• 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.

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

As long as McCarthy is Speaker, the House will never be in order.

I really should read my own blog.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

Optimism opens the door to great things.

We’re not going back!

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

Don’t expect peaches from an apple tree.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

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

I didn’t have alien invasion on my 2023 BINGO card.

If you are in line to indict donald trump, stay in line.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

Meanwhile over at truth Social, the former president is busy confessing to crimes.

After roe, women are no longer free.

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable VA House Races
  • 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 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Media / The Limbaugh Controversy

The Limbaugh Controversy

by John Cole|  October 3, 20078:17 am| 72 Comments

This post is in: Media

FacebookTweetEmail

And the Limbaugh controversy continues on, and the thing I don’t get is why they are denying he called them phony soldiers. The transcript shows that he pretty clearly didn’t refer to Jesse MacBeth until way late in the conversation, although that in and of itself is meaningless when you consider that those on the right have been questioning the patriotism of EVERYONE for years.

They do it with everyone. Murtha- traitor, Kerry-traitor, Durbin-traitor, Pelosi-traitor, and so on and so forth. Hell, any time I take a position that goes against the Republican talking points, I will have some jackass in the comments tell me I was a shitty soldier (like this clown at Neptunus Lex) and questioning my patriotism.

So back to my point- why the outrage on the right about the attacks on Limbaugh? Why defend him? Isn’t calling people a traitor and questioning their patriotism the new standard for discourse? And aren’t the Democrats just doing what you all perfected?

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Taxing the War
Next Post: Stay Classy, Protein Wisdom »

Reader Interactions

72Comments

  1. 1.

    Steven Taylor

    October 3, 2007 at 8:27 am

    For whatever reason, outrage has become the preferred mode of political discourse for a large swath of the population.

  2. 2.

    Zifnab

    October 3, 2007 at 8:43 am

    So back to my point- why the outrage on the right about the attacks on Limbaugh? Why defend him? Isn’t calling people a traitor and questioning their patriotism the new standard for discourse? And aren’t the Democrats just doing what you all perfected?

    Duh. IOKIYAR.

    And besides, this isn’t Savage or Medved or some other niche wingnut. This is Rush Limbaugh, most popular man in Conservatopiastan. The man can do absolutely no wrong, commit absolutely no sin, and he’ll occasionally walk on water if you listen in often enough.

    They defended Rush when he got busted for drug possession, they defended him when he called Obama “The Magic Negro”, they defended him when he pretended Parkinson’s Disease didn’t exist. Why would they not defend him now?

    At this point, its practically a reflex.

  3. 3.

    Dennis-SGMM

    October 3, 2007 at 8:45 am

    The only reason that one side listens to the other is to detect something to be outraged about – not to consider what they’re saying. National discourse has been replaced by volleys of harrumphs.

  4. 4.

    whippoorwill

    October 3, 2007 at 8:50 am

    And aren’t the Democrats just doing what you all perfected?

    The right wing slime machine and echo chamber republicans have built over the last 20 years has been it’s most potent electoral weapon. Add to that the bewildered response of Dems to non-stop smears and you have an almost foolproof way of winning elections. Now dems have taken their thumbs out of their collective asses [at least a little] and started slinging the shit back. Well, the one thing repubs can’t abide are demure dems fighting back. It’s a monkey wrench in the noise machine and hence all the shrieking of foul by our wingnut friends. Ain’t it cool.

  5. 5.

    KCinDC

    October 3, 2007 at 8:53 am

    The new wrinkle is to defend Blackwater by claiming they’re necessary because members of the US military are too incompetent to be trusted to provide security. But that’s not insulting the troops, because IOKIYAR.

  6. 6.

    John Cole

    October 3, 2007 at 8:55 am

    The new wrinkle is to defend Blackwater by claiming they’re necessary because members of the US military are too incompetent to be trusted to provide security. But that’s not insulting the troops, because IOKIYAR.

    Did you see Frank Gaffney on Hardball last night? If I could reach through the screen and choke him, I would have.

  7. 7.

    Chubbs

    October 3, 2007 at 9:01 am

    I have to admit, there is a part of me that thinks it’s funny to turn the tables on the Republicans with this whole smearing the troops thing, but once that wore off(took about an hour) it just really shows how shallow our representatives(they are still our representatives, aren’t they?) are today.

    I am so tired of these faux controversies. I am so tired of this administration and I am quickly becoming tired of this Democratic Congress. There are days when I wonder how much longer we have as a nation…….but then it’s the weekend and FOOTBALL TIME!!!!! lol

    Like the great Patrick Henry said,”Give me Liberty or give me Entertainment!” That is what he said, right?

  8. 8.

    The Other Steve

    October 3, 2007 at 9:01 am

    The new wrinkle is to defend Blackwater by claiming they’re necessary because members of the US military are too incompetent to be trusted to provide security. But that’s not insulting the troops, because IOKIYAR.

    Nice.

    Do they realize how they are self destructing?

  9. 9.

    Alan

    October 3, 2007 at 9:03 am

    Actually, Rush has a point. The Dems are a magnet for phony soldiers due to their anti-war position. It’s like how the GOP attracts white supremacists and bigots due to their Mexican and gay hating.

  10. 10.

    Tim F.

    October 3, 2007 at 9:10 am

    The Dems are a magnet for phony soldiers due to their anti-war position.

    I would be interested to hear you explain the logic behind that.

  11. 11.

    Face

    October 3, 2007 at 9:14 am

    I think it got just a tad ridiculous when, instead of denouncing Limbaugh or even abstaining from the resolution vote, some jackass actually introduced a resolution praising Limbaugh.

    That was soooo over the top, so asshole-ish, and so transparently a “fuck you” to the Democrats, that it caused this flap to explode.

    Leave it to a Republican to make things much, much worse than they initially were.

  12. 12.

    Zifnab

    October 3, 2007 at 9:15 am

    I have to admit, there is a part of me that thinks it’s funny to turn the tables on the Republicans with this whole smearing the troops thing, but once that wore off(took about an hour) it just really shows how shallow our representatives(they are still our representatives, aren’t they?) are today.

    You know, way back in the day, it was considered unsporting to hit a home run in baseball. Then tobacco chewing, cigar smoking, wiskey drinking, filandering Babe Ruth decided to step in and nail every ball out of the park. Now every batter tries to fit the Babe Ruth mold.

    Republicans smeared and mud-slung till their arms were sore, and hit all the home runs. They’ve been out screaming the liberal base of the Democratic Party for over a decade, and every time the liberals raise their voice – MoveOn, Code Pink, VoteVets, DKos, what have you – the institutions of Serious Thinking go into conniption fits of spittle-lipped outrage to try and out scream them again.

    This wouldn’t even be more than another purple band-aid in the drawer if we hadn’t JUST PASSED A CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION CONDEMNING EXACTLY THIS KIND OF BULLSHIT! Limbaugh didn’t even wait a week before he flip-flopped from staunch soldier supporter to McCarthy-Era Witch Hunter. Republican General Petreaus is as infallible as the Pope, but the rank and file soldiers are a pack of liberal-terror-hugging-hippies? How do you NOT respond to that?

  13. 13.

    Marcus Wellby

    October 3, 2007 at 9:17 am

    Hey, if the GOP folds on the issue of Faux Outrage they just got nothing left.

  14. 14.

    Alan

    October 3, 2007 at 9:24 am

    There was a little joke in my comment that seemed to have been lost in the delivery.

  15. 15.

    John Cole

    October 3, 2007 at 9:25 am

    I wish it would all stop. it wasn’t just Schiavo that pushed me away from the GOP- the bullshit they were spewing at Durbin and others around that time was also a alrge part of the reason I became disgusted with the GOP and these folks in the blogospheric right. It bothered me then, and I said so (bonus fun- scroll down to where centerfire questions whether said abuses occurred, whether they were in fact abuses, and then cites as an authority… james Lileks. There is your modern GOP, folks).

    Since that post in June of 2005,the blogosphere right has gotten crazier and nastier. By a great deal. In fact, I could never write that at Red State these days (if I were still there)- I would get banned. The right wing has become more insular, nastier, and, well, dumber.

  16. 16.

    Chubbs

    October 3, 2007 at 9:30 am

    Republicans smeared and mud-slung till their arms were sore, and hit all the home runs. They’ve been out screaming the liberal base of the Democratic Party for over a decade, and every time the liberals raise their voice – MoveOn, Code Pink, VoteVets, DKos, what have you – the institutions of Serious Thinking go into conniption fits of spittle-lipped outrage to try and out scream them again.

    This wouldn’t even be more than another purple band-aid in the drawer if we hadn’t JUST PASSED A CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION CONDEMNING EXACTLY THIS KIND OF BULLSHIT! Limbaugh didn’t even wait a week before he flip-flopped from staunch soldier supporter to McCarthy-Era Witch Hunter. Republican General Petreaus is as infallible as the Pope, but the rank and file soldiers are a pack of liberal-terror-hugging-hippies? How do you NOT respond to that?

    I don’t think less of Democrats for doing it, I just think it’s sad that this is what the discourse has become. And, I know it’s been this way for awhile now, but it just seems so pathetic on both sides.

    Believe me, as one who has had his patriotism challenged on message boards(obviously not important in the scheme of things, but infuriating just the same), I understand the desire to flip the script.

    After awhile though, the question I have is when will America wake up?

  17. 17.

    El_Cid

    October 3, 2007 at 9:32 am

    It is all right wingers’ God-given right to slur all opponents as enemy traitorous anti-Americans.

    That said, they are then free to choose exactly which flavor of anti-Americanism with which they are free to charge their opponents, including such classics as Socialist, Communist, Reds, agitators, and Fifth Columnists, and such newer versions as pro-Jihadists, Islamofascists, and Phony Soldiers.

    It is wrong and unfair to attempt to take this true American value away from right wingers (and that often includes right wingers of both parties), because without it arguments would be required.

    And we don’t have time for argument when the Sandinistas are only a 2 day’s drive from Harlingen, Texas.

  18. 18.

    capelza

    October 3, 2007 at 9:41 am

    Maybe they are going at the phony soldier comments more, because his Armed Services Radio contract is threatened?

    It really is incredible. And I agree on Gaffney on Hardball…what a tool.

  19. 19.

    whippoorwill

    October 3, 2007 at 9:41 am

    I wish it would all stop

    It’ll stop when we win. We know we’ve won when it stops.

  20. 20.

    The Other Steve

    October 3, 2007 at 9:58 am

    It’ll stop when we win. We know we’ve won when it stops.

    I think this is a generational war. It won’t end in our lifetime.

  21. 21.

    sparky

    October 3, 2007 at 10:02 am

    It would be nice if we used something other than ad hominem as a means of attack. But as the GOP has demonstrated, it’s pretty damn effective. The only thing I find interesting is that The Mighty Boil has apparently based his defense on a doctoring of his own transcript.

    Study question: which is sadder: the contempt The Boil expresses for the listenership with that act, or the continuing defense by that listenership in the face of the contempt?

  22. 22.

    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford

    October 3, 2007 at 10:11 am

    John Cole Says:

    Did you see Frank Gaffney on Hardball last night? If I could reach through the screen and choke him, I would have.

    October 3rd, 2007 at 8:55 am

    I saw Gaffney. The man is excrement.

  23. 23.

    KCinDC

    October 3, 2007 at 10:15 am

    Is there video or a transcript of Gaffney’s Hardball appearance online?

  24. 24.

    Jake

    October 3, 2007 at 10:22 am

    So back to my point- why the outrage on the right about the attacks on Limbaugh?

    Because he’s one of their own. We’re talking about a group of people who still go on about Clinton’s BJ but if one of their own gets caught with his pants down the first response is always shrill cry of “That’s a damned lie!” followed by “Mind your own business, you brutes!” Next comes another mention of Clinton’s BJ. Later, if they absolutely can’t put any other spin on the facts, they might get nasty. However, Rush has thoughtfully provided them a palatable transcript to which they can cling. Another dangerous dose of reality avoided. Phew!

    Do they realize how they are self destructing?

    Nope. Please don’t tell them.

  25. 25.

    jcricket

    October 3, 2007 at 10:24 am

    I wish it would stop too. It’s ridiculous that we spend about 90% of our time in politics talking about haircuts, faux affairs, and other attack-driven crap.

    But when (as others have pointed out) it’s only a week after Republicans (and the cave-in Democrats) pass a resolution condemning an ad by a third-party liberal group, I’ve just about fucking had it. Democrats try to turn the tables, even a little (remember, this is just a “sternly worded letter”) and everyone has a fucking conniption.

    Just this morning Matt Lauer on the Today show criticized (or questioned) whether our “representatives should be focused on” things like this resolution. Of course they shouldn’t, but why didn’t he say the same thing about the Republicans?

    So when the media stops reporting every faux scandal and outrage from the right as gospel truth, and the American public stops swallowing all the bullshit the Republicans dole out (swift-boat, Vince Foster, osama/cleland, fake al-gore quotes, lies from Rush about MJ Fox, etc) then maybe the Democrats can go back to ignoring the smear merchants.

    For now it’s time to keep punching them in the face until they stop getting up. And if the face punches don’t work, hit them in the gut. And if that doesn’t work, kick them in the nads.

  26. 26.

    KCinDC

    October 3, 2007 at 10:28 am

    Found it. I particularly like Gaffney’s bit about how these people aren’t war profiteers because they’re putting their lives on the line. Exactly how much danger is Erik Prince personally facing to earn the millions of dollars in taxpayer money that go into his pockets?

    Is this danger anything like what Hugh Hewitt faces in his brave stand on the front lines by being in a New York City skyscraper? Or perhaps Christopher Hitchens’ heroic contribution to the war effort by daring to write articles?

  27. 27.

    whippoorwill

    October 3, 2007 at 10:33 am

    The Other Steve says

    I think this is a generational war. It won’t end in our lifetime.

    Unfortunately, I believe your right.

  28. 28.

    Dave in ME

    October 3, 2007 at 10:39 am

    An excerpt of her excellent post on this topic:

    Bennett said today that the Democrats had erred because if they were going to try to kill the king, they’d better succeed, and Rush is the king of talk radio. He’s right. And the Democrats should have been working to take him down long ago. It’s my belief that the conservative movement of the past decade or so was a three headed hydra: Newt, Delay and Rush. Sure, there are others, including Bush’s brain, and Grover Norquist (whom I have sometimes included as the fourth head of the hydra) but those three stood for different things that were hugely important to the success of the movement. Newt was the visionary. Delay was the congressional enforcer. And Rush was the voice, screaming out violent hatred for liberals and Democrats day after day, decade after decade. It took its toll, to the point where we can hardly even stand ourselves.

    Newtie’s now irrelevant. Delay is gone. Only Rush remains and he is probably the biggest prize. On a purely practical, hardball political basis, the Democrats should have been working to take him out for years. Now is their chance to turn the Republicans’ patented hissy kabuki back on them and hoist an avowed political enemy with his own poisonous petard at the same time. There are many others who will happily take his place, no doubt about it. But his voice is uniquely associated with the radical wingnuts, and it is an important symbolic message to the country if they can finally make an example of him.

  29. 29.

    Typical Repub 25%ER®

    October 3, 2007 at 10:45 am

    It’s not fair when the Defeatocrats play by our rules! We made the rules dammit! If they keep playing by our rules, I’m taking my ball and going home!

  30. 30.

    Redleg

    October 3, 2007 at 11:11 am

    The whiney-ass titty babies don’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot. The neo-con clowns can dish it out but when one of their own is subjected to some criticism, they come unglued. I attribute it to a lack of cognitive moral development.

  31. 31.

    Chris Andersen

    October 3, 2007 at 11:31 am

    The resolution condemning MoveOn was the height of absurdity and, had I been in Congress, I would have voted against and loudly condemned the waste of time that it was. Congress has no business condemning expressions of free speech.

    Does that mean there shouldn’t be a resolution condemning Limbaugh? No. Again, if I were in Congress, I would co-sponsor such a resolution (which I would then vote against).

    Not to do so would compound the absurdity of the original resolution with blatant hypocrisy.

  32. 32.

    Ripley

    October 3, 2007 at 11:34 am

    I don’t care what people say about Rush Limbaugh. I just want to know why he needed Viagra on a trip to the Dominican Republic. Does Rush Limbaugh patronize prostitutes? I think America deserves an answer.

  33. 33.

    Fledermaus

    October 3, 2007 at 11:50 am

    I wish it would all stop. it wasn’t just Schiavo that pushed me away from the GOP- the bullshit they were spewing at Durbin and others around that time was also a alrge part of the reason I became disgusted with the GOP and these folks in the blogospheric right.

    We all do, JC. But this is not a recient development. This silly crap is what has passed for political discourse in the last 12 years. We’ve since realized that the GOP is not going to abandon this sort of bullshit anytime soon. The GOP needs this sort of crap because, as the last 6 years shows – no one likes their actual policies (not the bullshit fairy tales they tell on the campaign trail to fool the rubes). So they need this manufactured outrage crap like move on ads or Al Gore sighing or Kerry shooting himseslf for purple hearts or Hillary Clinton having Vince Foster murdered or His High Roundness Michael Moore

  34. 34.

    Librarian

    October 3, 2007 at 11:53 am

    For the last 20 years, Rush has helped with the rest of the right wing attack machine to destroy civil political discourse in this country. He is patently a vile racist demagogue who should be beyond the pale of mainstream political life. But he isn’t; instead, he has today defenders in Congress like Mike Pence and Jack Kingston, people who, in a normal country, would not like to be associated with such a despicable character. They defend him because the GOP can’t do without him. He does what they can’t do on the floor of Congress: vilify their opponents with everything there is, calling them everything from traitors to faggots to Nazis. And the Pences and the Kingstons can pretend to be civilized politicians in Congress while Rush does their dirty work for them. It’s time the Democrats and progressives find a spine and start fighting back. Until now they have done nothing, standing there and taking all this abuse, pretending that normal civil governance is possible and the GOP is just another political party and Rush is just a guy on the radio. And so it’s time that the Democrats call Rush what he is, and tell his party that they’re not putting up with this bullshit any longer.

  35. 35.

    Wilfred

    October 3, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    Blogs are the equivalent of anonymously written political pamphlets that have been part of colonial and American politics since before the revolution. Some of them were at least as bad as the stuff we have today – read the things written about Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams et al.

    As for Limbaugh, he got rich telling the hooples what they wanted to hear. Who else listens to him?

  36. 36.

    Barry

    October 3, 2007 at 12:11 pm

    Steven Taylor Says:

    “For whatever reason, outrage has become the preferred mode of political discourse for a large swath of the population.”

    Steven, have you observed just what’s been happening for the past several years? Perhaps, just perhaps, one side does have something to be outraged about.

  37. 37.

    Wilfred

    October 3, 2007 at 12:14 pm

    Wow, they’re really rallying around Rush at RedState (Ahhh, I just alliterated). Whatever happened to the simple reminder that “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” amended to the “Right wing blogoshphere…”

  38. 38.

    incontrolados

    October 3, 2007 at 12:39 pm

    Limbaugh can’t even get his story straight when talking to one of his friendlies (Byron York).

    After this article appeared on NRO, Limbaugh called to say that, in telling me the story, he had gotten the timeline wrong. In fact, he said, his staff had noticed stories about Jesse Macbeth on Friday, September 21, and those stories, along with earlier reports and the U.S. Attorney’s statement, were the basis of Limbaugh’s radio commentary, which was taped on Monday afternoon, September 24 — before the ABC World News story aired. Limbaugh’s commentary ran on Tuesday morning, after the ABC story was broadcast, and, Limbaugh said, “all day Tuesday, my call screener was telling me about the ABC report on phony soldiers that updates the commentary we did.” Nevertheless, Limbaugh told me, “The ABC report had not formed a basis for the writing of that commentary.” None of that changes the basics of the “phony soldiers” matter — Limbaugh told me again that, “The ABC story and the update were what was on my mind” when he made his remarks on Wednesday, September 26. But he told me he wanted to correct the record about the timing of events.]

    Linky

  39. 39.

    The Stranger

    October 3, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    (sigh) John Cole simply is not afraid to display his stupidity, is he?

  40. 40.

    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford

    October 3, 2007 at 1:24 pm

    KCinDC Says:

    Found it. I particularly like Gaffney’s bit about how these people aren’t war profiteers because they’re putting their lives on the line. Exactly how much danger is Erik Prince personally facing to earn the millions of dollars in taxpayer money that go into his pockets?

    October 3rd, 2007 at 10:28 am

    KCinDC,

    My favorite bit from Gaffney was his response to Greenwald’s accounting of “contractors” we have in Iraq.

    MATTHEWS: Robert, how many people do we have over there, civilians employees of our war effort?

    GREENWALD: We have 180,000. And let me go back to Frank‘s point. He obviously wasn‘t listening. What I said was the war profiteers are the heads of the corporations. It‘s Erik Prince, it‘s the head of Halliburton, who made several hundred million dollars in his stock during (ph) these people (ph).

    And it‘s a systemic problem. If you believe that profit should be allowed to be made during a war, then I think you raise the national security issue, Who do they report to? What is their responsibility? When they‘re in the battlefield, what is their first obligation? Is it to the corporation, which has to make a profit, or is it to winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people?

    And it‘s turned into a tragedy. And let me tell you this. You speak to any soldier, and they will be—tell you story after story of the toll it‘s taking on them and their efforts.

    MATTHEWS: Frank?

    GAFFNEY: Well, I don‘t know what to say about that. That sounds like gobbledygook to me. Here‘s the bottom line. People in business are, under our system, in business to make a profit. I think they‘re doing, in the case of war of Iraq, an awful lot of things that are above and beyond the call of duty that involve heroism. Thirty of these people have lost their lives.

    Erik Prince is not a war profiteer, in my estimation. He‘s a leader of a highly skilled team. Most of these people were until recently in the military, doing these jobs in uniform. They‘re doing them now, having gotten out because the United States military can‘t use them in the uniform at the moment. They‘re too small a force.

    We have a larger war. The war in Iraq, as we‘ve talked about before, Chris, is one front in a vastly larger problem we‘re facing. We need a larger military to deal with it. I‘d think all of us would be happy to have people in uniform doing more of these jobs. But for the moment, we need these kinds of folks. And thank God they‘re as good as they are.

    Five years of crap like this has driven me to idiocy.

  41. 41.

    The Other Andrew

    October 3, 2007 at 1:30 pm

    You’re right, Stranger. The right has never smeared anyone or questioned anyone’s patriotism.

  42. 42.

    Tsulagi

    October 3, 2007 at 1:34 pm

    It bothered me then, and I said so

    Followed your link. Read it. Hate to use the term, but a measured fair and balanced post. Given that kind of unseemly behavior, how long before your posting privileges were revoked? LOL. j/k

    bonus fun- scroll down to where centerfire questions whether said abuses occurred, whether they were in fact abuses, and then cites as an authority…

    I dunno, “rimfire” I think would be a little better username for him. Didn’t read all his or others’ comments, but here’s a little Centerfire while trumpeting his patriotism…

    If U.S. soldiers captured during a conflict had been treated this way, I’d be upset, yes. Why? Because (a) they’re my countrymen, and — much more significantly — (b) they’re soldiers, and thus entitled to POW status and the protections it entails.

    As opposed to Gitmo detainees, who are neither my countrymen, nor — again, much more significantly — soldiers entitled to POW status and the protections it entails.

    Brilliance. Since Durbin’s “Nazi” comment was the topic of discussion, Centerfire might like to know Nazis agreed with his reasoning. Russian POWs held by Nazi Germany during WWII were treated very badly. Far less than 50% of them survived. Germany justified it saying they were not entitled to protections as Russia did not sign or observe the Geneva Conventions.

    My guess is that Centerfire would be among the first of all RedStaters to echo GEN George Patton was a stud. He was. However, even though soldiers under his command were killed by Germans and they weren’t his countrymen, Patton insisted German military POWs and also civilian Nazi detainees be treated decently, even considerably better than minimums accorded by the Conventions.

    He said his reasoning went beyond simple human decency. He thought if POWs and detainees were not treated fairly, resentment could push post-war Germany and others toward communism, an ideology he hated with a passion. In fact, Patton was relieved of his post-war command as governor of Bavaria with one reason cited he was too nice.

    I can sort of picture Centerfire showing his patriotism for all to see by asking Patton what the hell was he thinking treating those Nazis decently. If he left the dipshit standing, I can also sort of imagine Patton saying “Because we’re better than those sonsofbitches and it’s fucking smart for the country you pissant.”

    So pre-9/11 thinking, General. You don’t see the big picture.

  43. 43.

    whippoorwill

    October 3, 2007 at 1:40 pm

    (sigh)

    You keep sighing, Stranger, In the meantime we’ll be carving your corrupt republican party into untidy little pieces. And when that’s done, we’ll wrap in your rancid rhetoric and ram it down your sorry throat.

  44. 44.

    Tsulagi

    October 3, 2007 at 1:46 pm

    Oh no, The Stranger is sighing!

    Are you okay? Do you need someone to hold you up? I’m sure there are plenty of widestancers who would jump to your aid holding your hand. Centerfire might be on call.

  45. 45.

    over_educated

    October 3, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    What I find most interesting about the whole Limbaugh episode is it is a case study on the different ways that conservatives and liberal idealogues deal with controversy.

    Liberals – Back down and apologize, causing your opponents to attack you even more (Re: Kerry, MoveOn ad).

    Conservatives – Go on the attack, don’t back down, NEVER, EVER admit you are even remotely wrong. Eventually there will be a new outrage to focus on and you will get off scott-free. Seriously, I think I will have a heart attack if Rush apologizes. What incentive does he have? His zombie-like following would prefer to disbelieve reality than disbelieve the voice of dear leader.

    If the Dems learn nothing from this episode other than that they should NEVER, EVER apologize to the fucktards for anything it would be a lesson well learned.

    Sadly, I suspect the next week, when some unknown reader on DailyKos makes some slightly disparaging remark about the troops, they will be tripping all over themselves to condemn the very folks who helped put them into power.

  46. 46.

    HH

    October 3, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    “The transcript shows that he pretty clearly didn’t refer to Jesse MacBeth until way late in the conversation”

    So there’s a “way late” timer running on context now, in the middle of a phone conversation?

    Wonder what the Jane Hamshers of the left think about that one.

  47. 47.

    HH

    October 3, 2007 at 4:23 pm

    “Limbaugh can’t even get his story straight when talking to one of his friendlies”

    So Limbaugh beat ABC to the story… wow, that really makes him look bad now.

  48. 48.

    incontrolados

    October 3, 2007 at 4:33 pm

    So Limbaugh beat ABC to the story… wow, that really makes him look bad now.

    If that’s the case, then why didn’t he just tell York that in the first place?

  49. 49.

    John Cole

    October 3, 2007 at 4:35 pm

    So there’s a “way late” timer running on context now, in the middle of a phone conversation?

    Yes.

    And MoveOn’s ad had a question mark after betrayus- nuance that escaped the right. Why should the haks on the left be any different to Rush?

    I didn’t create this game, and I was warning you knuckleheads about it for the past few years. Enjoy.

  50. 50.

    incontrolados

    October 3, 2007 at 4:35 pm

    So there’s a “way late” timer running on context now, in the middle of a phone conversation?

    Funny, that’s the line that Bennett’s sidekick was peddling this morning.

    “Why can’t Rush have a couple of minutes to make his point you bullies!!!”

  51. 51.

    Aaron

    October 4, 2007 at 2:04 am

    Clearly Rush’s comment was taken out of context. Whenever something a republican says is used against them its clearly being taken out of context.

  52. 52.

    John Rohan

    October 4, 2007 at 5:33 am

    John Cole said:
    the thing I don’t get is why they are denying he called them phony soldiers. The transcript shows that he pretty clearly didn’t refer to Jesse MacBeth until way late in the conversation

    Way late?? On air, it was about a 95 seconds later. In the transcript, it was about a paragraph down. That’s way late? And if you read it, you’ll see the reason for the delay was because out of the blue the caller suddenly changed the subject to WMDs. So Rush reponds to WMDs for a moment, then gets back to the subject of phony soldiers and goes into Jesse Macbeth.

    any time I take a position that goes against the Republican talking points, I will have some jackass in the comments tell me I was a shitty soldier (like this clown at Neptunus Lex-

    I don’t know the whole history here, but that seems like a crappy attitude to take with someone that posted a pretty sincere-sounding apology at the link you gave.

    So back to my point- why the outrage on the right about the attacks on Limbaugh? Why defend him?

    I’ll answer the question with a question. Why are the Democrats defending the phony soldiers like Jesse Macbeth?

    Isn’t calling people a traitor and questioning their patriotism the new standard for discourse? And aren’t the Democrats just doing what you all perfected?

    It’s funny that whenever the topic is about US torture, “but they do it too”, is not supposed to be an excuse. I thought the whole John Kerry mistatement flap was way overblown, and so is this. Like that episode, it’s likely to blow up in the faces of people who try to make too much political hay from it. That’s free advice. Do with it what you will.

  53. 53.

    whippoorwill

    October 4, 2007 at 6:22 am

    Way late?? On air, it was about a 95 seconds later. In the transcript, it was about a paragraph down. That’s way late? And if you read it, you’ll see the reason for the delay was because out of the blue the caller suddenly changed the subject to WMDs. So Rush reponds to WMDs for a moment, then gets back to the subject of phony soldiers and goes into Jesse Macbeth.

    Rohan, In your wingnut world, I know you can make shit seem like butter. But around here, your spinning nonsense won’t get off the ground. So why do you make such a fool of yourself? We know what Limbaugh was saying and so do you.

    I’ll answer the question with a question. Why are the Democrats defending the phony soldiers like Jesse Macbeth?

    So your equating Rush Limbaugh with a con artist. For once we agree. Idiot.

  54. 54.

    over_educated

    October 4, 2007 at 8:03 am

    “I thought the whole John Kerry mistatement flap was way overblown, and so is this.”

    LOL. I’ve noticed a lot of this type of statement coming from wingers lately. All of a sudden, when your boy makes a gaffe, people taking things “out of context” are vastly overblown.

    Please. When has “context” ever been remotely important to Rush when going after a political enemy? It’s called karma, and yes, it is a bitch.

  55. 55.

    Cassius Chaerea

    October 4, 2007 at 9:07 am

    John,

    what is happening with Rush and the “phony soldiers” is the continuation and elaboration of the stab-in-the-back myth that the Republicans are getting ready for 2009.

    It is not just that the glorious cause would have been won if not betrayed by the traitorous politicians. Now we have soldiers in the field that are not really soldiers, but are actively working against the national interest, and have to be exposed as traitors.

    The Nazis did this to Germany’s Jewish World War I veterans. It’s about to be done to American troops.

  56. 56.

    John Rohan

    October 4, 2007 at 11:06 am

    whippoorwill Says:

    Way late?? On air, it was about a 95 seconds later. In the transcript, it was about a paragraph down. That’s way late? And if you read it, you’ll see the reason for the delay was because out of the blue the caller suddenly changed the subject to WMDs. So Rush reponds to WMDs for a moment, then gets back to the subject of phony soldiers and goes into Jesse Macbeth.

    Rohan, In your wingnut world, I know you can make shit seem like butter. But around here, your spinning nonsense won’t get off the ground.

    LOL, show me the money then. Please show me where anything I said there was incorrect. Go ahead. Look at the transcript yourself, if need be. Or do I need to quote it all here?

    We know what Limbaugh was saying and so do you.

    On that one point at least, we agree.

    Idiot.

    That’s what I love about this website; it’s ever so friendly. BTW, when someone resorts to insults, rather than facts, then I’m pretty confident I’ve won the debate.

  57. 57.

    over_educated

    October 4, 2007 at 12:02 pm

    “Go ahead. Look at the transcript yourself, if need be. Or do I need to quote it all here?”

    You do realize that Rush doctored those transcripts. Right big guy?

    The actual transcript with associated audio file, can be found here:

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009?f=h_top

    I direct you to the following quote:

    “LIMBAUGH: I — it’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

    CALLER 2: No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

    LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

    CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.”

    After which Limbaugh went onto another subject and then started the Jesse MacBeth talk about 90 seconds later. The text is pretty clear, soldiers who disagree with war are “phony soldiers.”

    I’m not sure what point you think linking to a doctored transcript proves besides that you are a gullible fool.

  58. 58.

    whippoorwill

    October 4, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    I just got back. And thank you over_educated for copying the transcript so I won’t have to.

    YOU HAVE NOTHING ROHAN

    Except doctored transcripts and a dying party.
    Oh, and “idiot” in your case was not an insult.
    It’s more like a phony compliment.

    Besides, over_educated is smarter than both of us.

  59. 59.

    John Rohan

    October 4, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    Did you two actually read that web site you quoted? This is like Kindergarten here. Ok, I’ll hold your hands and walk you through it..

    First of all, Limbaugh only “doctored” the audio clip he sent out, cutting out that middle (and irrelevant) WMD piece. No one “doctored” the written transcript (the accusation of “doctoring” it is pretty laughable anyway, since Media Matters did the same thing in their first audio they sent out, cutting out the reference to Jesse Macbeth).

    Now either read the transcript at Media Matters or at Limbaugh’s site (they are the same). Rush made the phony soldiers remark, then the caller changed the subject to WMDs, Rush responded to that briefly, then got back to the subject of “phony soldiers”:
    Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth.

    When he says “talking about fake soldiers“, what do you think he was referring back to?

    Don’t bother to answer – even if you knew the truth you wouldn’t admit it, since you’ve dug your hole this deep so far. But I will tell you that this military man, and every one that I happen to work with currently, don’t have any problem with what Rush said. So you don’t need to defend us against the evil Mr. Limbaugh. Thanks anyway, though.

  60. 60.

    whippoorwill

    October 4, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    Now either read the transcript at Media Matters or at Limbaugh’s site (they are the same). Rush made the phony soldiers remark, then the caller changed the subject to WMDs, Rush responded to that briefly, then got back to the subject of “phony soldiers”:

    They are both the same because MediaMatters was showing Rush’s doctoring job.

    The only thing irrelevant are the WMD remarks and everything after

    Even without this incident, Limbaugh has slandered enough veterans he disagree with to write a long book. He’s a doper and racist pig and you love him so what’s that make you Rohan.

    We can keep this up all day and night. Your move.

  61. 61.

    John Cole

    October 4, 2007 at 4:52 pm

    They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth.

    Does anyone on “teh left” point to Jesse Macbeth? WTF point was he even trying to make? That Jesse Macbeth was a fraud? No argument there.

    That “teh left” point exclusively to Jesse Macbeth? Utter bullshit.

    Whenevr you see Jesse macbeth’s name brought up, it isn;t by someone on the left trying to make a point. It is the john Rohan’s, the Rush limbaugh’s, trying to invalidate the arguments presented today with a fraud from yesterday.

    Which is why Rush and company smear the living fuck out of all the other soldiers who don’t toe the dead-ender line. Christ, I had people openly questioning the service and honor of the guys who wrote in the NY Times within minutes of posting about them. “Betrayus” found it’s origin in Rush smearing Hagel (who served). What do the fucktards at Red State have to say about any Democrat who served? Did you just happen to forget the right trying to smear Jim Webb?

    The only thing that is difficult is it is hard to make any progress pointing out what scum Rush, and uncle Jimbo at Black Five, and the other jingoists are when they are wrapped up so damned tight in the flag. They get away with questioning the service and patriotism of other people because they mouth the words “I support the troops” frequently enough. They say it so much, it almost seems like they do. But do they really? How much time did Rush spend bashing Bush for failing to fix Walter Reed? Or for opposing a pay raise for the troops? or for giving our soldiers and military the reputation of torturers? 1 minute? None? Or did he just blame the left for all that?

    Maybe Rush was thinking about Macbeth when he made the comment. For my money, he has spent the last few years, along with his willing chorus, smearing the fuck out of anyone who disagreed with whatever the immediate administration line is- they are all phony soldiers to Rush, so if he wasn’t just doing another one of his garden variety drive-by hatchet jobs, it is just karma that he is getting nailed for one of the times he is innocent.

    Like I said before- “teh left” is just learning to play the game Malkin, Hewitt, Limbaugh, the Weekly Standard, the NRO, and “the right” perfected.

  62. 62.

    whippoorwill

    October 4, 2007 at 5:28 pm

    That was way better than a Britney thread!

  63. 63.

    jcricket

    October 4, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    The only thing that is difficult is it is hard to make any progress pointing out what scum Rush, and uncle Jimbo at Black Five, and the other jingoists are when they are wrapped up so damned tight in the flag.

    Maybe the problem is the flag is wrapped so tightly around them that it’s cutting off the circulation to the brain. I hear prolonged lack of oxygen to the brain can cause something… I think it’s CDS (clinton derangement syndrome) or something like that.

  64. 64.

    John Rohan

    October 5, 2007 at 2:01 am

    John Cole said:
    Maybe Rush was thinking about Macbeth when he made the comment. For my money, he has spent the last few years, along with his willing chorus, smearing the fuck out of anyone who disagreed with whatever the immediate administration line is- they are all phony soldiers to Rush, so if he wasn’t just doing another one of his garden variety drive-by hatchet jobs, it is just karma that he is getting nailed for one of the times he is innocent.

    This seems to be the real problem over why Rush’s opponents are splitting hairs so absurdly fine in order to find any slight bit of dirt on him. They simply hate the guy with a passion. That’s not a big secret, but that’s clouding all reason in this whole argument.

    I’m not defending Rush in general terms – I have scarcely ever listened to his show so I can’t say if he is usually right or wrong or what. But on this issue I feel he is clearly being maligned, and the full transcript backs this up. You disagree, I get that – but I have a feeling that you would be much more generous in giving the benefit of the doubt if this was Keith Olberman or Jon Stewart who made the remark instead…

    In any case, I am not looking forward to all the minutae that the media from both sides is going to be combing through for the next year.

  65. 65.

    John Rohan

    October 5, 2007 at 2:21 am

    Forgot to add this:

    whippoorwill said:
    They are both the same because MediaMatters was showing Rush’s doctoring job.

    The only thing irrelevant are the WMD remarks and everything after

    Yes, that part was Media Matter’s doctoring job…

    In any case, you’re changing the subject. There’s no point in going any further, because you haven’t addressed the the flow of the conversation that I pointed out to you.

    And to John Cole:
    You really think the political right invented political attacks? Look at the pre-internet days when you had groups like ActUp! that took trash discourse and ugly protests and turned them into an artform. Or commentators that said/did all kinds of offensive things, like Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jane Fonda.

    Or look at the internet today and you find that the partisan left-wing online communites (like Daily Kos and Democratic Underground) are far larger and better organized than the right wing ones (like Redstate.com). The liberal media watchdogs (like Crooks & Liars and Media Matters) are far larger and better funded than the few conservative ones (like The Media Research Center). And for every media outlet biased to the right like Fox News or the Washington Times, I can show you at least three to the left, such as Al Jazzera, CNN, and the NYT, the Guardian and the Washington Post.

    So it’s ludicrious to claim that conservatives “invented” political smearing, or that they are the only ones doing it today.

    Get a grip. That is all.

  66. 66.

    over_educated

    October 5, 2007 at 6:38 am

    “Yes, that part was Media Matter’s doctoring job…”

    Well, here we go. You think Media Matters “doctored” the audio file and transcript, we think Rush is the lying idiot. Of course, most news organizations, and some of Rush’s own listners, believe that he did doctor the transcript.

    Oh, and then Rush headed out and compared a wounded war veteran to a suicide bomber. Way to stay classy.

    Do you have a magical pony in the alternate reality you choose to inhabit?

  67. 67.

    over_educated

    October 5, 2007 at 6:39 am

    Oh, then, of course, he denied calling the guy a suicide bomber. Which, sadly, was again shown to be a complete lie.

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200710040013?f=h_top

  68. 68.

    over_educated

    October 5, 2007 at 6:45 am

    Oh, one last thing…

    Rush ADMITTED to doctoring the tape:

    http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26332

    Yeah, reality is a bitch, ain’t it?

  69. 69.

    whippoorwill

    October 5, 2007 at 7:33 am

    Rohan says

    n any case, you’re changing the subject. There’s no point in going any further, because you haven’t addressed the the flow of the conversation that I pointed out to you.

    The very best place you can get to with your argument is that Rush slandered both “Phony Soldiers” =those who are against the Iraq war and‘fake soldiers”= impostors posing as soldiers who’ve never served.

    It is just plain laughable to suggest dems in the distant past have practiced anything remotely like the current right wing slime machine we have now. Although we are learning and getting better at it every day.

    ’m not defending Rush in general terms – I have scarcely ever listened to his show so I can’t say if he is usually right or wrong or what.

    While your back-peddling be sure not to fall on your ass.

    n any case, I am not looking forward to all the minutae that the media from both sides is going to be combing through for the next year.

    If I was a republican neither would I.

  70. 70.

    John Cole

    October 5, 2007 at 8:47 am

    And to John Cole:
    You really think the political right invented political attacks? Look at the pre-internet days when you had groups like ActUp! that took trash discourse and ugly protests and turned them into an artform. Or commentators that said/did all kinds of offensive things, like Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jane Fonda.

    Or look at the internet today and you find that the partisan left-wing online communites (like Daily Kos and Democratic Underground) are far larger and better organized than the right wing ones (like Redstate.com). The liberal media watchdogs (like Crooks & Liars and Media Matters) are far larger and better funded than the few conservative ones (like The Media Research Center). And for every media outlet biased to the right like Fox News or the Washington Times, I can show you at least three to the left, such as Al Jazzera, CNN, and the NYT, the Guardian and the Washington Post.

    A.) I never said the right invented it. I said they perfected it. We have a complete circle-jerk system from the ground-up. One wingnut says something. Another wingnut links it. Rush Limbaugh mentions it. Michelle Malkin links it. The NRO links it. Thirteen hundred other lesser idiots link it, and the next thing you know, Chris Matthews is asking the Democrat why they hate America at the Democratic debate.

    B.) Red State’s COULD have been every bit as popular as Daily Kos, except for one thing- they can’t handle actual debate or disgagreement. They ban anyone for anything, and anything short of lockstep agreement is deemed a bannable offense.

    C.) Crooks and Liars is a guy. His name is John Amato. I can give you his AOL IM if you would like. His “funding” comes by way of his advertising. I know this is hard to understand, a successful business venture that actually turns a profit based on its own popularity, especially considering NRO, the Weekly Standard, and the MRC are all on various forms of wingnut welfare and have to run to Richard Mellon Scaife for money to get teh message out, but I will just file it under the long list of “shit John Rohan does not understand at all.”

    And you simply do not understand the media if you think that CNN, the WaPo, and for the most part, the non-editorial pages of the NY Times are hard leftwing like the Washington Times and Foz are hard right. You just don’t. There is a sizable portion of the population who also think that the NY Times, CNN, and the WaPO are biased- to the right. The people who think that are the progressives, who are railing against them every day. That you refuse to acknowledge them and their beefs does not mean they do not exist. In short, everyone agrees that Fox and the Washington Times are biased to the right. There is no such agreement about the others you listed (except among the circle-jerk right). And the notions that the WaPO is just a lefty rag akin to the Washington Times on the right proves to me you don’t even read it.

  71. 71.

    Librarian

    October 5, 2007 at 9:08 am

    Aside from what he says, Rush doesn’t act like a mature adult. He acts like an 8 year old child. When caught in something like this, he denies saying what he said, says that he’s being taken out of context, never apologizes, and attacks those who are attacking him. Like a child stamping his feet, refusing to go to bed, he refuses to act like an adult. He whines that he’s being persecuted by those evil liberals. He does not take criticism like a man, but like a little kid. He does not have a mature, decent, responsible bone in his body. This is the man who is one of the leading lights of conservatism, who was named an honorary member of Congress in 1994. I hope they’re really proud of him.

  72. 72.

    John Rohan

    October 7, 2007 at 4:11 am

    whippoorwill said:

    It is just plain laughable to suggest dems in the distant past have practiced anything remotely like the current right wing slime machine we have now. Although we are learning and getting better at it every day.

    If you are a teenager, then I can understand you thinking this way. If you are old enough to remember the pre-internet days, you might be a bit surprised. The Reagan elections were particularly nasty; all of his opponents were calling him a warmonger, swearing he would lead us into a nuclear war with the Soviets (quite the opposite happened in the end). Editorial cartoons would picture him with a skull face, etc.

    I’m not defending Rush in general terms – I have scarcely ever listened to his show so I can’t say if he is usually right or wrong or what.

    While your back-peddling be sure not to fall on your ass.

    Here’s a quote from my blog, written a week ago:
    Incidentally, I’m not really a Rush Limbaugh fan, don’t agree with everything he says, and have rarely ever listened to his show. But I don’t like him being unjustly smeared by the well-oiled Media Matters slime machine.

    John Cole said:
    And you simply do not understand the media if you think that CNN, the WaPo, and for the most part, the non-editorial pages of the NY Times are hard leftwing like the Washington Times and Foz are hard right. You just don’t. There is a sizable portion of the population who also think that the NY Times, CNN, and the WaPO are biased- to the right.

    Yeah, sure. People like Noam Chomsky or Howard Zin, who even see people like Presidents Carter or Clinton as hard core, right wing corporate stooges.

    In short, everyone agrees that Fox and the Washington Times are biased to the right. There is no such agreement about the others you listed (except among the circle-jerk right). And the notions that the WaPO is just a lefty rag akin to the Washington Times on the right proves to me you don’t even read it

    This is a classic case of “your side is biased but mine is not”. It’s a little childish fantasy, but enjoy it if you want. It’s pretty difficult to explain why the “right wing” NYT would go beyond the normal media overkill on the Abu Ghraib story in 2004, and run recycled variations of the story on its frontpage for 32 days in a row (with quite a few to follow after that).

    Of course, such proof is difficult if you read these papers through a lens where your own skewed point of view is the “normal” one. You might want to explain why every poll ever done of journalists show that they overwhelmingly vote for Democratic candidates over Republicans (some examples here).

    I’ll let you in on a little secret. Fox New’s very popularity helps show how liberal the rest of the media is. They’re not popular because of the quality of their reporting or any exclusives – you find virtually all the same stuff on CNN. It’s because of lack of competition – they only lean very slightly to the right, but because they are the ONLY network that does so, they pull in the whole conservative demographic. People like me, who before that had few other alternatives to the wildly liberal media.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

VA Purple House Delegates

Donate

Political Action

Postcard Writing Information

Recent Comments

  • catclub on Ousted (Open Thread) (Oct 3, 2023 @ 7:17pm)
  • Maxim on Ousted (Open Thread) (Oct 3, 2023 @ 7:17pm)
  • Sister Golden Bear on Ousted (Open Thread) (Oct 3, 2023 @ 7:16pm)
  • Jackie on Ousted (Open Thread) (Oct 3, 2023 @ 7:14pm)
  • gene108 on Ousted (Open Thread) (Oct 3, 2023 @ 7:11pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

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

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
We All Need A Little Kindness
What Has Biden Done for You Lately?

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Cole & Friends Learn Español

Introductory Post
Cole & Friends Learn Español

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!