The politics of immaturity

The politics of immaturity

: Oliver Willis goes beyond his one-line posts and tries to explain why he resorts to calling me and others “stupid” if we dare to disagree with him.

But what he really does is reveal the thinking of his camp — the Koses, Altermans, Olivers, and Deaniacs who think they have taken over the Democratic Party.

They operate on schoolyard rules:

: ‘If I don’t like your game, I’ll take my ball and go home.’ (See ‘one-man circle jerk.’ Clever product placement here.)

Or to promote them a few years, they operate on junior-high clique rules:

: ‘If you talk to them then you can’t be my friend.’

It’s all about trying to create an exclusive club. It’s all about exclusion.

They measure people on whether they (a) agree totally with them and (b) attack the other side with the same vitriol as they do and (c) dare to ever think of criticizing our side.

This is the politics of immaturity.

This is when Oliver most reveals himself:

“Jeff believes that there’s room for the two parties to work together. On what planet?”

On this planet, Oliver. If you don’t try to work with the other party, you won’t ever get any legislation passed: simple rule of civics class, simple lesson of life, basic lesson of the Clinton years (he co-opted their issues to become the master of his domain: no, not that domain, I mean the center).

And if you demonize the other party and, more important, anybody who ever agrees with any stance they have, then you will never — never — win an election. Oh, you’ll have a tight little clique — until it’s so tight it’s just one person in a room in a… well, I won’t say what that one person is doing.

Finally, if you keep thinking that the other party is the enemy, you lose sight of the real enemy, an enemy I have seen first-hand. We have met the enemy, Oliver, and it’s not us.

You see, Oliver, when I grew up in politics, we did fight our own party to make it better. Hell, we rioted in the streets of Chicago against our own party. I didn’t do that (couldn’t skip high school, you know), but I did demonstrate at a precocious age against the party’s president, Lyndon Johnson, and we knocked him out. The Democratic party has a proud history of struggle within to improve itself. If you give that up, then you act not like a politician but a propagandist, selling only the party line that comes from above. What did your precious Howard Dean do in the election but criticize the party and try to make it over and take it over (and, indeed, he took it over)? He can criticize the party and I can’t? Where’s the logic there, Oliver? Where’s the fairness? Where’s the democracy in the Democratic Party, then?

Here are some other Oliver moments: “This would be an ideal situation, if the goal of the Republican party wasn’t the elimination of the Democratic party.”

What, and it’s not your goal to eliminate the Republican Party? Besides, the way the Democrats are going right now, they’re doing a fine job of destroying themselves by losing elections — and I don’t just mean the White House — and alienating fellow Democrats like me and fence-sitting Republicans with your kind of venemous orthodoxy and insult.

And: “The reason Jeff raises such ire on the left is that he’s a reliable source for the right in getting a Democrat to bash Democrats. A similar dynamic exists with Mickey Kaus, The New Republic, and Joe Lieberman.”

Thanks, Oliver. I’d say that’s good company. I disagree with them on many issues, but I do respect them because they have a mature and sensible view of politics and responsibility and the nation.

And: “I will always believe that the legacy of the George W. Bush years is one in which he and his party decided to simply defecate on half of the populace.”

And what are you doing, Oliver? You’re not only pissing on Republicans, you’re pissing on Democrats you don’t like. You’re pissing on more than half of the country. In your game, you win. (But in the game that matters, you lose.)

And: “It is actually in large part the folks within the Democratic Party who think like Jeff who lost the last election for us.”

Uh, well, Dean couldn’t even win Iowa; he certainly couldn’t have won the presidency.

And: “Jarvis says he likes and would vote for Hillary Clinton. Does he know how much his new buddies hate her?”

Your point? These Republicans aren’t my “buddies,” Oliver. But they’re not my enemies just because we disagree. Neither are you, Oliver. You’re the one drawing that line.

Go ahead and read the whole thing yourself, for obviously, I’m just picking out the bits that amuse me. But there you see the thinking of the people who call anyone who disagrees with them “right-wing.” It’s quite revealing.

: MORE: Dan Weinberger says in reply: “And the bottom line is, your post would have resonated with many more Dems had you given similar advice to the Republicans.” And I reply: I’m not a Republican, so I’m not trying to give them advice and help them win. I already know I disagree with the Republicans. That’s why I’m a Democrat. That’s why I want to see the Democrats do better and actually win an election….

  • Self-destructive tendencies aren’t exclusive to the Kos group. The attacks on Jeff really look to some one who’s been involved in several campaigns as directed at the Gang that wouldn’t go along with you. Jeff, I suspect you’re an object lesson. And your frustration is misplaced. No, they aren’t listening to you. They’re listening only to themselves.
    Party Line: be pure. Jim Hightower was so truly a Democrat that he espoused supporting Ralph Nader.

  • P. Ingemi

    You are forgetting something.
    If the goal is to advance your beliefs then some degree of co-operation is needed. Even Ted Kennedy understands that.
    If the goal is to make a living by appealing to the “true believers” then then the clique rules apply.
    Examples of this include Jessie Jackson, Pat Robertson, Michael Moore et al. These people basically make a living going after the other side, and their families cash in on the deal. It is a real question if they actually believe what they say they do.
    I like Oliver, I think he is dead wrong but I can’t help liking him. I also susepct that in-person (see the C-SPAN stream) he is a lot more reaonsable. Sort of a reverse Carville who comes across as sane in his books but not on the air.
    I think it is a result of the media matters connection but its not for me to say how a fella makes his living. Also he is blogging for the true believers and they are an unforgiving bunch at times.
    Brian: “Brothers surely we should unite against the common enemy.”
    Brian: “No no, the Romans!”
    All: “Oh yeah.”
    Methinks some are currently stuck on the Judian people’s front line. I think he’ll come around. I think he just needs to meet the people face to face and gab a bit about football.

  • Armando

    Boy Jeff, a bit of a martyr complex there? Anyway, on you go.
    I promise I’ll never “attack” you again. Let’s remind folks what my “attack was – describing you as a “Right Wing Media Gadfly.”
    You of course have never used such vitriolic language like “Right Wing.” Only civil phrases like “Pondscum.”

  • Question: Is there ANY point at which the Republican party will have moved so far to the right that thinking people will cease to regard them as a legitimate party of our “democracy”?
    As the GOP moves ever further right, the time has come for Americans to take sides. If a moderate liberal like Oliver Willis is “too immature” for our host, I’d say it’s safe to say Mr. Jarvis has already taken sides, even if he hasn’t formally switched parties.
    There is no moderate party in this country, and further efforts to strip the Democratic party of liberals (the heart and soul of the party) will be resisted.
    If you don’t like liberals, leave the party.
    Sooner would be better than later. Start your own or whatever, but stop carping when the Democrats start sounding like Democrats.

  • Dishman

    I see an element of performance art… theatre for the sake of theatre, with various actors applauding each other. There’s another, less charitable word for that… “Posers”.

  • Dishman:
    It’s ‘poseurs’, and it’s French.
    Couldn’t resist.

  • Dishman

    As the GOP moves ever further right, the time has come for Americans to take sides.
    Are we talking about the same GOP? Profligate spending, new bureacracies, increasing involvement in people’s lives? Looks to me like a dreadful lurch to the left.

  • BumperStickerist

    Looks like the Young Lions of the Left are in full mewl.

  • The word you’re looking for is groupthink.

  • Further to the right doesn’t mean more conservative, far from it. it means moving further away from democratic principles and sliding towards

  • Way to not address any of the points I brought up and continue to engage in the false equivalence you seem to disliks so much from the NYT (Democrats want to destroy social security too!). To compare my actions as a political partisan in the minority to George Bush, the president of the United States is both ridiculous and stupid. Even so, I’ve done more to engage Republicans than Bush has with Democrats! Either you have no understanding of modern politics or are being obtuse on purpose. Either way, I think you’re a lost cause.

  • Dan Someone

    Oh, come on. When has the Democratic Party ever come out ahead on compromise?
    No child left behind is a prime example. Kennedy got played, he signed on to a mandate that Dubya had no intention of funding.
    Patriot Act is another good one. Dems in congress played ball for national security, and now any time Dems want to, you know, avoid facism, they are smacked for it.
    You talk about your working to change the party for the better back in your youth. You probably heard the phrase “blaming the victim” back then. Maybe you are engaging in it now?

  • Dishman

    Mark, I think part of the problem is the use of a one-dimensional spectrum. If you agree with me that both far right and far left are authoritarian, then maybe there’s strong common ground there.
    if the Republican party is still diverse, it should start tearing itself apart any day now as a direct result of their ideologically confused agenda.
    I wouldn’t go that far, but I’d say that it’s already groaning. I’d say that Dean and Kos are a small part of what is holding it together. If the Democrats were to collapse, the divide within the Republicans would split wide open. That would reshuffle the tents. I’ve got a gut feeling that I wouldn’t like how it would break down.

  • Kat

    Well, if that were true, how come Europe is such a bloody soshalist mess? It is in danger of becoming a muslim sewer hole, and if that is the price of liberalism, then it is too damned high a price to pay. The only fascism that is a huge threat to the world is the one leftists like to coddle–islamofascism. God forbid American liberals ever get to destroy America like Europe is being sent down the sewer by European leftists.

  • richard mcenroe

    “Question: Is there ANY point at which the Republican party will have moved so far to the right that thinking people will cease to regard them as a legitimate party of our “democracy”?”
    Well, sure… I mean, if they sent a Klansman who voted against civil rights for African-Americans to make speeches against the first black woman ever appointed Secretary of State

  • Mike NYC

    I think everything you say is fine, Jeff. I’m don’t know much about these labels, but yes, you do seem like a centrist. And from your list of beliefs, it makes sense to me that you tend to vote Democratic. Fine. There’s room for you.
    I even think there’s room for those who call you such bad names. The last thing I would want is for everyone to have your centrist politics. Yes, Clinton succeeded by moving to the middle and stealing Republican ideas, but to me that was when he was at his worst. It may be necessary for Hillary to do the same to get elected. I don’t begrudge her that, but – depending on the issue – I’ll probably consider it a necessary evil, not a source of pride.

  • Rajat Datta

    As someone who’s voted for both Democrats and Republicans (voted for Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and then Bush; long-term Moynihan supporter in the Senate when he was alive and I lived in NY), it’ll take a marked change in the current Democratic Party mood before I vote for the Democrats again. This is a frustrating position to find myself in, since I do believe that the single most important factor in the success of the Clinton years was a divided Washington.
    However much Kos and Oliver and crew set my teeth on edge, they’re not why I won’t vote for todays Democratic Party. It’s because I’m hearing the echoes of the extremists in the mouths of the standard bearers of the party. There’s no way I would vote for Kerry after the Whoopi Goldberg fundraiser. If the party today *is* Kos and Oliver and crew, then I might as well abandon calling myself an Independent since I’ll only vote Republicans; at least until that party succumbs to its crew of wackos, and I stop voting altogether…

  • So: Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, yes. Whoopi Goldberg, no.
    Got it.

  • Armando: But isn’t “right-wing” your meanest insult? Especially to a Democrat?

  • But you know, Oliver still isn’t as bad as a 30-something I go to shul with, who made a sneering comment to me about “bumfuckistan” red states only last week at a party at her house where I was a guest.
    But only because he doesn’t know me, and he generalizes about the faceless masses who disagree with him. If he said those things to my face, after sitting in religious services with me 20-25 times a year for 3 years, he would be just as bad. He IS just as immature, with just as little excuse (i.e. once you are out of college you really have no excuse to act like you are still in high school, and if you still act like that after you’ve turned 30……).
    So I said to her that if she and her friends kept insulting half the country like that (much less their own friends), they would just keep losing elections. And one of the major moonbats at the party said “Judith’s right, Jennifer.” So we’ll see if she keeps it up.
    It doesn’t bother me as much as it bothers Jeff, because this former Clinton/Gore voter would rather be a Schwarzenegger/Guiliani/Rice Republican at this point than a Dean/Kerry/Pelosi Democrat. I would rather fight the religious right from within the Republican party than fight the anti-democracy antiwar left from within the Democratic party. I would rather deal with the obnoxious assholes of the right than Oliver and his friends.
    But I would rather be a Koch/Lieberman Democrat if I had a choice, and so would most of my Bush-voting friends. Dishman is right.

  • Oliver said: “I’ve done more to engage Republicans than Bush has with Democrats!”
    No, Oliver, as much as you’d like to believe it, I doubt Bush has been childishly insulting to Democrats. That is your idea of “engagement”.
    When a conserv (like me) genuinely tries to engage you in civil discourse you shut him out of your comment threads and won’t even answer his email.
    As petty and immature as you are, I am still amazed you would try to reprove a man twice your age, twice your wisdom, and twice your honesty. YOU, not Jeff, are the lost cause.

  • EverKarl

    What can anyone expect from someone who claims he wants to “re-brand” the Party, with the brand apparently being “agree with us 100% or leave.”
    Of course, there’s nothing wrong with being juvenile if that is the intent, but I don’t think it is in Oliver’s case.

  • the

    Who the hell is the queen-beetch Oliver Willis anyway and why are we supposed to give a flying fig what he thinks?
    To ask the MSM question: what exactly are his credentials to be someone who’s opinion anyone should take seriously, especially a legit on-line journalism like Mr. J?
    Please explain.

  • richard

    Vituperation and internecine warfare do not attract centrists. Being a Neville Chamberlain stand in is not a successful strategic ploy.

  • JorgXMcKie

    If anything ever drives me totally into the Republican camp, it’ll be the likes of Oliver and Kos. Am I the only one who finds it odd that, when remonstrated for using invective and name-calling in the place of discourse and argument (true argument), Oliver, at least, responds by merely lowering the volume on the invective and name-calling? It’s like an old 78 RPM wax record stuck in a groove. Over time it repeats and repeats and repeats, softer and softer, until no one at all is interested any longer in listening.
    Look. If you (those who believe they bought the Democratic Party and now own it) want people to listen, you must both give them something interesting to listen to and quit insulting them. (Not that I’m going to hold my breath waiting for either.)

  • Everkarl: I feel sooooo guilty for reading every one of those links. Sooooo guilty.

  • J. Peden

    the, I was just about to ask the same thing. Olivers seems an average mxxxx.

  • Jorg,
    That’s funny – according to Armando, I’m the only liberal in the blogosphere who thinks Jeff is undeserving of the “right-wing” epithet, or at least the only one he’s encountered out here on the internets…
    Could Armando have been mistaken? (Duh duh DUH!)
    (p.s., can we start referring to Armando as “Daily Kos Enforcer Armando”?)

  • Thomas Hazlewood

    Mr. Jarvis,
    I don’t know how you can still do it. I used to be a Dem, too. I’m one of the few who voted for McGovern, way back when. I last voted for a Dem in Carter’s first run. It seems the Democratic party forgot a lot of what used to be attractive about it, particularly, that being an American was something to be proud of.
    Like many Dems today, I watch for signs of totalitarianism in government. The problem is, when most it rears its head, it’s in a Democratic guise and when it does so, the Left has nothing to say.
    When Nixon committed the ‘Saturday Night Massacre’, I was one of those who wrote every congressman in the land. When the Clinton’s were rifling the FBI files on Republicans, where was the Left’s concern? Political correctness, today, is like a page out of ‘Animal Farm’. Hate speech, as in “I hate Republicans and all they stand for” gets you elected to lead the Democratic Party.
    I don’t hate anyone and I can’t abide those who have truck with hate. I won’t abide folks who don’t talk straight. Having read the post that Instapundit linked to, I found a reasonable person. Having read the comments to that post, I see you are mostly surrounded by the haters and fact-twisting slick-talkers that I can’t abide. Disagreeing with them makes YOU a closet Republican and ME a fascist. If ever a word has been abused and misused, it is that one.
    Amyway, good luck to you.

  • Andrew

    All you need to know about Oliver Willis’s intellectual honesty is in this recent post of his.
    Some of the commenters excoriate him quite well.

  • Jeff still has no comment on Glenn Reynolds equating the left to Ward Churchill. Why is that?
    Answer: Because he does not view the act of helping the Democratic party, or the progressive agenda, as suiting his own personal agenda of becoming the Alan Colmes of the blogosphere.
    Jeff isn’t a Republican. He’s a pet of the rightwing, the poodle of the conservative blogosphere. He’s following the money, and the money right now favors those in power.
    He WANTS to fight with liberal bloggers. He wants their scorn, their contempt. And he goes out of his way to antagonize them and to insult them.
    It’s not his ideology or his beliefs that cause him to be dissed by liberal bloggers. I suspect he’s no more conservative or “heretical” than Josh Marshall or Kevin Drum or Matthew Yglesias.
    He just doesn’t believe that being a Democrat is very cool nowadays, and he wants to run with the cool crowd, and get paid for doing so.
    It’s not about ideology–it’s much more shallow than that.

  • One last comment. I’ve worked for the Democratic party long enough to know that anyone who talks about being driven out of the Democratic party

  • Marcus: your “civil discourse” involves posting disgusting comments and sending threatening emails.
    Jeff, if your idea of rational moderation is anything like Jeff Goldstein, then jesus christ you’re an idiot.

  • JorgXMcKie

    Yes. Using the word fascist has evidently now joined racist and bullying as means to stop a discussion when you are losing the argument on the facts. It is too bad so few seem to recognize what fascism actually consists of, or that it originated on the left. There is always danger on the right, but that doesn’t mean you can ignore danger from the left.
    I was always at least a libertarian, perhaps leaning Democrat (my first presidential vote was for Hubert Humphrey, even as my leftie friends sat on their hands and let Nixon get elected), but McGovern started the slide, and now Kos, Oliver, and company have just about completed it.
    Emma Goldman famously said “If I can’t dance, I won’t come to your revolution.” I’m to the point of saying, “If you can’t curb your invective and make a point, I’m done listening.” A little humor wouldn’t hurt, either, and I’m not talking about the Shrubby McBushitler kind.

  • Kat

    Who needs Ward Churchill when you have Howard Dean? Maybe Glenn Reynolds hit the nail on the head when he said Churchill was representative of the Democrat party. Dean just reinforces the point.
    {And concluding his backyard speech with a litany of Democratic values, he(Howard Dean) added: “This is a struggle of good and evil. And we’re the good.”
    When told of Dean’s remarks, Derrick Sontag — executive director of the Kansas Republican Party — said he was “shocked.”
    “My immediate reaction to that whole dialogue is, it’s full of hatred,” Sontag said. “The Democratic Party has elected a leader that’s full of hatred.”}

  • Google up “the 14 defining characteristics of fascism.”
    If that textbook definition doesn’t send a chill down your spine, you really don’t understand what’s happening in this country.
    We’re not fascist yet, but you’ll know when we finally cross the line Jorg. That’ll be the day you’re not allowed to say the word fascist.
    I agree that the n-word is inappropriate, but fascism is unique in that it’s different in every country that tries it. I have yet to find anyone who has an intellectual grasp of what fascism is who is not concerned.
    If you know of a definition of fascism that does not describe this adminstration, please share it with all of us.

  • JorgXMcKie

    I can also say that the posts by Mark Giselson do little to lure me in the Democratic direction. While milder by far than Oliver, he appears more than unwilling to admit there might be any place for those who don’t march in lockstep in his Democratic Party. Maybe it’s just me, or maybe that’s why he’s having trouble winning elections.
    Hubert Humphrey was indeed a liberal Democrat of the finest kind. So was Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Teddy Kennedy is a caricature of a liberal Democrat. Flabby arguments, flabby ideology, flabby policy. That’s the Democratic conundrum today. How to shape up with the Ted Kennedys of the Party deciding who is and who isn’t a Democrat.

  • JorgXMcKie

    I am a bit less concerned with dictionary definitions of fascism than I am with the reality. Currently, the left-most wing of the Democratic Party has at least as many signs of fascism as the Republicans. Either that or Mark Giselson has a severe reading comprehension problem.

  • JorgXMcKie

    Also, I’d be a bit careful about what comes up when you google “fascism.” Just about every one of the first entries is from a wildly leftist source. For instance, the Lawyers Guild. It might be better to be more familiar with more neutral discussions.

  • Jorg, if you don’t respect Ted Kennedy, you’re obviously not going to be happy in the Democratic party so stop acting like you’re considering it.
    Please explain the ideological differences between HHH and EMK that so distress you. I’m sure it will be a fascinating post.
    And if you haven’t googled up the 14 defining characteristics of fascism yet, here’s one of the many links:

  • the

    Oliver said, “Jeff, if your idea of rational moderation is anything like Jeff Goldstein, then jesus christ you’re an idiot.”
    Is this suppose to impress me that Oliver Willis is a HEAVY thinker whose ideas should be given great WEIGHT? His post is PLUMP with intellectual HEFT, almost to the point of being BLOATED.
    (Just trying to copy Goldstein’s style. I love both the Jeffs)

  • J. Peden

    And just who could ever say “no” to Whoopi Goldberg, for the love of heaven?

  • Matt

    At issue is credibility and responsibility. Bush is right. He is right about Iraq – the war was honorable and it was worth the risk to topple Saddam, free the Iraqi people, and change the equations on the ground to hopefully change the mideast problems – these policies are bearing fruit in Libya, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, and Egypt. His tax cuts jump-started the economy out of recession faster than I thought was possible. Bush has credibility based on facts and results.
    Folks who attack Bush’s policies discredit themselves – the critics are clearly basing their arguments on non-factual foundations and results. Likewise, Bush’s critics who refuse to take responsibility for their own previously erroneous statements (all on the record, accessable through the internet), lose the ability to creditably make statements of any kind, because they have not admitted or recanted any mistaken assertions.
    This is why the mindset of insulting your opponents (rather than countering with logical, fact-based, reality-testing-based arguments) tends to marginalize those who use it. There must be dialog and compromise – that is how things get done. The country moves to the left for years, due to continuing pressure from the left for more social programs, despite strident opposition from the right.
    P.S. Facism is soshulistic (i.e., of the left, not the right). It has all the usual constructs of marxism – government control of media, of economies large and small, of education, etc. The ONLY thing that facism has in common with modern conservatism, as practiced in america, is the nationalistic component. Those who equate Bush or the republicans with facists only cause themselves to be laughed at or considered ignorant idiots.

  • JorgXMcKie

    Giving me one more far-left explanation of fascism is hardly better. You might try the Dictionary of Politics for a better source. It’s still widely available.
    I don’t think I ever said I was considering joining the Democratic Party. I’m not in the Republican Party, either. I’m not in any party. What I would like is a decent choice. At the state and local level, I frequently find quite reasonable Democrats to vote for (and Republicans, too). What I said was that what passes for Democratic thought is driving me toward the Republicans. If the Democrats can’t or won’t offer me a choice better than the stuff put forth by Oliver, then my choice is narrowed to the Republican or nobody. That’s not a choice I like.
    Calling me names and/or impugning my intelligence is unlikely to make me any happier. What’s hard to understand about that?
    Hubert Humphrey vs Ted Kennedy. Intellect and ethics and true empathy vs whatever it is that Kennedy brings (certainly not those qualities). They didn’t call HHH “The Happy Warrior” (shades of Al Smith!) for nothing. What could we call Kennedy? The Crabby Dodger? The Last of the Boston Machine Politicians? Kennedy has had no serious challenge in Massachussets or within the Democratic Party for so long that he’s nearly totally lost touch with reality. He appears totally uninterested in developing any policy choices other than more money for programs from the 30’s thru the ’60s. Newsflash. It ain’t either the 30’s or the 60’s anymore.
    Oh, well, I doubt that any current truebeliever on the left of the Democratic Party has any interest whatsoever in interacting with me in any way that doesn’t essentially boil down to calling me names and implying I’m stupid.
    Not that they’ll ever see a problem with that.

  • Oliver: You traffic in one-word characterizations and you’re surprised by Goldstein? What goes around…..

  • Jorg, since you’re obviously trying to duck the fascism discussion, here’s the Webster’s first definition of fascism:
    1. A philosophy or governmental system marked by stringent socioeconomic control, a strong central government usu. headed by a dictator, and often a belligerently nationalistic policy.
    Dr. Britt’s definition analyzes actual fascist dictatorships and summarizes the defining characteristics that they all have in common. Just as I’m sure the best definitions of communism can be found on rightwing sites, so too you would expect Dr. Britt’s findings to appear on many leftwing sites.
    If you read Britt, you’ll see that an intolerance for contrary views is one of the defining characteristics. A political party is defined by its views, but a nation is defined by what it does. Bush’s words clearly emphasize non-fascist themes, but the disconnect between Bush’s words and actions has long been noted.
    Since you don’t like those sources, do you trust the Brothers Judd? They’re conservative bloggers who include a link to the 14 defining characteristics as part of a longer post at:

  • The funny thing is, Ollie, I AM rather moderate. But because you have become such a cartoonish figure of progressivist “thought,” I feel it my civic duty to treat you as a cartoon as often as possible.
    Because let’s face it: To waste a serious word on you is to give you a gravitas you have not earned. Well, at least that you have not earned intellectually.

  • And its my civic duty to ignore the Jeff Goldsteins of this world.
    Jarvis: you claim one-word descriptions, yet, I’ve got almost 4 years of material on this. Its what you choose to ignore thats so revealing.

  • JorgXMcKie

    Mark: evidently you miss the fact that the first three parts of Webster’s (which is not a political dictionary, last time I looked) are most frequently hallmarks of LEFTIST states. I.e. China, North Korea, Cuba, et al. Then come the one-man dictatorships such as Libya, Zimbabwe, Singapore, Iraq under Saddam, Syria, followed by states like Indonesia a few years ago, Pakistan, and Iran which are essentially run by cliques. Right wing states are far down this line. The “belligerently nationalist policy” is only “often” present.
    Why this persistent unwillingness to see the indicators of fascism elsewhere in the world?
    And I’m sure that Oliver will be incensed that as a purveyor of “an intolerance for contrary views” he is showing “one of the defining characteristics” of fascism, as is the left of the Democratic Party.
    As I said, supposing that the Democratic Party wants at least the vote of people like me, you and Oliver are sure going at it the wrong way.
    It would be so much easier if you could just put me in a re-education camp, wouldn’t it, instead of having to continually chunk opportunistic “definitions” at me and insist that Chimpy McBusHitler is the source of all evil.
    None of that nasty civil discourse for us, huh?
    I sincerely doubt you’ll ever convince any reasonably neutral individual that Bush is a fascist or that the US is currently in any danger of becoming a fascist state, unless, of course, those like Oliver who clearly evince “an intolerance for contrary views” manage to take over.

  • You’ve mentioned me twice now on this thread, Oliver. I’m beginning to think you understand the word “ignore” as well as you understand foreign policy.

  • Jim S

    Yehudit, you said you’d rather be a “Schwarzenegger/Guiliani/Rice Republican” than a Democrat. Rice? Ummmm…you do realize that she’s as far to the right as Bush, don’t you? Secondly, can you admit that not one of those people will actually manage to be on the Presidential ballot come November unless there is a disaster for the Republican party roughly equivalent to the recent tsunami? The only people who need to apply for that job nowadays are true believing Right-to-Life candidates. And yes, I am willing to concede that the other side is as bad. OTOH, I was recently in a situation posting to a site that said it was trying to find a common ground for Democrats with those who on other positions support Democrats but view themselves as pro-life. There wasn’t any real way to do it. When I would post something saying let’s compromise by possibly taking a position where we admit that there can be reasonable limitations after viability much as Roe actually states, where we really do try to come up with better programs to reduce pregnancies that might lead to abortions. My posts were met with attacks that consisted of basically trying to say that if I believed in a right to choose then I should believe in it absolutely or be absolutely pro-life. In addition there were many who insisted that the phrase “pro-choice” was meaningless, that the left wing fanatics who exclude them from the Democratic party are in truth pro-abortion, pro-murder.
    Jeff, when it comes to the major issues of the day how can the Democrats work with the Republicans? First, consider the methods of the modern Republicans. If you don’t go along 100% with a Bush proposal the army spreads out calling you an obstructionist. Breaking a longstanding tradition, Bill Frist and other Republicans came to South Dakota to campaign against Tom Daschle because he was effective in the Senate for the Democrats. They are already attacking Harry Reid. Quoting a CNN article on the issue: ‘”While President Bush and Republicans in Congress are working to win the war on terror, preserve Social Security and lower health care costs, Harry Reid and his taxpayer-funded war room are focused on obstruction,” RNC communications director Brian Jones says in the document.’
    Look at the current brouhaha concerning Social Security. The official Republican party position is that they are the ones who seek to protect the program by placing it on a firm financial footing, denying when confronted on the issue that they have any interest in eliminating it. But sometimes the curtain flutters aside a bit. The chairman of the Hawaiin GOP says “I think Social Security as it is has served its purpose.”. Republican Representative Chris Chocola of Indiana said in 2000 “Bush’s plan of individual investment of 2 percent of the money is a start. Eventually, I’d like to see the entire system privatized.”. Dick Armey admits that he thinks it should be phased out instead of being saved. When that level of dishonesty completely pervades their stands on a major issue how do you work with them?
    Once opponents could disagree with each other but still work together. You’ll probably disagree with me but I feel that it was the Republican side who started the process that has made compromise a dirty word.

  • Armando

    On “Right Wing”-
    Actually, no it isn’t. Believe it or not, I have a good relationship with Trevino of Tacitus and Red State. He’s clearly Right Wing and smart and, in my opinion, wrong.
    On Red State, Trevino takes me to task pretty good if he disagrees with what write – no hard feelings. I’ll tell you why- Trevino is pretty darn honest intellectually in his arguments.
    Look, my point is pretty simple, as a Media Gadfly, you seem to me to be on the right hand side of the spectrum. Maybe I’m wrong, but I mean it descriptively, not pejoratively.
    My pejoratives are – idiot, liar, stuff like that.
    You think of me and dailykos as fringe Left – based on what is not clear to me. Yes I opposed the Iraq War. What else makes me fringe in your mind? My opposition to Alberto Gonzales for AG? My opposition to Bush?
    Maybe cuz I spew invective at the DLC? Except I don’t. In fact, I’m having a pretty decent exchange of views right now with Ed Kilgore of New Donkey.
    Maybe because I oppose the Dem leadership in Congress? Except, I don’t. You know Reid has ben receiving some pretty kind words from us at dailykos.
    Before you condemn me for kneejerk assumptions, perhaps you might want to get that log out of your own eye.

  • Just so you know;
    we have a ‘commenter’ who is into something approaching death threats.
    Peden wrote:
    “Well, Humane Ruth, if you can’t admit that it is “inhumane” to interrupt the process which would have produced a human being just like the rest of us we see wandering around, maybe I’m going to have to start favoring retroactive abortion – upon people like you”
    From a responsblre post:
    I’m going to have to second that notion. Peden, you really should be careful about how you try to make your point. I’m a big free speech advocate; however, death threats are not a form of free speech and and be considered a terrorist threat and a felony. While you may only be using your apparent death threats as a rhetorical device, there is no way anyone can know for sure how you mean it.
    My (Ruth) comment:
    Nothing like some one who makes a cause of saving unborn lives to show what he/she really wants is to do away with … let’s say it, kill … those who don’t mouth the party line. I have actually saved a few lives, which you won’t do by favoring the ending of existing lives, specifically mine, by violent words at a keyboard.
    Be careful what you say. I have recommended this one seek therapy.

  • Armando

    Well Jorg doesn’t accept your label, so as far as I can tell, it is still just you.

  • Armando:
    You still don’t say on what basis you call me “right-wing.” And at a sight like Kos, I do take that to be a perjorative. If I called you right-wing there, wouldn’t you?
    But I do appreciate your tone in the conversation and so I take what you say at face-value. I also was impressed last night when you saw good news in Egypt (and I at first got snarky in return but stopped myself… before anyone stopped me).

  • J. Peden

    Jim S: All I can discern from your post is that Democrats won’t compromise.
    And, note: SS is already not universal.

  • J. Peden

    Poor Ruth: you don’t see the contradiction?

  • Armando

    Maybe I should take another look, but it was based on my perception of your focus in covering the Media. I’ll take another look and correct if I think it is merited. I’ll let you know either way.

  • Peden wrote:
    “Well, Humane Ruth, if you can’t admit that it is “inhumane” to interrupt the process which would have produced a human being just like the rest of us we see wandering around, maybe I’m going to have to start favoring retroactive abortion – upon people like you”
    Poor Peden:
    You condemn me and Skate to death, and you think WE don’t see the contradiction. Would you like me to give you some sources of therapy or do you, Kat, eileen, carsonfire etc. have some one responsible who can provide you with some therapeutical resources?

  • Chris Josephson

    So, who decides who is a REAL Democrat?
    A formal committee, or something else?
    Are these the same people who decide who is not ‘black’ enough, or is that another group entirely?
    Telling people they are NOT the right kind of Democrat is not a very good way to build up the party and encourage more people into the tent.
    It looks like a very clever ‘Rove plot’ to me to so harass people they’ll leave the Democratic Party because they feel unwelcome.

  • Kat

    Ruth, screw off , and leave me the hell out of your pissing match. Just because you have mental problems does not give you the right to lash out at those who don’t.

  • J. Peden

    What was that you said, Humane Ruth: now I have also threatened poor Skate, too? By telling him that it was unfair to distract me, and advising him to stop threatening “my daudder”?
    Well, I guess it’s time to “finish you off”: as to you reccommending “this one seek therapy”: I might say it’s you who needs it, Paranoid Ruth. [Is your own pro-abortion stance finally getting to you?]
    And regarding whoever “responsblre” [Skate?] is, I can only note another contradiction: if you can’t tell a line of argument from a death threat, then it makes no sense to threaten a felony use, does it? As you then admit, responsbire’, “there is no way anyone/[I] can know for sure how you mean it.”
    I also hereby advise you to “cease and desist” from defaming me. If Rall can write these kind of orders, so can I.
    Seriously, Ruth, I smell something strange about you. Meds?

  • Armando,
    Well color me a lone wolf on this one, then.

  • Derek

    “…if you demonize the other party and, more important, anybody who ever agrees with any stance they have, then you will never — never — win an election.”
    I don’t think you’re right wing, Jarvis. But many in the GOP “demonize the other party” and they sure as hell seem to be able to win elections.
    I don’t agree with the demonizing the other pary, I believe in compromise and despair of its virtual disappearance in the last ten years, but most anyone who extends a bipartisan hand to this GOP can expect to pull back a bloody stump. You’ll forgive me if I wonder what planet YOU’RE living on if you don’t see this—the difference is, the GOP is so much more effective at demonization than the Dems.

  • Oliver said: “Marcus: your “civil discourse” involves posting disgusting comments and sending threatening emails.”
    Care to give an example of a “threatening email”?
    No? That’s what I thought.
    You must be getting me mixed up with someone else.
    I haven’t posted any comments because you wouldn’t send me a confirmation email when I tried to register. It’s impossible to leave comments on your site without registering.
    Like I said, you have obviously mistaken me for someone else.
    I’ll be sure to take screen shots of all my future emails to you, since we all know how you looooove to take quotes out of context.
    Grow a hide, already.

  • Jeff as you see I’ve made your right wing death threat posters unhappy.
    By the way, Oodja and the like are really gaining responsibility.
    Hey, the fact that we’re on the same planet and can do something to increase the feelings of sympathy without the death threats is encouraging.
    Try Mark 10 as you know it’s my favorite, call it One Note as you like.

  • Derek

    “…if you demonize the other party and, more important, anybody who ever agrees with any stance they have, then you will never — never — win an election.”
    I don’t think you’re right wing, Jeff. But many in the GOP “demonize the other party” and they sure as hell seem to be able to win elections.
    I don’t agree with demonizing the other party, I believe in compromise and despair of its virtual disappearance in the last ten years. But most anyone who extends a bipartisan hand to this GOP can expect to pull back a bloody stump. You’ll forgive me if I, to paraphrase, wonder what planet YOU’RE living on if you don’t see this—the difference is, the GOP is so much more effective at demonization than the Dems.

  • sean mccray

    why does anybody read Oliver Willis??
    i dont get it? i ahve NEVER seen an original thought on there.
    he is pure hypocrisy. He eleminates any “intelligent” post taht he cannot answer. I once simply commented that glen reynolds has never said ONe negative thing about him, but he calls Glenn all kinds of names. Oliver deleted my post and locked me off his website. It was only the second time i had visited in abotu a year. I gues that is the “democrat” in him.

  • Sean,
    Join the club. Heh.

  • sean mccray

    Oliver Willis. No degree, no deep thoughts.
    exactly why do people say he is intelligent??
    I think because he is black, and a liberal blogger who started early, he became the Affirmative Action of blogs. If I am wrong, which is possible, please show me something intelligent from his blog. Even when he was on his “brittney” fix, there was not much there. I just dont get it. he seems to appeal to a group of angry extremists.

  • Yes, us niggers are ingratiating that way. See who your new friends are, Jeff?

  • RAJAT:”There’s no way I would vote for Kerry after the Whoopi Goldberg fundraiser.”
    You have lost your moral compass if an illegal and immoral war counts for less than off-color jokes.

  • fp

    Oliver is solid mainstream left, a Democrat. Jeff is a posturing public personality who calls himself a Democrat. The Republicans who continually troll for Jeff’s affection give the game away. If they approve of what you are saying Jeff, then you have to examine that and ask why? It has nothing to do with compromise or consensus, they are the party of competition to the death, not cooperation. At this stage Republican party discipline trumps personal integrity and ethics among them. The Democrats have no such disciplined solidarity, and so you are welcome to call yourself one. But you’re not fooling anyone. Your centrist self interest works against the interests of the Democratic party.

  • THOMAS:”When the Clinton’s were rifling the FBI files on Republicans”
    This is a LIE.

  • FP (aka Frank): Since when is your party affiliation about the company you keep (or the company that keeps you)? Isn’t it about your policies and beliefs? It used to be…. before the kids’ clique tried to change the party into their exclusive little club.

  • KAT:”Maybe Glenn Reynolds hit the nail on the head when he said Churchill was representative of the Democrat party.”
    Nope, Reynolds once again is just showing that he’s part of the Noise Machine.

  • JORG:”Currently, the left-most wing of the Democratic Party has at least as many signs of fascism as the Republicans.”
    OK, name one far-left Dem who wants to make the government a handmaiden of corporations.

  • And, by the way, I did criticize Glenn Reynolds for his Cambodia fetish, Powerline for its Jimmy Carter fetish, Hugh Hewitt over separation of church-and-state, and so on. But we still respect each other in the morning. That’s just civilized behavior. We disagree, we say so, but we don’t go around calling each other “stupid” like someone we know. We may think each others’ opinions are numbnutty but we say that in more words than just “stupid.”

  • MATT:” Bush is right. He is right about Iraq – the war was honorable and it was worth the risk to topple Saddam, free the Iraqi people”
    Bush lied about Iraq and if you can’t admit that, you are intellectually dishonest.

  • Yes, Jeff, Glenn Reynolds just calls us terrorists. Powerline deights in the idea of our annihilation. Hugh Hewitt simply makes things up about the left.
    Which is so much nicer than stupid.

  • MATT:”His tax cuts jump-started the economy out of recession faster than I thought was possible. Bush has credibility based on facts and results.”
    Are you a paid shill?

  • MATT:”P.S. Facism is soshulistic (i.e., of the left, not the right). “
    LMAO – where do you get this crap?

  • Actually, Oliver, they are nicer than you.
    Why, just the other day, when you were on C-SPAN, Glenn said you were meant for TV, since that is your oft-stated dream.
    Actually, I disagree. You might have been right for the Crossfire era of shouting at the other guy, “You’re stupid!… You’re wrong!… You’re stupid!” But Crossfire and its day are gone now.
    Still, Glenn couldn’t have been more cordial to you. And this is how you treat him? Yes, this is how you treat anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the Oliver doctrine, whatever that is.

  • Attention STEVE J.
    By Julian Borger in Washington
    Saturday February 6, 1999
    The Guardian
    Saddam Hussein’s regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.
    News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. “There’s a threat, and it’s real,” Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons “are being considered for use.”
    Everyone believed Saddam had them, even your hero Clinton.
    You are the one being intellectually dishonest.

  • Yes, Reynolds has said nice things about me…
    while saying I and the people who I associate with are terrorists.
    Golly gee, maybe I find that a bit disingenous.

  • J. Peden

    Marcus: Bush was the only person in the world, besides Howard Dean, who knew Saddam did not have stockpiles of wmd’s. Even Saddam thought he had them.
    Or else he faked it well enough that he tricked Bush into attacking, thus making the supreme sacrifice for the Leftist Democrats, who could then cry, “Bush lied” – which makes them happy.
    Saddam a Democrat? A plant? Now it can be told.

  • The real JFK said:
    “In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility–I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it–and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.”
    “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
    Things have changed. That was the old Democratic party. The new Democrats say that every right-wing American is their enemy. If Democrats treat Americans as their enemy, why should any of us vote for them?

  • J. Peden

    At least Oliver is a “true” black. But he’s also an “African American”.
    Oliver, do you like being named an “African American” by your white Liberal masters, who also decide just who a “true” black is? Was there a vote on these matters? Get a clue.

  • Jim S

    Kat and J Peden prove my point about dealing with the current crop of Republicans and their supporters. Compromise? Seriously, Jeff. HOW?? The only definition of compromise that I see them understanding is to do things entirely their way. They can’t even read what is in a post here. The “center” of the current Republican party is so far to the right that they are as morally supercilious as the far left of the Democratic party. If you want to discuss demonizing the other party and their supporters, look at the posts from J. Peden and Kat. As I mentioned in my previous post, look at the attacks the RNC used on Daschle and are now making on Reid.
    J. Peden said that the only thing he could understand from my post is that Democrats wouldn’t compromise. I just don’t see how they can. For one thing remember that most of the time when discussing important legislation the Republicans keep it to themselves and the attitude when they come out of their private conferences is “Here it is, vote for it or we call you obstructionist and say you aren’t interested in compromise.”. While as the majority party they have the right to make 100% Republican legislation, the latter part is where any hope for compromise when they need it is damaged. Have you noticed that the only time recently where the word compromise is being used seriously by the Republicans is on Social Security, where they are getting pounded in the court of public opinion? Of course the only thing that will happen if the Democrats do follow Jeff’s suggestion is that the Republican party will claim it as a big win for Bush, Frist and Hastert, something that they did in spite of the Democrats.
    So once again I ask, Jeff, HOW can the Democrats really compromise with the Republicans on anything? Not whether they can or should, how? Where in the current political environment is there room for real compromise when it will inevitably be used as a political weapon against you and your party? It takes TWO and the Republicans really don’t seem to want to play.

  • J. Peden

    Jim S:Calling the other “obstructionist” is politics, at worst. Big deal!
    A small voluntary privatization surely can’t be seen as unreasonable. But it is by those who are irrational, or else addicted to government spending in an irretrievable way, or as a religion [Soshulism].
    The arguments against this kind of privatization are irrational, as far as I can tell. Most supporters of the ss system don’t even know that the “Trust Fund” is a debt!
    Clue up, Jim S. Perhaps you can tell me why the fact that ss is not actually universal even now is not extremenly telling upon the arguments against privatization – why many are allowed to opt out totally or supplement/effectively replace their “safety net” with money which would otherwise go into the bottomless pit of ss taxes as currently handled, that is, spent on non-ss programs.
    Why are these lucky people not required to pay into the safety net if it is alleged to be “our” duty and responsibility as a society?
    And why are some similar options for the rest of us not allowed? And even seen as nefarious and a disaster? Give me a break!
    Hint: it’s about real investment with real returns, not dependent on future taxes which make future taxpayers pay for ss benefits which these benificiaries have supposedly already payed for.
    And why, then, is calling unreasonable people “obstructionist” some dire indication of an unwillingness to compromise on the part of those using the term. Say hello to Orwell.
    What would you call those who opposed your suggestions on handling the abortion/choice issue? Probably something worse, if you thought about it?

  • Bravo, JJ! I disagree with a lot of your politics, just as I’m sure you would disagree with mine, but you’re the kind of Democrat that made me a Democrat when I was a Democrat, if you follow my meaning.
    Even now, I can probably find just as much to disagree with Republicans about as Democrats; but the Republicans now have a greater majority of people like you. People of reason. Even if you disagree with them.
    Your characterization of the childishness is a bull’s-eye. I had to stop myself from commenting to an earlier post about the news from Egypt, because my only observation was that these people are spoiled brats… spoiled brats who have to pee on anything and everything of value, because they didn’t get something *exactly* the way they wanted it. I decided not to, because it would be too easily confused with the name-calling from the left. But it’s not name-calling in the vein of “stupid” or “evil”; it’s an observation on their psychology.

  • tonynoboloney

    wow 89 posts, I can’t believe I read the whole thing. It seems the gist of the conversation is the great devide between republican “right” and democrat “left”, I assure you that leaves a whole lot of us somewhere in the middle. I voted for Bush both times and what I can’t understand is why the democrats haven’t figured out why they lost the elections. After 8 years of Clinton making a mockery of the office of the presidency, ignoring moderate voices on both sides of the isle most Americans (including myself)voted for change. If the democrats continue to allign themselves with the likes of Howard Dean, M. Moore, and Brad pitt it is unlikely they will be winning any elections in the next few cycles. I await the results of the 06 elections further proving my point. Todays democrats are doing nothing to endear themselves to the vast majority of hard working Americans by opposing the war, pushing gay marrage, insisting on the abortion issue, muckraking and calling republicans facists.

  • LT

    I think that its convenient how you, amongst others, completely ignore important info when arguing your points against the war in Iraq. You call the war “illegal and immoral”. Funny you should mention those terms, because the US has criteria to use in determining “just” and “unjust” wars. There are “Wars of Last Resort”, and wars resulting from the “inherent right of self protection” to name a couple. Both of which could be strongly argued in this case. Remember, the United States did not ask Saddam to:
    1. Invade Kuwait.
    2. Use chemical weapons (against his own people -mothers and children, and in violation of the Laws of Landwarfare).
    3. Violate the cease-fire conditions of the first war by flying helicopter gunships into north iraq in an attack on the Kurds.
    4. Black market oil for food, to escape UN sanctions, so he could rich and build elaborate mansions.
    5. Imprison children, ages 5-15, as retalitory acts against their parents.
    6. Kick out UN Weapons Inspectors, in violation of the cease-firs agreements of the Gulf War
    7. Frequently fire on coalition aircraft enforcing UN cease-fire agreements from the Gulf War.
    8. How many more can everyone else think of…
    Now, I think that it would be immoral not to act on the above information. It would be foolish to choose not to believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (he did have them, and did use them). I would be a crime for the president to not act in the protection/best interest of the United States. I’m glad he was courageous enough to do the right thing. Sometimes the right decision is not always the easiest. You know, Saddam could have avoided all this, and so could have the US, if he would have only complied with the terms of the Gulf War. Instead, he chose to play his game of cat and mouse, harbor terrorists (oh yeah, its ridiculous to assert that Al-qaeda just picked up and moved to Iraq when the US decided to act), and make the bed in which he now lies. Myself, I believe that many of you are too consumed by hatred for Bush, to see any good in what our country does.

  • Cog

    “Yes, Jeff, Glenn Reynolds just calls us terrorists. Powerline deights in the idea of our annihilation. Hugh Hewitt simply makes things up about the left.” – O
    Not that I believe a single one of your referenes without a link, but that sounds exactly like a description of how media matters operates.
    Oliver, how does it feel to know that every time you open your mouth you drive people from the party? I would say keep it up, but I am not a Republican.

  • Cog

    Make that references.

  • J. Peden

    LT: can’t you understand that “Bush lied”? Even if he didn’t?
    Might be some kind of Autism. But I don’t want to disparge the Autistics. Opps, I did it again.

  • LT

    I’m sorry man, I keep forgetting. Must be ye old Eric Alterman argument. It’s possible, so therefore it is. Thus, since Bush “lied” about the reasons behind the war, this would theoretically negate any and all good that has arisen from it? I thnk I got it. J.P., you are a man wise beyond your years, and possess logic that mere mortals only dream of.
    thanks for squarin’ me away.

  • tim

    jeff, we are soul mates. the best thing that ever happened to me was getting banned from posting at DailyKos and MyDD for writing precisely the sort of stuff you just wrote here.
    and now we’re linked at instapundit together!!!!

  • kl

    I think we all remember where we were and what we were doing the day Glenn Reynolds called Oliver Willis a terrorist.

  • Kat

    And yesterday, February 27, Howard Dean called all who don’t toe the leftist line, evil. He is good, I am evil. {And concluding his backyard speech with a litany of Democratic values, he(Howard Dean) added: “This is a struggle of good and evil. And we’re the good.”}

  • fp

    It’s not about the company you keep. It’s about the company that keeps you. I couldn’t resist that inversion, but I have a serious point. Name calling about “the kiddie club” is counter productive on many levels if you want to support a progressive agenda. For one thing, you and I are aging out and the young people are on the way in. We can alienate them from us or we can offer them the wisdom of our years… what there is of it.
    I understand and enjoy the heat of flaming interchange in a well commented post, but I sure hope you can heal the wounds that have opened between your centrist self and the progressive left, because the hope for change and the hope for humanitarian reform lies with the progressive left. The Democrats can’t win without them, and they – we – are not interested in promoting a right wing agenda by moving to the center (which itself has already moved to the right!)
    If you have any idea how much of a compromise Howard Dean was for most of us, then you will understand why we voted for Kerry with clothespins on our noses.

  • Frank:
    We agree. That is just the point. We need to come together. I, too, used the clothespins in the last election — but we both made the same vote. That’s politics.

  • angryindian

    I like the bit toward the top about O-dub being a “moderate liberal”. Oliver has never, that I have seen, evidenced much moderation in anything, whether it be politics, hypocrisy (go ‘Skins!) or dietary habits.
    Oh – and ain’t it funny how the party of “tolerance” goes berserk when someone departs from the Shining Path? Jeff J is entitled to his views, and I’m sure he comes by them honestly. Sorry if they don’t quite fall in line with the current iteration of leftish leadership views.
    Best of luck in ’08, Deaniacs.

  • That’s a good point, Kat. Complaints by leftists about being called traitors miss the point. When they promote hatred of the US abroad, they are indeed doing this country no favors. Leftists like Ward Churchill may not be a traitor by law, but he sure works overtime to look like one.
    However, Howard Dean himself repeats the DemocraticUnderground (JUST A FRINGE PLACE!!!) accusation that we are not just wrong, or misguided, but are actually and fundamentally *evil*; we are not just doing things to harm the country, but are actively, nay, gleefully doing things to purposefully destroy the entire planet.
    That charge has been out there for some time, and yet, unlike the traitor charge, has no basis in fact apart from policy disagreement (i.e., not signing the Kyoto Protocols means YOU’RE EVIL!); the traitor charge, by comparison, is rooted in behavior that puts US troops at risk and heartens insurgents and terrorists who should, by all rights, feel isolated by world opinion. Instead, a constant stream of leftist propaganda assures them that “the world” hates Bush, and is rooting for them… even at the expense of the freedom and safety of the Iraqi people.

    Glenn Reynolds quotes Nelson Ascher:
    “[A]nti-Americanism became the alternative ideology that came to fill in the vacuum left by the failure of traditional, USSR-based communism and its Maoist or Trotskyite satellites. Before 1989, the global left had something to fight for: either the strengthening of the communist states or the correction of what they called their bureaucratic distortions. To fight for something is simultaneously to fight against whatever threatens it, and thus, the leftists were anti-Western and anti-Americans too, anti-capitalistic in short.
    “Now, whatever they wanted to defend or protect doesn

  • Matt

    Steve J:
    The Coalition went to war with Iraq for at least 8 reasons, outlined by Colin Powell in front of the U.N. – only one of which was non-compliance with Iraqi-signed cease-fire agreements to come completely clean about previous WMD programs. Fact: Saddam previously had WMD programs. Fact: Saddam’s regime used WMDs on Iran during the 1980-88 war and on his own people several times during the 1990s. Where did the construction facilities go? Where did the verifiable raw materials go? Where did the already-constructed WMD go (or do you believe he used the last of his stockpile on Halabja)?
    What Bush specifically said was “British Intelligence believes Iraq has chemical weapons”, which they still believe. The 18-month dance with the UN certainly gave Saddam enough time to do whatever he wanted with them – destroy them or move them. You do know that, since the war ended, there have been at least 16 discoveries (that I know of) by all sorts of different country’s troops, of various kinds of WMD munitions in Iraq? One of them, I recall, was in a IED that failed to go off, and those who built the IED didn’t even know what was in the shell.
    Irrespective of WMD, it was right to go into Iraq, to stop the torture and murder alone. How do you sleep at night, knowing this sort of depravity was going on, you had the means to stop it, and you opposed stopping it? Are you a sadistic monster of some kind?
    If you think that fascism was not marxist-based (and of the right), you are ignorant of both ideologies and their practice. Just one touchstone: how many democracies and/or republics (real ones, not the ones in name only, like North Korea) have prison camps for political opponents?
    “Are you a paid shill?” Of course not – I’ve learned to think for myself. Get a history book (and read it). Learn some logic. Learn how to form an argument logically. Better yet, learn logic and how to argue first, then get a history book – learning logic will help install filters in your brain to help you get past the marxist koolaid-drinking and to then find a history book worth reading.

  • Maggie

    “What, and it’s not your goal to eliminate the Republican Party? Besides, the way the Democrats are going right now, they’re doing a fine job of destroying themselves by losing elections — and I don’t just mean the White House — and alienating fellow Democrats like me and fence-sitting Republicans with your kind of venemous orthodoxy and insult.”
    This hit home with me, Jeff. I am a 59 year old life long Democrat who left the party this past election year. It has turned into the party of hate, sarcasm, and meanness and I just couldn’t stand it anymore. I’m now a registered Independent, but am leaning toward becoming a Republican. And it’s not just because I’m getting older. I think the Repubs are more liberal than the Dems now.

  • GC

    I too used to vote for the Democrats, but no longer feel it supports my views. I changed parties to Independent a few years ago since I saw the division and Hollyweird opinions that the Democrats were spouting. There is no room in the party for people who are in the center. I now vote for the person who represents my views and not any political party.

  • Sorry it had to come to this. It was either Ace or Allah who once said their role (as bloggers) was to shit on the Oliver Willis’ of the world so our “heavy hitters” (in that instance VDH, Hugh Hewitt, etc.) wouldn’t have to.
    I’m sorry to see that you Jeff (whom I consider a heavy hitter) are relegated to posting a lengthy and well-written post about a drooling maniac.
    I’m also sorry (but not altogether unpleased) that today’s left wing is heading more and more in the direction of Oliver “Another Double Quarter pounder please” Willis. It’s like the final violent throes of a dying animal – lashing out and biting anything it can, even if it’s the hand that would have saved it.
    It’s funny that if you were to slip Karl Rove some truth serum and ask him who would Bush least liked to have run against, it would have been Lieberman.
    Things aren’t so straight shot when you’re a paranoid obsessive though (like Oliver). It’s just a bummer that people like you and Glenn give him so much attention. I think Glenn does it b/c Oliver is a maniac, and makes the left look unreasonable and out of touch. I’ve yet to figure out why you even bother with this guy. People realize how much of a nutter he is – you should be spending your time and influence figuring out how to circumvent this guy, not bait him by pointing out how much of a dunce he is. That’s his game, remember? (and mine apparently – heh)
    In any case – keep up the good work serving as a voice of reason.
    -Fat Kid (Mike)

  • EverKarl

    Always nice to see Oliver immediately jump from an affirmative action reference to playing the race card. So what should people make of the way Ollie refers to Michelle Malkin?

  • I learned everything I needed to know about Oliver Willis at the gentle hand of my Corporate Masters. Heh!

  • zetetic

    Some pinko douchebag in this thread mentioned some garbage about how someone is “almost as far to the right as Bush.” This is why I give Donks zero credence, as they obviously have no earthly idea what a conservative is or isn’t.

  • When I hear paranoid rants like Ollie’s, it’s clear we’ve left the realm of political analysis for psychological displacement. And as long as liberals practice displacement as strategy, they’re doomed

  • Steve L.

    As a conservative, I have to read this and think, “If the Willises and Deans and Koses of the world think they are the only hope for the Democrats, then Republicans will be in office for a long time.” Politics is the art of compromise. You give a little here to gain a lot there. Sticking to a purely idealogical message is the quickest path to oblivion.
    Lately, the liberals’ reaction to everything has been, “If the Republicans think it’s a good idea, then it’s a bad idea,” notwithstanding any previous support among their leaders for the exact same idea. It could almost become a sport. Republicans could take an issue and then co-opt the Democrats message just to hear the Democrats scream that the Republicans are wrong.
    The United States needs two viable political parties. Without that, one side would impose its will without restraint. We don’t need that. We need a free and open exchange of ideas that can benefit everyone. Sadly, the Democrats are marginalizing themselves by failing to learn lessons in defeat.

  • BumperStickerist

    About the only thing Willis et al can say that’s good about Dean is that Dean was right about Iraq.
    While that’s up for clarification and debate, the salient point for me is this: Based on what?
    What sources of information did Dr. Dean use to make his decision regarding Iraq?
    What was Dean’s decision making process?
    So far, there’s been a touting of Dean’s decision, but absolutely no analysis of the decision itself.
    So, what did the good Doctor do? Cut open a sheep, look at its entrails and decide war was not called for? Did he simply follow his heart?

  • Matthew Ryan

    I get a special kick out of the ‘obstructionist smear’. Isn’t that at least part of what the party out of power is supposed to be about?
    Republicans are evil = fact so nothing to see here,
    Obstructionist as smear = low blow, pass the smelling salts!
    A year ago I would have said the same as other commenters – I gave up on the Dems and became an Independent. But the reality was, and I now acknowledge, that I became a Republican then. I don’t agree with the fringes of the platform but on the big ticket items that actually move my vote (defense, economy) I am aligned with the party.
    If the Dems are smart, when Bush goes in 2008 there will be a chance that they will, I predict, miss. It’s there now with Social Security reform. When Bush surfaced this the Dems should have grabbed it, made it more progressive (instead of a flat 2% to invest why not 6% on the first $10K, 5% on the next etc), sold it as their own. In other words, the Dems need to be all over the working poor. When THAT becomes their reason for being I may return.

  • hodobe

    Unlike quite a few of you here I went from Republican since Nixon to the Democrats in 04. Before when I was brainwashed by the 30 second sound bite. I decided to read all of this Presidents statements and found this administration sorley lacking in truth. The demonization of any statement by a Democrat got me thinking that they protest to much. If people could just listen to the whole claims made by this administration and then follow what actually happens. Not the propoganda bs of the press but whats really going on by reading and listening to people all over the world we would finally have to admit the deception of this government. I know its terribly hard to admit mistakes but if we Americans are going to have to learn that there is a whole world out there.

  • jeremy in NYC

    If Oliver is still around here – help me out.
    You say “The reason Jeff raises such ire on the left is that he’s a reliable source for the right in getting a Democrat to bash Democrats. A similar dynamic exists with Mickey Kaus, The New Republic, and Joe Lieberman.”
    So I picked the most likely time to look for this, and when it most mattered – the period from 10/1/04 through the election. And I skimmed through Jeff’s blogposts for that period.
    I saw some honest (i.e. praise nd criticism of both) blogging about the debates. I saw some criticisms of the Dems some criticisms of the Repubs – in each case where Jeff thought that they were right or wrong on the issues – but not a lot of it. And I saw Jeff discuss why he was uninspired by Kerry, and why he thought Kerry would win anyhow.
    But frankly – these weren’t a lot of posts out the total for that period. And this would’ve been the time to discuss the Dems/Repubs. But Jeff was discussing a lot of other issues that anyone who reads buzzmachine knows are near and dear to his heart.
    So where is all this “reliable” Democrat-bashing? I mean, I know Jeff got into it with Alterman and Cole over how he thought they treated the Iraq The Model brothers, but that was over a personal issue. Seriously, what are you basing this on? Can anyone else making this point tell me?

  • Kat

    Here’s a timely used to be leftist’s view.
    (But in some ways I understand where this perspective comes from, because I once shared it. I was raised in liberal Marin County, and my first name (which garners more comments than anything else) is a direct product of the hippie generation. Growing up, I bought into the prevailing liberal wisdom of my surroundings because I didn’t know anything else. I wrote off all Republicans as ignorant, intolerant yahoos. It didn’t matter that I knew none personally; it was simply de rigueur to look down on such people. The fact that I was being a bigot never occurred to me, because I was certain that I inhabited the moral high ground. ) SOUND FAMILIAR?? Hey,Oliver?

  • Jeremy (in NYC): Thank you!

  • Jeremy, go to this page:
    I think you’ll find that Jeff has 9,820 reasons to love Glenn Reynolds.
    On the other hand, Jeff has cited “Glenn Reynolds” in 3,630 posts. I think maybe it’s time these guys got a room…

  • jeremy in NYC

    Mark. You’re kidding, right? Reynolds cites/links Jarvis, so q.e.d Jarvis is a Democrat-basher? Please tell me this was an attempt at humor.
    Just in case it’s not, go to this page.
    I think you’ll find that Oliver Willis has 9,820 reasons to love Glenn Reynolds. I guess this makes Oliver a Democrat-bashing Republican, huh?
    Are there any serious people around here who take the “Jarvis is a Democrat-basher” and can address my point?

  • fat kid

    … doubtful. I’ve found, over the past 3 years. My best guess is someone will run out of the “room” screaming FACIST about as fast as if their hair was on fire. *shrug*
    Then again, that’s just my experience.

  • fat kid

    Oh yeah – Jeff Gannon is a Karl Rove plant!

  • Jim S

    First, I notice that you completely avoid addressing my points about how the Republicans show sometimes that their true long term goal is the complete elimination of Social Security. Nowhere in your supposed reply to me do you mention it. Heck, even the young Republicans know what the real goal is but forgot one day to keep it undercover. At a town meeting being held by Rick Santorum when they wanted to have a counter-demonstration against Santorum’s critics what was their rallying cry? It was “Hey, hey, ho, ho, social security’s got to go! Hey, hey, ho, ho, social security’s GOT TO GO!!”. The Cato Institute in 1983 wrote a paper that laid out a plan for eliminating social security. It consisted of creating a crisis atmosphere and pushing the idea that there was nothing the government could do to save the program, that the only hope was private accounts, which they could use to lead to completely eliminating the program. Hmmmm. Sound familiar? Also, while Republicans and their supporters constantly respond that the Cato Institute is libertarian, not Republican, when this is pointed out their arguments are weak at best. Why? Because when Bush first really began establishing his approach towards Social Security who was one of the people he called on? The head of the Cato Institute.
    Even for those willing to believe that the Republicans are being honest about what they want what’s wrong with Bush’s plan given what we know about it? How about the fact that in the first ten years of its implementation that it will add over $4.5 trillion to the national debt?

  • Here’s a nice article by an anti-war Bush-hater on the real history of fascism:
    which is based in turn on the research of leftist political historian Zeev Sternhell (THE BIRTH OF FASCIST IDEOLOGY)

  • Jeremy,
    I did the same thing with Jeff’s posts for January 2005 and found that the overwheming majority of them didn’t have anything to do with politics at all. About a quarter addressed Lefty media issues, another quarter were scathing indictments of Michael Powell and the FCC, and the other half were about blogs and “citizens’ media” in an apolitical context.
    Pretty interesting since January 2005 had several big political events – such as the Iraqi elections – that really should have drawn out Jeff’s “bias” if it was there. Yes, he ends up getting into it with Juan Cole and Eric Alterman, but even then if you’re really reading this blog and not cherry-picking it to suit your fancy you can’t get around the fact that even those arguments represent a tiny fraction of the blog’s posts and as such are certainly not representative of the whole.

  • amyc

    I voted against the Republicans when their obnoxious crazies (Randall Terry of Operation Rescue and Pat Robertson) seemed to represent their views. Now I vote against the Democrats because they seem to have elevated their obnoxious crazies (Michael Moore sitting by former presidents at the convention, Daily “Screw them” Kos). Mr. Gisleson, you are a perfect example of why I voted Bush (with clothespin) this election. And Jim S, I still don’t understand why you believe the government is smarter than I am in planning for my retirement. Here’s my social security plan: let the gvmt have the 6% payroll tax they take from us, but let us have the other 6% for ourselves. Then means test who receives the benefits. That way we are still supporting poor retirees, but middle class and wealty seniors have to take care of themselves without any welfare payments. Oh–and increase medicare premiums on the wealthy. If they want gvmt retirement healthcare, they should pay close to what private insurance would cost them.

  • amyc

    Mr. Giselson, here are two quotes from your posts that remind me of the obnoxious right-wing “my country right or wrong” or “deport the anti-American” types.
    1. There is no moderate party in this country, and further efforts to strip the Democratic party of liberals (the heart and soul of the party) will be resisted.
    If you don’t like liberals, leave the party.
    2. Jorg, if you don’t respect Ted Kennedy, you’re obviously not going to be happy in the Democratic party
    Thanks for telling all of us peons what is required to be a member of the Democrat party in this decade. I don’t know if I’m a “liberal” or a “libertarian” but I sure aint a conservative. Maybe you should try to welcome people like me instead of trying to drive us away. Flies, honey, and vinegar you know.
    And Oliver, when the Republican party puts Ann Coulter out front or seats her next to former pres Bush or Ford at the convention, they lose my vote in a hurry. Sheesh

  • Jeremy (in NYC): Look for any post that mentions Howard Dean, Kos, or any Dem with half of a spine. Then you’ll see why Jeff is a Reliable One.

  • Jim S

    Thank you, amyc, for completely twisting what I said. It sort of gives the lie to your claim to not be a conservative when you parrot their lines. Eliminating social security, which I believe is the actual goal of the Republicans, means eliminating it for everyone no matter how little money they earn, not just for you. The working poor in this country won’t make enough money from investing what money they might be able to spare after paying for the essentials to retire on. BTW, I don’t have a problem with means testing for social security or having those who have the money pay more towards Medicare in some way.
    And your method of judging who to vote for lacks something, too. Who cares who is sitting front and center at the convention? That’s meaningless B.S. in this country. It sounds like what the Kremlinologists used to do when analyzing pictures of who was sitting where (or even visible in public) at parade events in Red Square. That’s not how you tell who has power and influence in this country, especially in the Republican party. The people with the real power wear the Guilianis and Schwarzeneggers like a mask of moderation while not giving them a voice in the party platform or determining the course the party will take on any meaningful issue.

  • amyc: Bush had torture apologist and drug addict Rush Limbaugh over to the White House. You can thank me later.

  • Eileen

    Oliver states that he has attained the tender age of 27. This is not to dis you based on age, Oliver, particularly as I hated it when ‘older people’ used to diminish me based on age in my 20’s. But as you get older, things – All Things – become less black and white; instead, they attain shades of gray. For you to conclude that the era of ‘breaking bread’ between Repubs and Dems is over because “the game being played is not the game even I grew up with”, allegedly because Republicans are hell bent on ‘destroying the Democratic party’, is – I am trying to be kind here – ridiculous.
    If there were some master list available of all basic social/political/economic issues we hold dear in the U.S., and if each issue had stated ‘left’ and ‘right’ wing views attached (but not labelled), I doubt anyone would consistently choose the left OR right view on Every Single Issue. In other words, each party’s platforms and assigned ‘positions’ include at least *some* issues an honest person doesn’t necessarily embrace or adopt. They also include shades of gray.
    I lean right, but I am a registered Lib. I am pro choice. I am anti big government and expanding bureaucracies, which Rebublicans haven’t excelled at controlling well lately. I am very much against allowing our borders to look like swiss cheese. I am against amnesty for aliens, drivers licenses for illegals, long term work programs filled with loopholes, and the general failure to enforce our laws – while also providing social benefits – to people who break the law to get here and stay here.
    In that little issue list, you’d find left and right wing ideologies attached, arguments espoused by each side, and actions which don’t always support those purported ‘positions’ by Both Sides.
    Now Oliver, if you can state unequivocably there is not ONE single issue, argument, or action taken by your party with which you don’t agree, I’ll take you at your word – for a few more years at least. Until then, pancake breakfasts would be a waste of good food. But in the meantime, people who Don’t agree with you in your own party might wish to nonetheless break bread without you.
    And until you get hungry enough to share a meal, if I were to (even) agree with a few of your own statements – e.g., re Sharpton – would that turn me into a Democrat or you into a right wing shill?
    For every Ann Coulter I’ll raise you a Kristina vanden Heuvel. We can trade barbs, call each other names, and attempt to diminish and ‘destroy’ each other. Or we can find points of agreement within each party As Well As across ‘party lines’ (hell, even Non party lines) and sit down together for breakfast.

  • Otis Wildflower

    Wow, this is entertaining! Purges are so much fun to watch. It’s nearly as funny as the sectarian rivalries in the Life of Brian.
    “What have the Romans ever done for us?”
    Give him hell, Comrades!

  • EverKarl

    All you have to do to satisfy Ollie is to say “Screw Them!” to Americans killed in Iraq. Then you would be right with Kos and Ollie will be so happy! Won’t you do it, just for him? After all, you can always go back later to airbrush history, just like Kos did. It will be just like you never said it!

  • Armando

    I took some time to more carefully reread your blog posts, which, truthfully, I had not done before, more of a skim job.
    I have some issues:
    In January, you really softpedalled the Armstrong Williams story, particularly burying the lead – the use of government dollars. Jay Rosen called you on it, and you sort of grudgingly accepted the point but let it drop. One post. Nothing more.
    Why? Was it not important in your mind. How about the other journalists who were revealed as getting government dollars? Did you knowingly bury the story? I doubt it, but something led you to softpedal the story.
    Then the Zephyr thing. Your kid gloves for Zephyr made no sense to me. Jerome was clearly falsely slimed by her. She flat out lied. She altered her story to try and explain but that’s hardly an explanation for spreading a false smear in the first place. I won’t speak on kos.
    And then you act as if she is qualified to discuss ethics when by her own words she indicts herself as having attempted an unethical act. Trippi denied it as did other people. How can you act as if she could possibly discuss ethics in any context after that? That was disgraceful to your conference and a very poor show by you. Why Jeff did you not speak to THAT?
    As for you silly criticisms of people defending themselves against outrageous false charges, I really don’t know how you can defend your attitude there. Your outrage comes out pretty quickly for other folks as well as yourself. Have you considered how you would react if such charges were levelled at you? Why you took that tact, I can’t say, but it certainly is nothing to be proud of (to be sure I am quite the hothead myself and find myself apologizing all the time for overreacting, but I think I can be honest and see that in myself and acknowledge a failing.)
    Finally, your comments on some folks’ reactions, including mine, to the Iraq election is pretty ad hominem wouldn’t you say? Eeyore? I mean, I certainly could be wrong but I didn’t reach my opinion on a whim or on a hope for failure. My gawd, would that I am completely wrong. That is my hope. But my opinion is an honest one and not completely unfounded.
    In light of that, something I did not know when I labelled you Right Wing BTW, I am quite surprised that you take such umbrage at my opinion that you are Right of Center, intended descriptively mind you, not pejoratively. I thought you were Right Wing.
    Now I think I would more properly call you Right of Center and very much more fixated on the sins of the Left than on the sins of the Right.
    One incident in particular makes me think this – you describe the exchange between Yglesias and Powerline on Powerline’s hate speech (and it is that Jeff) intelligent and civil. Well, it may be civil, but it is also brutal. Yglesias basically labels Powerline liars. Correctly in my opinion. So have I labelled them liars and purveyors of hate speech.
    You criticize their “obsession” with Carter. The problem is not the obsession Jeff, as you MUST know. The problem is calling him a traitor. Is that not as offensive as calling Bush a fascist? Oh BTW, have you ever seen Bush referred to as a fascist in a front page post at Dailykos? You know the answer Jeff. No, you have not. Because that would be a ridiculous statement.
    And yet your condemnation of dailykos knows no bounds. But Powerline is still a nice group of GOP bloggers, intelligent and civil. That, in my mind, is troubling. It seems to me that it is difficult to expect to be viewed as Left of Center based on that record. OR Centrist really. No, the evidence is indicative of a Media Gadfly mostly concerned with criticism of the Left.
    Now you are a Democrat, and I’m happy to hear that. But I really don’t think you have much of a complaint regarding being labelled a Right of Center Media Gadfly. I think it an accurate description. BTW, there is nothing wrong with that.

  • Gee, Armando, I didn’t know you were the official arbiter of what’s liberal. If I’d passed your test, would I have gotten a Liberal License? A Liberal T-Shirt, perhaps? A Liberal Membership Card?
    On Williams: Gosh, I did say a lot about him but I didn’t say it on the blog. I said it, for example, on WNYC. NPR. I think that is Officially Liberal. Right, Liberal Cop?
    On Zephyr: Well, I think you may have some conflict of interest on that one, being a Kosite.
    On the Iraqi election: There were plenty of Eeyores. You know, I was wrong about calling Juan Cole Pondscum. Professor Eeyore would have been a far better name.
    As for Yglesias: I was referring to Matthew’s criticism being civilized (as opposed to your and Oliver’s one-word swipes). Surely Matthew passes your Official Liberal Test.
    As for Kos: When your pal said what he said about the men killed in Iraq, he made us — yes liberals — look bad. We do criticize our own. We should.
    Note, well, Armando that you did not make this judgment based on a SINGLE issue or stand. You made your Official Liberalometer Meter Reading based on whether I criticized your enemies or praised your friends.
    I repeat: You and Oliver and Kos and company look upon the Democratic Party as your little club.
    What did Groucho say again?

  • This comment section reminds me of something I found on
    Donut[AFK]> INSULT
    Eurakarte> RETORT
    Donut[AFK]> RIPOSTE
    Eurakarte> COUNTER-RIPOSTE
    Hehe. Joking aside, I want to see an admission with the exact same form as this woman’s:

    I lean right, but I am a registered Lib. I am pro choice. I am anti big government and expanding bureaucracies, which Rebublicans haven’t excelled at controlling well lately. I am very much against allowing our borders to look like swiss cheese. I am against amnesty for aliens, drivers licenses for illegals, long term work programs filled with loopholes, and the general failure to enforce our laws – while also providing social benefits – to people who break the law to get here and stay here.

    …from a self-described “Liberal”. In the four short years I’ve identified myself as “right of center” I’ve yet to see a liberal take a concrete stand on any one issue that isn’t “Bush is wrong”. There is no “point” it’s all “counter-point”, and typically ad hominem, hyperbole, repetetive fallacy, generalization, demagoguery, or irrelevant conclusion.

  • Mark Gisleson :
    “Reynolds has updated this to claim that’s not what he meant, but it is what he meant.”
    Rubbish. Stop making yourself look stupid.

  • Miguel

    The Republicans are trying to destroy the D. party? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The Dems are making their best effort to destroy it! and they don’t even notice! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. It’s hillarious (from “Hillary” perhaps?)HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.