:03 pm

    What else are they gonna complain about? How pathetic and incompetent Condi sounded at the hearing? If not this, the right would have found some other bogus distraction

    There was a trace of homophobia to the smear as well.

    Good to see Sulli channeling Rosie these days.

  12. 12.

    Tsulagi

    January 12, 2007 at 4:15 pm

    Same old shit, just recycled daily. I liked this line in the NY Post editorial…

    It’s hard to imagine the firestorm that similar comments would have ignited, coming from a Republican to a Democrat

    Just writes itself. Often. Boilerplate to be sure, but always soothing when sucking at the tit of victimhood.

    Of course the Post writer took exception to some of the other scum ‘undercutting the president.’ Schumer characterizing Bush’s plan as “a new surge without a new strategy.” How dare he?! The admin can’t connect dots, so who gave Schumer the right to do so? Treasonous.

  13. 13.

    Pb

    January 12, 2007 at 4:17 pm

    There was a trace of homophobia to the smear as well.

    Get that smear to the lab for analysis! Does Sully think that Condi is a lesbian? Does he think that Boxer does? Anyhow, since the far-right is beyond parody on this one (as usual), derision and parody is really the only respsonse needed, and no doubt far more than they deserve–so cue the lie volcano!

  14. 14.

    RSA

    January 12, 2007 at 4:20 pm

    Does Sully think that Condi is a lesbian?

    That caught my eye as well. I think someone might ask Sully whether there wasn’t a trace of outing in his response.

  15. 15.

    Richard 23

    January 12, 2007 at 4:21 pm

    I don’t get the homophobia thing. Is Condi gay or something?

    You’d think realize with as skeptical pearl clutching as conservatives are about how government spends other people’s their own money, you’d realize how they’d be skeptical wouldn’t give a damn about how the goverment spends other people’s children…

    No better. Abandoned.

  16. 16.

    Steve

    January 12, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    Good God. On what planet is it an insult to say “neither of us are bearing a burden”?

  17. 17.

    ThymeZone

    January 12, 2007 at 4:25 pm

    Good for Boxer. As you say, a general — and valid — rhetorical point. The reason for the faux outrage is that it covers for the embarassment the rhetorical point caused. What skin do the meatheads have in this game as they prepare to uncork their sixth “surge” in the war so far, having accomplished nothing of note the first five times they tried it? Rice is a paid liar, a lunatic from all outward appearances. Any rhetorical play that throws light on her malfeasance is fine with me.

  18. 18.

    demimondian

    January 12, 2007 at 4:26 pm

    I know enough female academics of Dr. Rice’s age to know that lesbianism is always rumored about the ones who, for whatever reason, never marry, so, no, John, I don’t think that the homophobia issue is fake. I think it’s quite real.

  19. 19.

    Carol H

    January 12, 2007 at 4:27 pm

    As a mother with a son currently serving in Iraq I understand Senator Boxer perfectly. She was making the point that neither she, as the mother of grown children and a grandmother of grandchildren not serving, or Ms. Rice, as a childless women, are not in the position to sacra
    ifice in the same way as I am. When Boxer or Rice read “two soldiers killed today in Iraq” I assume they feel bad, probably very bad since they are policy makers in this country. I, on the other hand, think “where, where” and immediately try to see where and what unit. So far I have always been relieved to find out that it was not my son, but he is there until August, will probably have his tour extended, and will return 10 months after he comes instead of the expected 12 so I have a long way to go with this. I know, though, that another family will experience the sorrow that I have escaped and that tempers my relief. When Ms. Rice has a son or daughter in harms way I will listen to those who say she understands the sacrifices asked of families like mine but until she does she really has no clue.

  20. 20.

    Marcus Wellby

    January 12, 2007 at 4:28 pm

    Rice licks some mad carpet, and the Boy King and his Moronic Minions don’t want it getting around. It might offend the nimrods who think the Risen Christ took the form of a coke-addled man-child.

  21. 21.

    SeesThroughIt

    January 12, 2007 at 4:34 pm

    I’ve never seen the term “ad feminam attack” before, but I must admit, I find it to be rather awesome.

  22. 22.

    Keith

    January 12, 2007 at 4:37 pm

    I don’t get the homophobia thing. Is Condi gay or something?

    There have been rumors to that effect, coming from any number of places, from stretches such as Condi’s insistence on not running for president (as opposed to the usual “I haven’t made up my mind”) all the way to one of the FoxNews correspondants seemingly (depending on how you read into it) trying to set Condi up with Lauren Green (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/352594p-300643c.html)

  23. 23.

    Jake

    January 12, 2007 at 4:39 pm

    Is an ad feminam attack the same as a cat fight?

    Get the jello!

    Sorry, if someone seriously thinks that justifying further deaths for the sake of the Coke-fiend-in-Chief’s legacy is in anyway comprable to Boxer’s remarks…fuck ’em.

    j

    p.s. Homophobia? Oh yes. It’s only homophobia if you’re mean to a member of the base. Saying that two people getting married will cause the world to implode is just joshin’ around. Fuck. You.

  24. 24.

    BobJones

    January 12, 2007 at 4:42 pm

    Rice licks some mad carpet, and the Boy King and his Moronic Minions don’t want it getting around. It might offend the nimrods who think the Risen Christ took the form of a coke-addled man-child.

    Its shit like this post that allow me to understand Sullivan’s position. I disagree with him, but you are an idiot.

  25. 25.

    Jimmmm

    January 12, 2007 at 4:52 pm

    Sullivan. Sigh, where to begin.

  26. 26.

    ThymeZone

    January 12, 2007 at 5:06 pm

    Rice licks some mad carpet, and the Boy King and his Moronic Minions don’t want it getting around. It might offend the nimrods who think the Risen Christ took the form of a coke-addled man-child.

    Possibly, but I swore off giving a shit about politicians’ and officials’ sex lives a long time ago.

    Clearly they don’t give a shit about mine, I am not wasting one brain cell thinking about theirs.

  27. 27.

    HyperIon

    January 12, 2007 at 5:15 pm

    I swore off giving a shit about politicians’ and officials’ sex lives a long time ago.

    Clearly they don’t give a shit about mine,

    hmmm…clearly. because you have the luxury of the “preferred” sexual orientation.

  28. 28.

    Alexandra

    January 12, 2007 at 5:15 pm

    Didn’t Laura Bush recently sharpen her claws on Condi by saying she shouldnt run for president because Condi didn’t have the “support system” of a husband and family? (as if having calved two indolent sluts was call for feeling that you’ve got any kind of support).

  29. 29.

    Pb

    January 12, 2007 at 5:16 pm

    I swore off giving a shit about politicians’ and officials’ sex lives a long time ago.

    Clearly they don’t give a shit about mine

    Just so long as you aren’t gay, that is.

  30. 30.

    Marc

    January 12, 2007 at 5:19 pm

    When exactly did conservatives become such a bunch of whining pussies?

    Sack up, for chrissakes.

  31. 31.

    TenguPhule

    January 12, 2007 at 5:27 pm

    an accomplished, seasoned diplomat,

    Never mind that the State Department is reporting they’re almost as fucked up under Rice as the Security Department was.

    a renowned scholar

    A Russian Scholar who missed the whole ‘Wall Coming Down.’

    and an adviser to two presidents

    Is this supposed to be an endorsement or a condemnation?

  32. 32.

    Jake

    January 12, 2007 at 5:29 pm

    I swore off giving a shit about politicians’ and officials’ sex lives a long time ago.

    Clearly they don’t give a shit about mine

    Just so long as you aren’t gay, that is.

    Yep. And of course said sex life is only taking place within the bounds of marriage, you and spouse were virgins when you married and you would sooner carve out your respective reproductive organs with sporks than use birth control.

  33. 33.

    ThymeZone

    January 12, 2007 at 5:29 pm

    Just so long as you aren’t gay, that is.

    Got my non-gay team wallet card right here.

    Somewhere.

    Uh …

  34. 34.

    ThymeZone

    January 12, 2007 at 5:31 pm

    of course said sex life is only taking place within the bounds of marriage, you and spouse were virgins when you married and you would sooner carve out your respective reproductive organs with sporks than use birth control.

    { crickets chirp }

  35. 35.

    Steve

    January 12, 2007 at 5:34 pm

    I know enough female academics of Dr. Rice’s age to know that lesbianism is always rumored about the ones who, for whatever reason, never marry, so, no, John, I don’t think that the homophobia issue is fake. I think it’s quite real.

    Uh, I understand that lots of people make lots of nasty comments about Rice, but I think it’s pretty nutty to think that the context for Boxer’s statement about Rice was any different than the context of the statement she made about her own family.

  36. 36.

    TenguPhule

    January 12, 2007 at 5:36 pm

    And of course said sex life is only taking place within the bounds of marriage, you and spouse were virgins when you married and you would sooner carve out your respective reproductive organs with sporks than use birth control.Unless you are a Republican Politican or Pundit. In which case you may feel free to do anyone you want regardless of sex, age or species. And if the nasty liberals call you on it, they will be accused of not being ‘understanding’.

    Fixed.

  37. 37.

    pharniel

    January 12, 2007 at 5:39 pm

    Clearly they don’t give a shit about mine, I am not wasting one brain cell thinking about theirs.

    except they do. passionatly.
    or at least the crazy church lady wannabies and the ant-burning misenthropes who’s only joy comes from the suffering of others and who’s goal is to make the world suffer as much as they do.

    but those people vote. so the leaders pander to them as ‘the base’.

  38. 38.

    TenguPhule

    January 12, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    Counterterrorism Coordinator Hank Crumpton and John Hillen, assistant secretary for political-military affairs, have all resigned and have not been replaced. Robert Joseph, undersecretary for arms control, is reported to be going, and Josette Sheeran Shiner, undersecretary for economic affairs, is leaving to head the World Food Program.

    Um, is this raising anyone else’s eyebrows besides mine?

    It feels like we’re on the Flying Dutchman.

  39. 39.

    CaseyL

    January 12, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    Wingnuts gettin’ all up in a tizzy over a carefully parsed interpretation of a statement that has a perfectly good, even obvious, meaning is not exactly a news flash.

    Buncha whiny losers.

  40. 40.

    fletch

    January 12, 2007 at 6:38 pm

    Because, apparently, when you point out that someone is not going to pay a personal price or have to personally sacrifice, it is THE SAME DAMNED THING as telling them they are unqualified to make a decision

    John Cole= Idiot!

    Dude, haven’t you been paying attention? That is ‘the compleat’ “chicken-hawk” argument!

    There is absolutely no reason to even raise the “sacrifice” question…

    I’m sure B. Boxer is pro-choice– yet, considering 86% of the counties in America that do not have an abortion provider… is it possible that she(along with Shake’s Sister, Amanda at Pandagon, Jill at Feministe, etc.) is a “chicken-choicer” because she isn’t personally killing babies in East Bumfuck, America?

    But, let’s consider the differences in the supporting arguments–

    1)You don’t have to travel 10,000 miles to support abortion rights in America…

    2)The American military has definite age and physical ability metrics that eliminate many from serving…

    3)the closest an abortionist gets to an “IED” is a defective IUD…

    4)Fetuses don’t shoot back when you attempt to kill them…

    By the ‘personal contribution to supporting your beliefs’ metric— I will agree that right-wingers are apparently “cowards”- while leftists apparently just don’t care about anyone else but themselves…

    Did the Military come up 86% short on their last recruiting effort?

  41. 41.

    rob

    January 12, 2007 at 6:40 pm

    When exactly did conservatives become such a bunch of whining pussies?

    Sack up, for chrissakes.

    on 9/11
    It’s been one long ‘I dont care what it costs; make me safe’ ever since.

  42. 42.

    Vladi G

    January 12, 2007 at 6:45 pm

    Didn’t Laura Bush recently sharpen her claws on Condi by saying she shouldnt run for president because Condi didn’t have the “support system” of a husband and family?

    Yep. I must have missed the wingnut outrage on that one.

  43. 43.

    Vladi G

    January 12, 2007 at 6:49 pm

    fletch sounds like a chickenhawk.

  44. 44.

    fletch

    January 12, 2007 at 6:49 pm

    fwiffo-

    You’d think with as skeptical as conservatives are about how government spends other people’s money, they’d be skeptical about how the goverment spends other people’s children…

    As a “libertarian”, I’m skeptical about everything that gov’t does…

    If our gov’t can be so easily subverted by a single (malevolent?) individual like GWB, so much as to call him a ‘fascist’— why would you want to let that exact same gov’t completely control your retirement, your health care, and your educational opportunities?

  45. 45.

    TenguPhule

    January 12, 2007 at 6:57 pm

    yet, considering 86% of the counties in America that do not have an abortion provider… is it possible that she(along with Shake’s Sister, Amanda at Pandagon, Jill at Feministe, etc.) is a “chicken-choicer” because she isn’t personally killing babies in East Bumfuck, America?

    Shorter fletch: I am a complete fucking loony who equates Iraq with Abortion!

    3)the closest an abortionist gets to an “IED” is a defective IUD…

    Shorter fletch II: I root for American anti-abortion terrorists to kill doctors.

    4)Fetuses don’t shoot back when you attempt to kill them…

    Shorter fletch III: Fuck the women for the good of the bundle of cells inside them. Doesn’t matter if its for health reasons or rape, they are only wombs with a view. The wrong view.

    Fletch, a walking parody of fallacies.

  46. 46.

    TenguPhule

    January 12, 2007 at 6:59 pm

    As a “libertarian”, I’m skeptical about everything that gov’t does

    Then why do you want the government to intervene in the right of a woman over her body?

    Hypocrite? Or just full of shit?

  47. 47.

    TenguPhule

    January 12, 2007 at 7:00 pm

    why would you want to let that exact same gov’t completely control your retirement, your health care, and your educational opportunities?

    Do you accept this charge of shenanigans?

  48. 48.

    Hyperion

    January 12, 2007 at 7:08 pm

    Didn’t Laura Bush recently sharpen her claws on Condi by saying she shouldnt run for president because Condi didn’t have the “support system” of a husband and family?

    vladi, your link doesn’t support the claw sharpening allegation made by Alexandra.

    instead

    Mrs. Bush referenced Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and noted that while she would be a “really good candidate”, Rice is not interested in the job.

    “Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she’s an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job,” the First Lady said.

    so i dispute your Yep.
    how about we stick with the facts and not do the same shit the wingnuts do?

  49. 49.

    fletch

    January 12, 2007 at 7:20 pm

    vladi-

    Damn straight I’m a “chicken”!

    (I left off the “hawk” because I’m an ‘isolationist libertarian’)- but, I can still call out a bullshit argument for what it is…

    I’m a 42 yr old alcoholic with a sciatic condition in my leg, and less than 20% dexterity in my dominant hand due to a recent auto accident… I’m sure the Army, Navy, and Marines will all be fighting for my services upon my potential enlistment!

    BTW, how many babies did you abort this week in South Dakota(They apparently have no ‘home grown’ abortion providers, so they fly them in from Minneapolis?)

    And it’s obvious that you don’t really care about “a woman’s right to choose”(to kill her baby) if you won’t get off your ass and do something…?

  50. 50.

    Steve

    January 12, 2007 at 7:20 pm

    If our gov’t can be so easily subverted by a single (malevolent?) individual like GWB, so much as to call him a ‘fascist’—- why would you want to let that exact same gov’t completely control your retirement, your health care, and your educational opportunities?

    You get that we’re not actually socialists here, right? Maybe not.

    I don’t know any commenter around these parts who wants to eliminate 401(k)s and pensions, make private health insurance illegal, or outlaw private schools. There aren’t a whole ton of people in America who fit that description, frankly.

  51. 51.

    Hamilton Lovecraft

    January 12, 2007 at 7:23 pm

    Get that smear to the lab for analysis! Does Sully think that Condi is a lesbian? Does he think that Boxer does?

    Not that I think this was a homophobic smear myself, but it’s worth pointing out that it’s not necessary that someone be gay, or for someone else to actually believe that they’re gay, in order to smear them as gay. (“As you should have known, faggot!”)

  52. 52.

    Vladi G

    January 12, 2007 at 7:28 pm

    BTW, how many babies did you abort this week in South Dakota(They apparently have no ‘home grown’ abortion providers, so they fly them in from Minneapolis?)

    This week? Eight.

    You don’t really understand the pro-choice argument, do you?

  53. 53.

    srv

    January 12, 2007 at 7:34 pm

    Sullivan. Sigh, where to begin.

    Back at the beginning, when he couldn’t blow Bush enough. I’ve given the twit 3 chances, this and his “all the anti-war folks just got lucky at being right, they really didn’t have a rational argument before the war, which is why you can see how I got it so wrong”.

    Condi’s latest laments about not having alternative plans because it hinders success of your stupid plan shows her to be the prototypical Stupid Fu**ing B*tch.

  54. 54.

    Bruce Moomaw

    January 12, 2007 at 7:44 pm

    I will readily agree that Boxer is not the sharpest knife in the liberal drawer; but if you want to insist (as Sullivan and many others do) that the “chickenhawk” argument is totally outrageous, you would have a certain rather prestigious opponent in the form of one President Eisenhower, who — when Vice President Nixon and one or two other Cabinet members (I can’t remember which ones) were urging him to get the US into North Vietnam in 1954 to save the French (and maybe even give them two nuclear warheads for use against North Vietnam) — cut them off brusquely at a Cabinet meeting: “You haven’t seen war. I have. We will not do this.” In short, Ike was blatantly accusing his own Veep and Cabinet members of being chickenhawks, whose lack of personal experience with the horrors of war was causing them to underestimate its horrendous side effects as an instrument of policy! I tell you, will the left-wing outrages never cease?

    And note also that the Post is accusing Boxer of foully trying to smear Rice by hinting that she is a possible lesbian (“a single woman”)! Shocking, I tell you! I mean, we all know how much more deeply concerned the Post is with the proper treatment of gays than those homophobic Democrats from San Francisco, just as we all know how much more deeply concerned the GOP Right was with Mary Cheney’s rights as a (genuine) lesbian than that horrible, gay-hating Sen. Kerry.

  55. 55.

    fletch

    January 12, 2007 at 7:46 pm

    tengufool-

    Shorter fletch: I am a complete fucking loony who equates Iraq with Abortion!

    Not…

    I’m asking what is the difference between the two arguments I noted.

    I realize nuance is difficult for morons, but stay with me for a minute…

    Then why do you want the government to intervene in the right of a woman over her body?

    100% of the income I have earned in my life was done entirely through the use of my “body”– thus, income taxes (and especially “payroll” taxes) violate my ‘autonomy’…

  56. 56.

    CaseyL

    January 12, 2007 at 7:52 pm

    100% of the income I have earned in my life was done entirely through the use of my “body”— thus, income taxes (and especially “payroll” taxes) violate my ‘autonomy’…

    Let me guess: you’re a sex worker?

  57. 57.

    TenguPhule

    January 12, 2007 at 8:03 pm

    100% of the income I have earned in my life was done entirely through the use of my “body”— thus, income taxes (and especially “payroll” taxes) violate my ‘autonomy’

    This is also known as a fallacy. When you are a woman and have to make the decision for yourself, then talk. Otherwise, make like a good liberterian and MYOB.

    I’m asking what is the difference between the two arguments I noted.

    You attempted to confuse an argument about Abortion with one on Iraq. Using fallacies as arguments no less.

  58. 58.

    fletch

    January 12, 2007 at 8:27 pm

    steve-

    I don’t know any commenter around these parts who wants to eliminate 401(k)s and pensions, make private health insurance illegal, or outlaw private schools. There aren’t a whole ton of people in America who fit that description, frankly.

    Excellent! You’ll allow me to have a 401(k)- with certain restrictions… after you’ve taken 15% of my money for your Ponzi schemes.(and if I’m successful, you’ll take even more!)

    Likewise, you’ll allow me to pay extra money to send my (non-existant) children to ‘private’ schools- as long as I pay my $2600.00 in property taxes a year…(65% of which go to the gov’t schools to educate those ‘non-existant” children of mine).

    As to “health insurance”- I quit buying health insurance at age 23(the company’s plans wanted me to subsidize others…). So, I actually quit the job I was working, and specifically sought out an employer who would pay “cash”, instead of wasting “my” money on a health plan I didn’t want- I did that for almost twenty years.

    I finally ‘paid the price’ in November of last year(rolled my car 2 1/2 times, crushed my left arm, racked up $60k in medical bills with no insurance…)

    I could easily pay cash for everything(and I’d still show 100k profit after investments compared to buying insurance for the last 20 years).

    But even better, the socialist assholes in Ohio will let “someone else” pay 90% of my bills due to my “last three months income level”… :o)

  59. 59.

    Krista

    January 12, 2007 at 8:39 pm

    As everybody seemed to prefer responding to fletch and speculating about Condi’s sex life (or lack thereof), I just wanted to make sure that Carol H’s comment did not go without response:

    Carol, you’re a brave woman — oftentimes the hardest burden is on those who wait at home. I really, really hope that your son (and all coalition troops fighting in the WoT) are home safe, sound and soon.

  60. 60.

    Hyperion

    January 12, 2007 at 9:10 pm

    Bruce Moomaw Says:
    …one President Eisenhower

    OK. so let’s agree that people who have actually experienced war are allowed to make the chickenhawk charge.
    but those who have not should eschew this behavior IMO.

  61. 61.

    The Other Andrew

    January 12, 2007 at 9:16 pm

    Yes, only the Republicans can protect single, childless women from those evil, judgmental Democrats!

    …wait a second, have I stumbled into Bizarro World?

  62. 62.

    RSA

    January 12, 2007 at 9:43 pm

    Carol, you’re a brave woman—oftentimes the hardest burden is on those who wait at home. I really, really hope that your son (and all coalition troops fighting in the WoT) are home safe, sound and soon.

    I was also touched by Carol’s comment. My first thought was that even after her son returns safely, I’d guess she’ll be waking up in the middle of the night for months afterwards (like any number of other parents and relatives of returned soldiers), worrying about him, before realizing that it’s all over. Good luck.

  63. 63.

    tBone

    January 12, 2007 at 9:43 pm

    I “think” Fletch may be “confused” about what quote “marks” and bolding are “actually” for. They “don’t” automatically make a ridiculous, convoluted argument more compelling.

  64. 64.

    tBone

    January 12, 2007 at 9:48 pm

    I was also touched by Carol’s comment.

    I was too. I have a good friend who just got his tour extended by four months – another four months of having my heart drop into my stomach everytime I see/hear a report of new casualties. I can’t imagine how much worse it must be when it’s your child.

  65. 65.

    scarshapedstar

    January 12, 2007 at 9:58 pm

    Homophobia? Whaaaa?

    Wait… no, it can’t be…

    All this time it’s been Condi and Laura?!?!

  66. 66.

    Steve

    January 12, 2007 at 10:30 pm

    Excellent! You’ll allow me to have a 401(k)- with certain restrictions… after you’ve taken 15% of my money for your Ponzi schemes.(and if I’m successful, you’ll take even more!)

    Likewise, you’ll allow me to pay extra money to send my (non-existant) children to ‘private’ schools- as long as I pay my $2600.00 in property taxes a year…(65% of which go to the gov’t schools to educate those ‘non-existant” children of mine).

    I get it. You hate taxes. You don’t like accepting the results of democratic decisions.

    We’re not gonna have a lot to talk about.

  67. 67.

    RSA

    January 12, 2007 at 10:55 pm

    A libertarian who says that he could have easily paid a medical bill but instead let it be covered by “asshole socialists”. . .

    We’re not gonna have a lot to talk about.

    is right.

  68. 68.

    demimondian

    January 13, 2007 at 12:07 am

    We’re not gonna have a lot to talk about.

    is right.

    Oh, I don’t know about that. I think that fletch will give us a lot to talk about.

    I don’t see many interesting conversations with him or her, of course, but I can certainly see talking about the most recent piece of libertarian concern troll hypocrisy with great gust.

  69. 69.

    ConservativelyLiberal

    January 13, 2007 at 12:21 am

    Ziffnab Says:

    Can we come up with some sort of “Moore’s Law”?

    Too late for that name as it is taken already. It refers to Gordon Moore of Intel fame, and his rule of thumb for advancements in computing.

    How about Mikey’s Law? ;)

    Regarding what Boxer said, it was very clear what she meant and it was not homophobic or meant as an insult in any way IMO. It was a serious statement about how the few are shouldering the whole load, and questioning the judgment of someone who does not have a personal stake in this war. Heck, if Boxer wanted to try and score political points, she could have tossed in that unlike themselves (Rice/Boxer), Webb has a personal stake in this war. Never mind, just keep on shopping…

    Carol, may your son be safe, as I wish everyone over there in Iraq and Afghanistan to be safe. We have two children, neither are old enough for the military. Every time I hear about another soldier death I think of how I would feel if we lost a child. It does something to your stomach, it is almost physical in a way. I can not imagine the fear that many parents and spouses are feeling every single day in this country. I think I would go nuts. You have to be a parent to understand this feeling, no insult intended to those who do not have children. After you hold your child for the first time, you are forever changed.

    I know our military are proud to serve our country, and I know most all of them will do what they are ordered to do. They do not choose the fight, our leaders do. All our men and women do what they are told, and in the best way that they can within the limitations imposed upon them. Thank you, your son and all of the families who are really the only ones who are making true sacrifices every single day in the name of our nation. God bless every single one of you.

    I have always said that the true definition of a wingnut is someone who points at the color red and says that it is green. Reading RedState, you get the feeling that they are just waiting with baited breath for someone on the left to stumble. Any perceived slight is immediately inflated to major proportions. They have the ‘Tempest in a Teapot Syndrome’. Bad…

    Jake Says:

    Is an ad feminam attack the same as a cat fight?

    Get the jello!

    I hope you mean Jello Pudding! Lotsa Jello Pudding!

    Marcus Wellby Says:

    Rice licks some mad carpet, and the Boy King and his Moronic Minions don’t want it getting around. It might offend the nimrods who think the Risen Christ took the form of a coke-addled man-child.

    While I hear what you are saying, you are saying it in about the sickest way a person can. Expand you vocabulary. It allows you to get a point across without offending everyone. Just a suggestion from the peanut gallery…

    The Other Andrew Says:

    Yes, only the Republicans can protect single, childless women from those evil, judgmental Democrats!

    …wait a second, have I stumbled into Bizarro World?

    Yup! Welcome! I fell in here about twelve years ago, and I still have not found my way out.

  70. 70.

    Redhand

    January 13, 2007 at 1:08 am

    I think YOU doth protest a bit too much Mr. Cole. Check out this comment from Boxer on the whole exchange from today’s NYT:

    During the Thursday hearing, Ms. Boxer told Ms. Rice: “You’re not going to pay any particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”

    In a separate interview, Senator Boxer said her comments had been misunderstood and were now being turned against her by the White House and other Republicans. “What I was trying to do in this exchange was to find common ground with Condi Rice,” Ms. Boxer said, adding that “my whole point was to focus on the military families who pay the price.”

    Yeah right. If you believe Boxer was trying to create “common ground” with Condi you believe in the tooth fairy. I’m no admirer of Rice, to say the least, but Boxer’s comment was swarmy, low-class, gratutiously insulting, and just plain stupid. It’s a given that virtually no members of the governing class have the kind of “personal stake” in Iraq that these two were talking about–the whole comparison was contrived rhetorical bullshit, typical of Barbara Boxer. So if Boxer takes heat for her comment the stupid bitch deserves it. Meantime, spare me the faux outrage about the faux outrage.

  71. 71.

    Eric Lindholm

    January 13, 2007 at 2:14 am

    Oh no! You’re losing Andrew Sullivan!

    He’s the Left’s Joe Lieberman: the guy who appears to be reasonable until he isn’t.

  72. 72.

    melior

    January 13, 2007 at 3:23 am

    Meantime, spare me the faux outrage about the faux outrage.

    We’re not outraged, we’re laughing. At you.

  73. 73.

    TenguPhule

    January 13, 2007 at 4:22 am

    “my whole point was to focus on the military families who pay the price.”

    Shorter Redhand: I can’t read my own source!

    You can fool some people all of the time.

    They’re called Bushsupporters.

  74. 74.

    RSA

    January 13, 2007 at 9:27 am

    I don’t see many interesting conversations with him or her, of course, but I can certainly see talking about the most recent piece of libertarian concern troll hypocrisy with great gust.

    That can be interesting for a while, with the main drawback, of course, being the presence of a libertarian concern troll. . . They’re good examples of anti-evangelists, usually.

  75. 75.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2007 at 9:55 am

    Yeah right. If you believe Boxer was trying to create “common ground” with Condi you believe in the tooth fairy. I’m no admirer of Rice, to say the least, but Boxer’s comment was swarmy, low-class, gratutiously insulting, and just plain stupid. It’s a given that virtually no members of the governing class have the kind of “personal stake” in Iraq that these two were talking about—the whole comparison was contrived rhetorical bullshit, typical of Barbara Boxer. So if Boxer takes heat for her comment the stupid bitch deserves it. Meantime, spare me the faux outrage about the faux outrage.

    Damn well said. It was a typical liberal attack, using Condi’s status as a childless woman in a lowlife attempt to try and undercut Condi’s moral authority with regards to sending and keeping troops in Iraq. That John Cole makes a point to defend Boxer’s attack says much about who he is.

    What I’d like to know is, if Boxer was simply trying to create ‘common ground’ as she claims, then why the f*ck didn’t she apply the same “personal stake” standard regarding sending troops to Afghanistan?

  76. 76.

    John Cole

    January 13, 2007 at 10:20 am

    Damn well said. It was a typical liberal attack, using Condi’s status as a childless woman in a lowlife attempt to try and undercut Condi’s moral authority with regards to sending and keeping troops in Iraq. That John Cole makes a point to defend Boxer’s attack says much about who he is.

    What I’d like to know is, if Boxer was simply trying to create ‘common ground’ as she claims, then why the f*ck didn’t she apply the same “personal stake” standard regarding sending troops to Afghanistan?

    1.) IN a post lamenting a non-existent personal attack on Condi Rice, Darrell levels a personal attack on me.

    2.) Iraq=Afghanistan! They are the same damned thing in wingnut world.

    Darrell, the gift that keeps on giving.

  77. 77.

    RSA

    January 13, 2007 at 10:35 am

    On “common ground”, wingnuts seem to think that “political common ground” is the only possible interpretation. It’s not. There’s also “here’s where I’m coming from” or “we’re in the same boat” common ground.

  78. 78.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2007 at 10:56 am

    RSA Says:

    On “common ground”, wingnuts seem to think that “political common ground” is the only possible interpretation. It’s not. There’s also “here’s where I’m coming from” or “we’re in the same boat” common ground.

    So you and John Cole think that’s what Boxer was doing.. simply looking for ‘common ground’ with Condi with those comments? That is your position, right?

  79. 79.

    John Cole

    January 13, 2007 at 11:05 am

    No. I think she was saying ‘You and I are going to make no personal sacrifices with our decisions. I think we both need to be aware of that and really think through our decisions.’

    Of course, to you, that means she was telling her that hse was a barren, motherless whore, who is not qualified to make decisions. But then again, you are an idiot.

  80. 80.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2007 at 11:12 am

    John Cole Says:

    No. I think she was saying ‘You and I are going to make no personal sacrifices with our decisions. I think we both need to be aware of that and really think through our decisions.’

    If that were true, and it isn’t, then that would equally apply to Afghanistan and every other military conflict.

    But then again, you are an idiot.

    This, from someone who is actually arguing that Boxer was merely communicating to Condi that she needs to be thoughtful in her decisions. I’m sure the irony is lost on you John.

  81. 81.

    John Cole

    January 13, 2007 at 11:20 am

    If that were true, and it isn’t, then that would equally apply to Afghanistan and every other military conflict.

    Well, sure. Except they were not discussing a troop buildup in Afghanistan, were they? Look, a rabbit!

    This, from someone who is actually arguing that Boxer was merely communicating to Condi that she needs to be thoughtful in her decisions. I’m sure the irony is lost on you John.

    Calling you an idiot is not an insult or irony. It is merely an accurate description.

  82. 82.

    demimondian

    January 13, 2007 at 11:36 am

    That can be interesting for a while, with the main drawback, of course, being the presence of a libertarian concern troll. . .

    Oh, very true. That said, I think of concern trolls as being like the weather. The main value of talking about the weather is that it’s either dull and predictable, or it isn’t. When it’s dull and predictable, you can speculate on when it’s going to change. When it isn’t, you can commiserate with other people about it.

  83. 83.

    RSA

    January 13, 2007 at 12:04 pm

    So you and John Cole think that’s what Boxer was doing.. simply looking for ‘common ground’ with Condi with those comments?

    Simplicity is in the eye of the [wingnut] beholder.

  84. 84.

    Steve

    January 13, 2007 at 12:12 pm

    So if Boxer takes heat for her comment the stupid bitch deserves it.

    Well obviously you’re in a great position to be the judge of Boxer’s classlessness. Wonder what Darrell has to say about your comment?

    Damn well said.

    Yeah, you guys really have the moral high ground to accuse Barbara Boxer of being rude. Seriously, you’re what’s right about America.

  85. 85.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2007 at 12:18 pm

    Calling you an idiot is not an insult or irony. It is merely an accurate description.

    You and your stinging wit win this round John.

  86. 86.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    Well obviously you’re in a great position to be the judge of Boxer’s classlessness.

    She was classless. Or do you also believe Boxer to have merely been searching for ‘common ground’ with Condi?

  87. 87.

    RSA

    January 13, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    Seriously, you’re what’s right about America.

    Good one. If things go on this way, “political right” will soon be synonymous with “political[ly] wrong”.

  88. 88.

    ThymeZone

    January 13, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    Final word on this subject?

    Fuck. Condoleeza. Rice. And the Arabian horse she rode in on. And everything the stands for. And the insane lying cocksuckers she works for.

    Thanks John Cole for helping your old GOP buds pull off yet another of their patented Jackalope sightings, turning a public airing of issues related to a war into a cat fight between a Dem-oness and the annointed Bush family version of the Last Supreme, the world’s most overrated crazy bitch, the sainted and untouchable Condi Rice.

    Fuck her. Fuck her very much. If she were anything even approaching the statesmanlike figure one would want for a Secretary of State, instead of a blackfaced vaudeville character they send out to keep the FoxNews cameras rolling … she’d be saying this: “Senator Boxer is quite right to suggest that decisions about this war affect people in personal and profound ways. I share her concern for the families affected by the president’s policies.”

    But no, she has to take the opportunity to turn it into Donald Trump versus Rosie O’Donnel.

    Boxer, D-Calif., defended herself in a statement Friday.

    “I spoke the truth at the committee hearing, which is that neither Secretary Rice nor I have family members that will pay the price for this escalation,” she said. “My point was to focus attention on our military families who continue to sacrifice because this administration has not developed a political solution to the situation in Iraq.”

    Word. Tell that crazy Bush family employee bitch to shove it up her ass. Let me add that Bush has failed to develop a solution to the fucked up situation that he created in Iraq.

    In case, you know, somebody out there was asleep the last four years and thought that the Iraq civil war just blew in one weekend like Katrina did.

  89. 89.

    Otto Man

    January 13, 2007 at 12:37 pm

    Calling you an idiot is not an insult or irony. It is merely an accurate description.

    Actually, in strict terms, I think Darrell might fall in the “Imbicile” range. “Idiot” is ranking him too high.

  90. 90.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2007 at 12:45 pm

    the world’s most overrated crazy bitch, the sainted and untouchable Condi Rice.

    Fuck her. Fuck her very much. If she were anything even approaching the statesmanlike figure one would want for a Secretary of State, instead of a blackfaced vaudeville character they send out to keep the FoxNews cameras rolling

    Ah yes, that lib tolerance and respect for diversity we hear so much about.

  91. 91.

    ThymeZone

    January 13, 2007 at 12:55 pm

    Tolerance? THERE’S A WAR ON YOU STUPID JERK.

  92. 92.

    grumpy realist

    January 13, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    And yet another jackalope from Darrell….

    I think all that Boxer was saying is that neither she nor Ms. Rice had any actual skin in the game.

    Which is correct.

    And now with the Pentagon statement about how there WILL be no restrictions on the length of time people get posted….what are soldiers supposed to do? Just fight on until they die? Because that’s what it’s looking like, more and more.

    We are dumping the effort for this entire war on the back of a “volunteer” military, abusing them dreadfully, and rationalizing all of it by saying “but they were volunteers, weren’t they?”

    The way we are treating the military WILL break it. Who at this point will trust any promises made by that branch of the government?

  93. 93.

    Andrew

    January 13, 2007 at 1:32 pm

    I can’t decide whether I want Condi to be a lesbian or for her to be having an affair with Bush. Ideally, it would be a Chasing Amy sort of thing, so all of the bases are covered.

  94. 94.

    scarshapedstar

    January 13, 2007 at 3:11 pm

    Ideally, it would be a Chasing Amy sort of thing, so all of the bases are covered.

    So you think it’s George and Laura? Damn that’s hot!

  95. 95.

    usuallyyellowdogbut

    January 13, 2007 at 4:19 pm

    Actually, I find what Boxer said offensive. The message is “you aren’t married and don’t have children, so your concerns and feelings aren’t as important.”

    As a 51-year-old bachelor, I pick up on this attitude in a lot of places, starting with the workplace. I don’t care if you speculate that I’m gay or whatever; knock yerself out. Just don’t confront me with the idea that my hopes and desires are less important than yours. That doesn’t make me happy.

  96. 96.

    John Cole

    January 13, 2007 at 4:41 pm

    Or maybe the message was:

    “Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.”

    Then, to Rice: “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”

    Instead of some bullshit you cooked up in your head.

  97. 97.

    usuallyyellowdogbut

    January 13, 2007 at 6:25 pm

    If you are talking to me, that’s not something I cooked up in my head. It’s clearly implicit in Boxer’s words. She assumes that Rice is not paying a “particular price” based solely on the information that Rice would not pay the price in terms of the loss of a child or grandchild. She does not inquire as to whether there might be some other factor that might be the equivalent of a “particular price,” or indeed admit of any possibility of any other sort of price being weighted equally.

  98. 98.

    John Cole

    January 13, 2007 at 7:28 pm

    If you are talking to me, that’s not something I cooked up in my head. It’s clearly implicit in Boxer’s words. She assumes that Rice is not paying a “particular price” based solely on the information that Rice would not pay the price in terms of the loss of a child or grandchild. She does not inquire as to whether there might be some other factor that might be the equivalent of a “particular price,” or indeed admit of any possibility of any other sort of price being weighted equally.

    Implicit:

    1. implied, rather than expressly stated:

    Implied:

    involved, indicated, or suggested without being directly or explicitly stated; tacitly understood: an implied rebuke; an implied compliment.

    Like I said, you cooked the interpretation you have up in your head- you INFERRED that she implied something she didn’t. Al she said was what she said, which is thta neither you nor I have a personal stake in this. From that, you have chocen the most UNCHARITABLE inference possible:

    Actually, I find what Boxer said offensive. The message is “you aren’t married and don’t have children, so your concerns and feelings aren’t as important.”

    All of which you made up in your head. It’s not only silly, it is unfair, and the idea that you continue to suggest that it is “clearly implict” what she meant is laughable, when she clearly meant nothing of the sort. Additinally, Boxer has gone on record stating that is not what she meant. Not that that matters at all- you think you know better what she meant the first time she said something, why should you be bothered to take her at her word the second time she talks on the subject?

  99. 99.

    TenguPhule

    January 13, 2007 at 9:41 pm

    f you are talking to me, that’s not something I cooked up in my head. It’s clearly implicit in Boxer’s words.

    Shorter usuallyyellowdogbut: I came up with this shit in my head.

  100. 100.

    TenguPhule

    January 13, 2007 at 9:42 pm

    Ah yes, that lib tolerance and respect for diversity we hear so much about.

    Nobody has tolerance or respect for proven liars like Darrell.

    There is only contempt and mockery.

  101. 101.

    usuallyyellowdogbut

    January 14, 2007 at 12:03 am

    Sorry: it’s the speaker or writer who implies a meaning, not the reader or listener. And I just have to point out that the fact that you committed such a clear error in the way you picked on my use of the word implicit does not augur well for the chance that your interpretation of Boxer’s meaning is complete.

    Maybe it’s because you’re not a 51-year-old bachelor and not accustomed to hearing that message from a variety of social points. But I read that one 5 x 5, and my friend, I’m not making it up. My language comprehension skills are all they need to be.

    It’s also worth nothing that you did not respond at all to my main point, which is that Boxer concluded that Rice was not paying a “particular price” based on a single data point, i.e., that Rice did not have “immediate family.” One may only draw a conclusion based on a single data point when one believes that the single data point is a sufficient basis for that conclusion. And in this case, that would mean that one doesn’t need to know anything other than the fact that one has no “immediate family,” i.e., is childless, to know that such a person doesn’t pay a “particular price.” Doesn’t it? If not, why not?

    In short, the message was “You don’t know the pain these parents have felt because you haven’t had a child killed in Iraq.” Are you really claiming that wasn’t a sub-text of Boxer’s words? Really?

    Additinally, Boxer has gone on record stating that is not what she meant. Not that that matters at all- you think you know better what she meant the first time she said something, why should you be bothered to take her at her word the second time she talks on the subject?

    I don’t recall having said anything to justify your assumption here. What did Boxer say when she “went on record”? I don’t understand–at all–how a claim that one understands a speaker’s implied meaning in a certain message means that one would not believe a speaker’s explicit claim. Let me hear the explicit claim; then I’ll judge.

    Finally, let me make clear that I’m not rising in defense of the way-off-the-deep-end OP Ed in the Post that you refer to. I’ll also throw in, gratuitously, that I’m a huge fan of Boxer and in fact she has some of what used to be my money in her warchest. I’m just saying that I, personally, find this particular comment insulting and demeaning. And that it’s very difficult for me to imagine how it could’ve been spoken by someone who doesn’t engage in the popular American pastime of belittling the emotional needs of childless persons.

  102. 102.

    John Cole

    January 14, 2007 at 12:19 am

    Of course speakers imply, and readers infer, which is why I clearly stated you inferred crazy shit. You made stuff up in your head.

    By your own admission you are used to hearing it from, well, a number of places. So you chose to infer that is what she meant. But I have read her statement and seen the video, and it was not implied. It was, as I said, shit you made up in your head. Shit like this:

    In short, the message was “You don’t know the pain these parents have felt because you haven’t had a child killed in Iraq.” Are you really claiming that wasn’t a sub-text of Boxer’s words? Really?

    No. The message was you and I are not personally going to experience the pain of loss when soldiers are killed. And I think we need to be real careful about any decisions we make. Anything other than that is just nonsense you have, again, cooked up. Quit playing along with the bullshit artists on this.

  103. 103.

    John Cole

    January 14, 2007 at 12:28 am

    And i should add that I really dislike Barbara Boxer. I think she is shallow, smarmy, a grandstander and a hack, and on top of all that, I think she is not very bright.

    But I am sick to death of people taking people’s words, choosing their own meaning (which they are free to do, of course), but then insisting that their interpretation is what the person really meant. It was complete and total bullshit when the right did it to Dick Durbin a la Nazi. it wsas utter rubbish when they did it to that pompous gasbag Bill Bennett. And it is complete crap here, in this case, too.

  104. 104.

    usuallyyellowdogbut

    January 14, 2007 at 1:08 am

    We might both be right on Boxer. I’m not going to accede to your description but I’m not going to say it’s wrong, either. I like Boxer because she is a Capital D Democrat who has been fighting hard for Democratic values in the Senate for quite a while, including more than a few days when she was quite a lonely voice.

    Absolutely your choice to assign a different value to those attributes than do I. But I am, usually, a yellow dog and party loyalty scores high on my meter.

    As for our main argument, I’ll just say that I’m not convinced by your latest iteration and think that I’ve already made my point as well as I care to. Now it’s to each reader to imply his or her own meaning. :)

  105. 105.

    Darrell

    January 14, 2007 at 1:13 pm

    Additinally, Boxer has gone on record stating that is not what she meant.

    Yes, she has gone on the record to clarify that she was only innocently looking to find ‘common ground’ with Condi. So since she’s ‘gone on the record’ with that clarification, there’s nothing more to discuss, right? Because since she made that “clarficiation”, the matter is settled.

  106. 106.

    Zombie Santa Claus

    January 14, 2007 at 2:37 pm

    Yes, she has gone on the record to clarify that she was only innocently looking to find ‘common ground’ with Condi. So since she’s ‘gone on the record’ with that clarification, there’s nothing more to discuss, right? Because since she made that “clarficiation”, the matter is settled.

    Yup. This thread is dead.

  107. 107.

    Melissa

    January 17, 2007 at 9:41 am

    Hello,

    Just wanted to let you know I linked to your blog in my column on CBSNews.com today. Thanks!

    If you want to take a look, here’s the link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/16/blogophile/main2363422.shtml

    Thanks,

    Melissa

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. The American Street » Blog Archive » What do ya do when you’re nearly omnipotent? says:
    January 12, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    […] John Cole articulates it better. […]

  2. Balloon Juice says:
    January 13, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    […] Faux Outrage […]

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - beckya57 - Copper Canyon, Mexico, April 2025
Image by beckya57 (7/31/25)

World Central Kitchen

Donate

Recent Comments

  • Nelle on GOP Venality Open Thread: May Van Orden Be the First of Many Defections… (Jul 10, 2025 @ 7:22am)
  • lowtechcyclist on GOP Venality Open Thread: May Van Orden Be the First of Many Defections… (Jul 10, 2025 @ 7:14am)
  • Baud on GOP Venality Open Thread: May Van Orden Be the First of Many Defections… (Jul 10, 2025 @ 7:02am)
  • MagdaInBlack on GOP Venality Open Thread: May Van Orden Be the First of Many Defections… (Jul 10, 2025 @ 6:56am)
  • Baud on GOP Venality Open Thread: May Van Orden Be the First of Many Defections… (Jul 10, 2025 @ 6:55am)

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
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

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

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

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

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

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!