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?
Zombie Santa Claus
Don’t ask, don’t tell.
Andrew
Wingers REALLY, REALLY, REALLY hate Ron Paul.
REALLY.
Almost as much as Hillary.
It’s sort of astounding.
Keith
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.
ThymeZone
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?
Zifnab
Republican Stupidity button broke off cause you hit it too hard, didn’t it?
Pb
Yes, the Republican party hates it when reality intrudes on their carefully planned Fox propaganda party events….
Mr Furious
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.
Tsulagi
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.
John Cole
Mr. Furious, I did and do. It is clear what he was doing- bringing Sullivan’s sexual orientation into things.
Pb
Mr Furious,
The phrase in question is ‘latest heartthrob’–sample usage:
Zifnab
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 –
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.
Jake
What happened to KMBA?
MadMike
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…
Mr Furious
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.
Mike S
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.
Steve
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.
RSA
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.
Jimmmmm
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….
Pug
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.
Mr. Heat Miser
What a beautiful gift it would be for the country if Ron Paul were to garner the Republican nomination for 2008.
Tax Analyst
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…
RSA
Boston boutique that Edwards has frequented.
Andrew
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!
The Other Steve
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.
The Other Steve
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
MBunge
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
Dreggas
Welcome to the “New World Order” as provided by the Republican Party.
Vozz
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.
Pb
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:
Bush’s approval ratings amongst Republicans have never been lower than 68% — I find that amazing.
RW
Deep thoughts. Is that from Keynes or Locke?
Hanging around with your boys makes you classier every day, Cole. Hope you enjoy it.
Ned Raggett
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.
John Cole
Yeah, because barnett was not inserting that simply to poke at Sully’s sexuality.
Whatever, Ricky.
/boggle
MBunge
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
ThymeZone
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.
r4d20
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.
Bubblegum Tate
Partisanship is a helluva drug….
D. Mason
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.
Pb
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!
RSA
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.
Paul L.
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.
RW
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.
The Other Steve
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.
Pb
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…
ThymeZone
It isn’t. Go ahead and come out, we’ll still be your pals.
Bruce Moomaw
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.)
Bruce Moomaw
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.
Sam Hutcheson
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/
vg
ha… Dude, your commentariat sucks.
Zombie Santa Claus
Present company excepted, of course.
The Other Steve
Hmm…
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.
The Other Steve
Sam Hutcheson is obviously correct. They don’t like Ron Paul, because Ron Paul is criticizing them on the war.
Hyperion
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.
Pb
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.
bernarda
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.
Temple Stark
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.
Sam Hutcheson
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.”
RW
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.
Bruce Moomaw
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…