• 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.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

DeSantis transforming Florida into 1930s Germany with gators and theme parks.

We know you aren’t a Democrat but since you seem confused let me help you.

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

Balloon Juice, where there is always someone who will say you’re doing it wrong.

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

Consistently wrong since 2002

This really is a full service blog.

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

One way or another, he’s a liar.

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

Usually wrong but never in doubt

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

One lie, alone, tears the fabric of reality.

When I was faster i was always behind.

If a good thing happens for a bad reason, it’s still a good thing.

We can show the world that autocracy can be defeated.

Human rights are not a matter of opinion!

“Just close your eyes and kiss the girl and go where the tilt-a-whirl takes you.” ~OzarkHillbilly

The fundamental promise of conservatism all over the world is a return to an idealized past that never existed.

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

Every one of the “Roberts Six” lied to get on the court.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

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

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 / How To Argue Like a Hack

How To Argue Like a Hack

by John Cole|  May 16, 200712:24 pm| 59 Comments

This post is in: Assholes

FacebookTweetEmail

Dean Barnett demonstrates:

Ron Paul – Do you know that this Robert Taft-idolizing crackpot is Andrew Sullivan’s latest heartthrob? Andrew’s bitterly disappointed that Republicans aren’t giving Paul a chance. I’m convinced that if Andrew familiarized himself with Paul’s background, his disappointment would be mitigated. On the bright side, Wendell Goler asked Paul for three programs he would cut. Talk about serving a heaping helping of red meat to a libertarian. (For what it’s worth, Paul is actually right about the Department of Homeland Security; that monstrosity is a living breathing emblem of all that’s wrong with our government.) The good news is that Paul was such an embarrassment tonight, he may not be invited to the next debate. As Captain Picard might say, make it so.

Why not just call Sullivan a fag, you hack? You and Hugh deserve each other.

*** Update ***

New category. I am tired of sorting out partisan stupidity. Let’s just start calling them what they are, regardless of political affiliation.

*** Update ***

What is it about Ron Paul that has Dean Barnett and Hugh Hewitt scared to death?

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The Worst Job In The World- Captain Edward John Smith’s Replacement
Next Post: Greatest Headline Ever, Part Two »

Reader Interactions

59Comments

  1. 1.

    Zombie Santa Claus

    May 16, 2007 at 12:28 pm

    You and Hugh deserve each other.

    Don’t ask, don’t tell.

  2. 2.

    Andrew

    May 16, 2007 at 12:28 pm

    Wingers REALLY, REALLY, REALLY hate Ron Paul.

    REALLY.

    Almost as much as Hillary.

    It’s sort of astounding.

  3. 3.

    Keith

    May 16, 2007 at 12:29 pm

    They don’t agree with the guy (who happens to come in 2nd in Foxnews’ poll…although their attempts to discredit the 25% are interesting), so their answer is to keep him out of future debates? Wow.

  4. 4.

    ThymeZone

    May 16, 2007 at 12:44 pm

    To paraphrase Amy Goodman from the journalism debate I saw on CSpan the other day ….

    Houston, we have a problem. The media outlets are all about the 2008 campaign and who is raising the most money, all about calling the fundraising horse race at every opportunity. And where does this money actually go, once raised?

    Well, thanks for asking: To the media, mostly. For advertising.

    Get it? Your “news media” pimps the fundraising horse race, and collects the funds for itself.

    My question, WHO THE FUCK IS NOT A HACK?

  5. 5.

    Zifnab

    May 16, 2007 at 12:54 pm

    New category. I am tired of sorting out partisan stupidity. Let’s just start calling them what they are, regardless of political affiliation.

    Republican Stupidity button broke off cause you hit it too hard, didn’t it?

  6. 6.

    Pb

    May 16, 2007 at 12:58 pm

    The good news is that Paul was such an embarrassment tonight, he may not be invited to the next debate.

    Yes, the Republican party hates it when reality intrudes on their carefully planned Fox propaganda party events….

  7. 7.

    Mr Furious

    May 16, 2007 at 12:58 pm

    I don’t see what Barnett said as such an offense re: Sullivan’s homosexuality… Sullivan has featured Paul prominantly over the last week or two, and displayed a fascination with him and any blooger who did likewise might garner that exact comment. The fact that Sullivan happens to be gay doesn’t automaticallly make what Barnett says rude. Of course, I’m not familiar enough with Barnett to read between the lines…

    I love having Paul in those debates to calll those other clowns on their bullshit.

    Of course sullivan has also clearly stated that he disagrees with MUCH of Paul’s platform and libertarian stances, but is enamored with his straightforwardness, and more genuine conservative position than these other poseurs.

    Barnett is full of shit.

  8. 8.

    Tsulagi

    May 16, 2007 at 12:59 pm

    That’s funny. Hugh’s mini-me calls out Sullivan. While those two can’t contain their vapors in swooning over Matinee Mitt in his magic underwear.

    I like the new tag. Simple, yet smart, strong.

  9. 9.

    John Cole

    May 16, 2007 at 1:02 pm

    Mr. Furious, I did and do. It is clear what he was doing- bringing Sullivan’s sexual orientation into things.

  10. 10.

    Pb

    May 16, 2007 at 1:12 pm

    Mr Furious,

    The phrase in question is ‘latest heartthrob’–sample usage:

    Squeals from admiring female fans indicate that Hartnett may be America`s latest heartthrob.

  11. 11.

    Zifnab

    May 16, 2007 at 1:13 pm

    Mr. Furious, I did and do. It is clear what he was doing- bringing Sullivan’s sexual orientation into things.

    It was a cheap shot, but hardly a killing blow. I mean, if Barnett had written, “If Sullivan likes Paul so much, why doesn’t he marry him?” it would have been a little less mature and a little more offensive, but ultimately just about as damning.

    Besides, this was the debate where Mitt Romney declared he wanted to double Gitmo and Chris Wallace more or less called Paul a Democrat on stage –

    Wallace: “Congressman Paul, you’re one of six house Republicans who back in 2002 voted against authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq. Now you say we should pull our troops out. A recent poll found that 77% of Republicans dissaprove of the idea of setting a timetable for withdrawal. Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party?”

    It’s no new news that the Republicans have been making an end run for the right end of the political spectrum for the last four years. What Barnett is saying isn’t any dumber or more out-of-step with what every other right-wing Bushie has been trumpetting for ages. Conservatives who don’t want to out-conservative each other are not welcome in the party anymore.

  12. 12.

    Jake

    May 16, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    What happened to KMBA?

  13. 13.

    MadMike

    May 16, 2007 at 1:18 pm

    And here I was thinking that Paul looked like the only reasonable true ‘Conservative’ in a room that looked like it was full of grown up Hitler Youth (especially the preening peacock in the magic ‘gosh I love america’ underwear). I guess that single idea equivocates me to being a homosexual as well? I suppose I better tell my wife…

  14. 14.

    Mr Furious

    May 16, 2007 at 1:19 pm

    Like I said, I don’t know Barnett, and if I read the passage without you calling it out, it wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow from me.

    I’ll defer to you on this one.

  15. 15.

    Mike S

    May 16, 2007 at 1:24 pm

    I once called into Hewy’s show when Barnett was hosting it. In it he had claimed that the Iraq war was the GOP’s way to winning the 06 election. He said that only the far left was against the war.

    I thanked him for his delusion and for helping to keep Hewy’s listeners in a delusional state.

    In typical fashion, he said that my comment proved that I hate America.

  16. 16.

    Steve

    May 16, 2007 at 1:39 pm

    Like I said, I don’t know Barnett, and if I read the passage without you calling it out, it wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow from me.

    Well sure, but the context is, the standard response in the wingnutosphere to anything by Sullivan is to claim that his obsession with gay marriage has made him reflexively anti-Republican, yadda yadda. They never shut up with their claims that he’s all about teh gay. So when they throw in a word like heartthrob, which I agree might just be a standard turn of phrase in a different situation, you have to read it in that context.

  17. 17.

    RSA

    May 16, 2007 at 1:40 pm

    Like I said, I don’t know Barnett, and if I read the passage without you calling it out, it wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow from me.

    It took me a second to figure out the issue as well. (I don’t read Sullivan often these days, and his sexual orientation didn’t immediately come to mind.) On the other hand, I don’t have the insight into hackish Republican thinking that others may have.

  18. 18.

    Jimmmmm

    May 16, 2007 at 1:51 pm

    Speaking of shit arguments: http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/16/tony_snow_defeat_of_feingold_amendment_shows_americans_oppose_withdrawal

    That does it; now I’m rooting for the cancer.

    Sorry, I’m a dick. The difference is, my dickery only affects the life of one man, not tens of thousands of soldiers….

  19. 19.

    Pug

    May 16, 2007 at 1:52 pm

    Nevertheless, I have to give Huckabee mad props for the “John Edwards in a beauty shop” line. Could it be that my relentless pounding of the Pink Sapphire meme has successfully brought it into the mainstream? If so, I could not be prouder.

    This line about Edwards just brings down the right-wing house. Personally, I think John could give some advice to Rudy and McCain in the hair styling department, though I’m not sure even Christophe could do much with either of them. Rudy should be known as The Forehead and McCain must get his hair cut at TGF Haircutters for $15 like I do. Romney probably changes barbers every few months.

    What is the “Pink Sapphire meme” this fool claims to have been relentlessly pounding? Seems I’ve completely missed it.

  20. 20.

    Mr. Heat Miser

    May 16, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    What a beautiful gift it would be for the country if Ron Paul were to garner the Republican nomination for 2008.

  21. 21.

    Tax Analyst

    May 16, 2007 at 1:57 pm

    First of all…John – great new tag…it fits the Republicans, well, almost as snugly as Sullivan’s jeans probably do…and allows room for any Dem’s or others who may fall naturally under this new and roomier category tent…really couldn’t help myself with the jeans remark – I have no real idea or view on how well Sullivan’s jean actually fit him…actually, I like Sullivan…he’s interesting…I agree on some issues and I respect his attempts at understanding the world. I don’t have a problem with his or anybody else’s sexual orientation…if anyone wants to look at my old ass they can, as long as they only touch with permission. NOTE: Please do not take that last line as an invitation to request pictures…

  22. 22.

    RSA

    May 16, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    What is the “Pink Sapphire meme”

    Boston boutique that Edwards has frequented.

  23. 23.

    Andrew

    May 16, 2007 at 2:01 pm

    “If Sullivan likes Paul so much, why doesn’t he marry him?”

    I believe that the appropriate response is, “Maybe I will!”

    Alternately, “I don’t want no part of your tight-ass country-club, you freak bitch!

  24. 24.

    The Other Steve

    May 16, 2007 at 2:26 pm

    For what it’s worth, Paul is actually right about the Department of Homeland Security; that monstrosity is a living breathing emblem of all that’s wrong with our government.

    LOL!

    DHS started out as a Joe Lieberman production. Polling showed everybody thought it was a good idea, so the President grabbed it and declared it his own idea and demanded Congress pass it. Then they stuck a few poison pills in the bill to make sure the Democrats didn’t vote for it, so when they came up for reelection they accused them of being against homeland security.

    It’s a perfect example of how Republicans operate.

  25. 25.

    The Other Steve

    May 16, 2007 at 2:38 pm

    I once called into Hewy’s show when Barnett was hosting it. In it he had claimed that the Iraq war was the GOP’s way to winning the 06 election. He said that only the far left was against the war.

    I thanked him for his delusion and for helping to keep Hewy’s listeners in a delusional state.

    In typical fashion, he said that my comment proved that I hate America.

    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

  26. 26.

    MBunge

    May 16, 2007 at 3:14 pm

    You know, a lot of liberals have been throwing around the term “authoritarian” when it comes to the Bush Administration and its enablers among conservative Republicans. I’ve mostly thought that was overblown, but the hysteria over Ron Paul really brings it into focus. They literally cannot tolerate ANYONE who deviates from the accepted orthodoxy and to have such a virulent reaction to the mostly reasonable comments of a fringe candidate is a little disturbing.

    Mike

  27. 27.

    Dreggas

    May 16, 2007 at 3:22 pm

    MBunge Says:

    You know, a lot of liberals have been throwing around the term “authoritarian” when it comes to the Bush Administration and its enablers among conservative Republicans. I’ve mostly thought that was overblown, but the hysteria over Ron Paul really brings it into focus. They literally cannot tolerate ANYONE who deviates from the accepted orthodoxy and to have such a virulent reaction to the mostly reasonable comments of a fringe candidate is a little disturbing.

    Mike

    Welcome to the “New World Order” as provided by the Republican Party.

  28. 28.

    Vozz

    May 16, 2007 at 3:42 pm

    To be so blatant about trumpeting “soft authoritarianism” I can only assume that the Republican elite believes that the public is in some sort of stupor or has taken leave of its senses. Sadly, I believe they may be correct. The disengagement of the “average American” from public life has progressed to the point that extremism often tends to dictate the majority of substantive debates in this country. And with the mainstream media helping foster such an environment, (it’s good for ratings) I find that the reasonable alternatives are often relegated to the edge of the public consciousness, or simply don’t show up at all, save on the Internet, which has yet to prove itself as a useful tool for organizing political (as opposed to social) movements in this country. And given government corruption, I don’t see much potential for change, no matter what the candidate of the week may be saying to placate the masses. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

  29. 29.

    Pb

    May 16, 2007 at 4:10 pm

    MBunge,

    Authoritarianism (and the current cult of personality) is essentially the only thing that explains why Bush’s approval ratings are as high as they are:

    Republicans continue to be much more likely than independents or Democrats to support the president. Seventy-three percent of Republicans approve of Bush, substantially higher than the 27% approval among independents and the 9% approval among Democrats.

    Bush’s approval ratings amongst Republicans have never been lower than 68% — I find that amazing.

  30. 30.

    RW

    May 16, 2007 at 4:16 pm

    Why not just call Sullivan a fag, you hack? You and Hugh deserve each other.

    Deep thoughts. Is that from Keynes or Locke?

    Hanging around with your boys makes you classier every day, Cole. Hope you enjoy it.

  31. 31.

    Ned Raggett

    May 16, 2007 at 4:18 pm

    From the first comment on the just-linked Barnett piece:

    I don’t like Ron Paul because he’s goin’ to get me killed

    The rest of us will all yawn and get on with life, presumably.

  32. 32.

    John Cole

    May 16, 2007 at 4:25 pm

    Yeah, because barnett was not inserting that simply to poke at Sully’s sexuality.

    Whatever, Ricky.

    /boggle

  33. 33.

    MBunge

    May 16, 2007 at 4:59 pm

    Pb says – “Authoritarianism (and the current cult of personality) is essentially the only thing that explains why Bush’s approval ratings are as high as they are”

    Actually, the best indication of authoritarianism and cult of personality in today’s Republicans has to be the inexplicable popularity of Rudy. Here’s a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control candidate being supported by conservatives because…

    A. They saw him on the TV on 9/11, and…
    B. He seems like he’s a genuinely mean son of a bitch.

    Mike

  34. 34.

    ThymeZone

    May 16, 2007 at 5:14 pm

    A. They saw him on the TV on 9/11, and…
    B. He seems like he’s a genuinely mean son of a bitch.

    I think that’s exactly right. Policy, values, fealty to the corpse of Reagan …. all moot.

    Is he a complete asshole? YES. Then, they’ll love him.

  35. 35.

    r4d20

    May 16, 2007 at 5:18 pm

    They know his message will resonate with enough republicans to threaten the lock-step party discipline the Reps have enjoyed for years.

    I’m just glad, as a dissident rep myself, that at least somebody is finally saying these things.

  36. 36.

    Bubblegum Tate

    May 16, 2007 at 5:50 pm

    Bush’s approval ratings amongst Republicans have never been lower than 68%—I find that amazing.

    Partisanship is a helluva drug….

  37. 37.

    D. Mason

    May 16, 2007 at 5:57 pm

    For a while I have joked and popped off at the mouth about fascism but in all honesty the reaction to Ron Paul after those debates has been a real wake up call regarding just how much control someone has over the entire media apparatus. On atleast 2 polls I saw he was very well received by those who watched the debate. If you relied on the media for a recap instead of watching the debates you wouldn’t know he was there and to me that speaks volumes about the state of the media in this country.

    Face it, the media has been in bed with the government for decades. For a long time they have helped to maintain the status quo. It’s not hard to do, Americans love to go along. In fact I will even say that having the media make certain considerations towards not rocking the boat is a good thing as long as there is someone actually driving the boat to begin with. At this point though the status quo is openly ridiculed by pretty much everyone you meet(I live in Alabama, no shit and everyone I talk to thinks America is going down the shitter because of Bush). I don’t know who these 28%ers are or where they’re hiding. Come to think of it, given what I’ve seen lately they might just be made up.

    My point is that the debate coverage is a clear example of how controled our media is.

  38. 38.

    Pb

    May 16, 2007 at 6:06 pm

    Partisanship is a helluva drug….

    Yes, but it goes even further than that–the flip side would be if Democratic support for Bush had never gone above 32%. But in fact, it started at around 32%, hit a high of 84% in the wake of 9/11, and didn’t go below 32% until 2003! On the other hand, Republican support for Bush didn’t dip below 80% until late 2005 (long after he had lost the Independents)–he was at or above 85% Republican support for his entire first term!

  39. 39.

    RSA

    May 16, 2007 at 7:02 pm

    I exchange views once in a while with conservatives who probably would support Bush in a poll, even if they don’t like him much. The scary thing is the reason for their lukewarmness: they think Bush just doesn’t go far enough.

  40. 40.

    Paul L.

    May 16, 2007 at 7:14 pm

    Yeah, because barnett was not inserting that simply to poke at Sully’s sexuality.

    I thought being gay is nothing to be ashamed of.

    Of course Andrew Sullivan is also a disingenuous hack of the first order.
    As Mickey Kaus shows.

    “Any Weapon to Hand”: Some readers have asked for a definition of that phrase when I’ve applied it to my excitable former boss. It means using any rhetorical trick, including trumped up outrage, to bash your opponent even if you are going to take a contradictory position when it helps bash whoever is your opponent a couple of months later. Example!

    March 9, 2007: Andrew Sullivan condemns my use of the word “wussy,” featuring a quote from a reader who argues

    “The misogyny behind it – as behind so much homophobia – is pretty clear.”

    May 9, 2007: Sullivan questions why gun owners might not want their names published.

    “Glenn Reynolds argues that the important thing is keeping people guessing about who has a gun or not. Fair enough. But I’m not that impressed by wusses who don’t want to be ostracized by liberal elites at their neighborhood barbecues.” [E.A.]

    (Thanks to alert reader R.W., who argues the two month lag “before assuming the opposite position” actually represents a slowing of Sullivan’s cycle of righteous self-contradiction.)

    Update–The Whole Wuss and Nothing But the Wuss: Sullivan responds by re-dragging out his charge that I have a “long record of homophobia” because I wrote a piece 24 years ago defending a famous/infamous sign at an L.A. bar called Barney’s Beanery–a piece I almost immediately rethought and regretted, and that Sullivan surely knows I publicly repudiated years ago, the issue having surfaced in a recent blog back-and-forth. Like I said, “any weapon to hand.” Also, intellectual dishonesty.** …

    P.S.: Did I mention that Sullivan promoted Charles Murray’s sensationalistic blacks-are-dumb book and caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents in Iraq! …

    P.P.S.: The whole point of the email Sullivan reprinted is that the word “wussy” itself is misogynistic and homophobic, not that it’s OK if it’s used as an epithet in the “context” of attacking someone Sullivan deems worthy of attacking (in this case, gun owners). …

    **–The part about how “Mickey loved that bar” Sullivan just made up. He also again quotes me using “wussy” without mentioning I was trying to characterize the p.o.v. of Ann Coulter and her conservative audience, not my own p.o.v.. (Here’s the dingalink–you decide.) I don’t think Edwards is “wussy on foreign policy.” He is a bit elfin in appearance. So sue me. 1:44 A.M.

  41. 41.

    RW

    May 16, 2007 at 7:28 pm

    Alert reader R.W.?????????
    Now, who could that be? [blush]

    Silly, don’t you know that only Andrew Sullivan can discuss his sexuality (the lens that he views the world, including which politicians to support). And only Andrew Sullivan can call someone a ‘wuss’.

    However, fear not, there are those who will be there to defend the honor of their boy (oh, my, did I impugn someone’s sexuality? Bad alert reader R.W., bad!).

    To quote Miss Wynette: Stand by your man. He can give some crazy traffic.

  42. 42.

    The Other Steve

    May 16, 2007 at 9:49 pm

    Of course Andrew Sullivan is also a disingenuous hack of the first order.
    As Mickey Kaus shows.

    I consider them both disingenuous hacks, so… your point is what exactly?

    I don’t like Ron Paul. I think he’s a republican enabler. That is, he comes along and says something intelligent occasionally about something, and enables a bunch of Republicans to feel good about voting for a Republican.

    Except in the meantime, Ron Paul, totally supports the social conservative, anti-liberty bashing. Gays, abortion, everything he’s right up there with Falwell.

    What I can’t understand is how people can go around claiming Ron Paul is a Libertarian. About the only thing he agrees with the Libertarians on is hating taxes.

  43. 43.

    Pb

    May 16, 2007 at 10:39 pm

    What I can’t understand is how people can go around claiming Ron Paul is a Libertarian.

    He’s ten times the Libertarian Glenn Reynolds is[n’t]; also, he was in fact the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988, and this time around (even running as a Republican) he has already gotten Badnarik’s endorsement…. And then there’s this…

  44. 44.

    ThymeZone

    May 16, 2007 at 10:46 pm

    I thought being gay is nothing to be ashamed of.

    It isn’t. Go ahead and come out, we’ll still be your pals.

  45. 45.

    Bruce Moomaw

    May 17, 2007 at 12:39 am

    RW: “Silly, don’t you know that only Andrew Sullivan can discuss his sexuality (the lens that he views the world, including which politicians to support). And only Andrew Sullivan can call someone a ‘wuss’.”

    Gosh, who’da thunk Sullivan backed Bush in 2000 because he thought he’d be more likely to support gay rights than Gore? It’s almost as though he frequently makes political decisions on other grounds — including, say, whether politicians take a fond attitude toward frequent torture, or get the country into disastrously chosen wars by lying through their teeth, or try to force laws based on fundamentalist Christian theology down the throat of the entire country, or run the deficit up to the size of the Crab Nebula and then leave it to their successors to clean up the mess. (But then, by now we well know that the need to support the latter types of Republican is the lens through which RW views the world.)

  46. 46.

    Bruce Moomaw

    May 17, 2007 at 12:58 am

    Bulletin: in tonight’s Washington Post op-ed section, two military commanders — the former commander of the Marines, and the former commander of Centcom (appointed by Bush Senior) — forcefully agreed with Sullivan’s attack on most of the GOP Presidential candidates for backing torture. I tell you, fag sympathizers are everywhere. Only the 101st Fighting Keyboarders stand beween us and the decadent sexual collapse of Western civilization.

  47. 47.

    Sam Hutcheson

    May 17, 2007 at 3:23 am

    What is it about Ron Paul that has Dean Barnett and Hugh Hewitt scared to death?

    Party discipline. The Republican coalition is in tatters and having Ron Paul standing on the stage as a living statement to the effect that “the big tent isn’t big any more” is anethema to the Republican chances in 2008. It’s one thing to have a “Defeatocrat” call them on their proto-fascist tendencies but to have a successful coalition politician stand on the presidential debate stage and say, essentially, “the Democratic critique is right” — that’s the difference between barbarians at the gate and barbarians through the gate.

    In short, the Party can’t afford to have Ron Paul on the stage. It’s too sharp of a reminder of what the party no longer represents and will only serve to further destroy what remains of party line voting discipline in the electorate. If Ron Paul gets air time then a lot of moderate Republicans and independents are going to realize that “the next best thing” to Ron Paul is — oh, wait a minute — Barack Obama.

    s/

  48. 48.

    vg

    May 17, 2007 at 7:41 am

    ha… Dude, your commentariat sucks.

  49. 49.

    Zombie Santa Claus

    May 17, 2007 at 8:30 am

    ha… Dude, your commentariat sucks.

    Present company excepted, of course.

  50. 50.

    The Other Steve

    May 17, 2007 at 10:00 am

    And then there’s this…

    Hmm…

    Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
    Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
    Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
    Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
    Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
    Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
    Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
    Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
    Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
    Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
    Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
    No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
    Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

    A real Libertarian!

    And there’s more in his record. He’s at best mixed. He’s good on one or two issues, but otherwise is straight GOP party line.

  51. 51.

    The Other Steve

    May 17, 2007 at 10:01 am

    Sam Hutcheson is obviously correct. They don’t like Ron Paul, because Ron Paul is criticizing them on the war.

  52. 52.

    Hyperion

    May 17, 2007 at 10:32 am

    I consider them both disingenuous hacks, so… your point is what exactly?

    YES!
    i truly do not see Kaus as anything but a right winger.
    why do all these lefties link to him? like JMM at TPM.

    every time i visit his site, i come away thinking “yeah, still an asshole rightie.”

    at least sully can make a coherent argument…albeit a wrong argument sometimes. his war BS is a case in point.

  53. 53.

    Pb

    May 17, 2007 at 10:33 am

    The Other Steve,

    Yep, he’s pro-life–a self-proclaimed pro-life libertarian, which is not as unusual as you might think in the Libertarian party in America, which itself is essentially neutral on the issue.

  54. 54.

    bernarda

    May 17, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    Technically, Andrew Sullivan should be called Barebacking Sullivan, at least if you believe his personal ads in the gay press a few years ago. Apparently he doesn’t know about AIDS or just doesn’t care.

  55. 55.

    Temple Stark

    May 17, 2007 at 9:28 pm

    OK, two things late to a thread as usual (for me)

    I can call myself and my sister things I would punch you in the mouth if you called me / her, so , yes Sullivan can use “wuss” because it means something different. Don’t be empty-headed in thinking otherwise. No one is scoring any points with that.

    Two Ron Paul = Joe Lieberman. Discuss. Hint, Democrats would go equally apeshit, and have already, about the non-Democrat that Lieberman is, and the way both he and Paul go after their respective party members.

  56. 56.

    Sam Hutcheson

    May 18, 2007 at 12:27 pm

    Two Ron Paul = Joe Lieberman

    Maybe. I’m a little confused as to how Paul calls himself a Republican in much the same way I am confused as to how Lieberman calls himself a Democrat. Perhaps this is because the only question of our day that really matters doesn’t turn on the question of R vs D, but rather on the question of neo-con vs “something not batshit insane.”

  57. 57.

    RW

    May 18, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    Oh, Bruce, you’ve taken time from your busy “let’s pay based on effort” campaign to pay attention to me? Glad you care ’bout my opinion, but sadly I cannot act in kind. You and your bat$#it crazy ideas just don’t matter.

  58. 58.

    Bruce Moomaw

    May 18, 2007 at 2:34 pm

    Alas, RW still can’t get his most elementary facts straight, since I have never advocated anything of the sort. (All I’ve done is point out that — contrary only to a few batshit libertarians, who fortunately are extremely isolated — it’s morally justifiable to tax richer people at a higher rate than less rich workers, because it’s easier for them to make each individual dollar they earn. This is not exactly controversial.)

    Now, about that torture business…

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Oliver Willis says:
    May 17, 2007 at 12:00 am

    There Are 3,000,000 Ways To Call Andrew Sullivan An Idiot, But Not That Way

    I’ve made no secret of the fact that I see Andrew Sullivan as an idiotic ***wipe sycophantic boor (and I don’t buy his sudden anti-war conversion) but I think it’s kind of silly for cons to boil down their arguments

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - dmkingto - SF Bay Area Scenes 3
Image by dmkingto (6/18/25)

Recent Comments

  • bbleh on All the News That’s Fit To Print Open Thread (Jun 18, 2025 @ 1:50pm)
  • Betty on All the News That’s Fit To Print Open Thread (Jun 18, 2025 @ 1:50pm)
  • WaterGirl on All the News That’s Fit To Print Open Thread (Jun 18, 2025 @ 1:49pm)
  • Mr. Bemused Senior on All the News That’s Fit To Print Open Thread (Jun 18, 2025 @ 1:47pm)
  • Old School on All the News That’s Fit To Print Open Thread (Jun 18, 2025 @ 1:46pm)

Personality Crisis Podcast (Cole, DougJ, mistermix)

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

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!