I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
I hope JM was just trying to discredit Baer and the centrists by giving him a mega-idiot-phone.
Frist.
And I know what you mean.
FUCK BUSH!
Maybe they should whank some stallions.
Dammit.
Good on Josh for giving the guy a platform, if only so we can all point to something and say "This is not what we want to be heading our efforts against Bush."
The inside can't see the outside because they are inside the Big Bad Wolfie's tummy.
I'd dispute the batguano definition, but I'd certainly agree that the guy doesn't really know that much about British politics. At all.
Fighting the GOP=first you have to be fighting. A simple formula.
The middle has collapsed like a souffle in winter.
Well for sure, THEY'RE doomed. As for the rest of us Democrats, we just got to keep speaking up, organizing and agitating.
he really is the whisperer in the dark, the horror over innsmouth, the rats in the walls, and any other lovecraft title you care to name.
strongest allies in our war against an adjective, eh? who would have thought they invented this language we're abusing?
Go to my friend's blog, How THIS old Brit sees it...
He is very English Very Liverpool and often very funny.
okay, i'm an abuser too. an ism isn't an adjective. i forget what those are called. my linguist mom's gonna kick my ass...
(agitate, agitate, agitate...)are we there yet?
By the way, I saw a great little bumper sticker when I was out driving yesterday. It was small--maybe one-fourth the size of a regular bumpersticker, black and white, entered on the trunk of a new Honda Civic. It simply said, "Fuck the Republicans."
Understated. Elegant. To the point.
You could only read it at stop-lights or sitting bumper-bumper, which of course I was sitting in thanks to our Republican "No New Taxes" Governor" of Minnesota.
How could anyone active in Democratic politics not know anything about one of our greatest achievements, Social Security?
Yank this skunk from the ass's teats.
abstract noun maybe?
Here's a novel idea:
Why don't you engage him? Fisk his posts. Start a dialogue.
Name calling ain't gonna win elections.
I must say I was shocked to read the dude at TPM. Here's the email I sent him. Hope he responds:
Mr. Baer:
As a long-time reader of TPM, I would really like to
understand your basis for this post. While I am
respectful of your right to have any opinion, I find
it offensive that you would use TPM to slander someone
without providing any facts.
Does Mr. Forsythe provide any evidence for the claim
that Mr. Galloway's "... support for Saddam " earned him the nickname "the member for Baghdad Central"
Is this based on the same "intelligence" that assured
us that Iraq has WMD? Or on the forged documents that
were used to smear Mr. Galloway by the Christian
Science Monitor?
he really is the whisperer in the dark, the horror over innsmouth, the rats in the walls, and any other lovecraft title you care to name.
Olaf glad and big | Email | Homepage | 05.06.05 - 1:32 pm
the crawling chaos, perhaps?
it's not a war against an adjective. it's a war against an abstraction.
I thought Baer would be gone by today, but no such luck. I had to send Josh an email.
what a kook,
as soon as ANYBODY starts spouting that "leftist in alliance with radical islamists" garbage I tune them out.
If I want that I can go read Davey Ho and his nut cases.
--the same Davey Ho that claims a American "leftists" are "de facto" allied with al queda as he desperately tries to assuage his own guilt over his commie past...
He attacks Howard Dean, he accuses a British MP of being an agent of the terrorists?
the same MP that had docs forged about his activities and planted for the right wing press to find and run with???
what a fucking tool.
Brilliant idea of Marshall's though, having these sullivan-esque substitues makes it even more apparent how good his blog is when he is writing.
Is this the five o'clock free crack giveaway?
YES! When I read this guy's crap this morning, I thought, "Who the fuck is this douchebag?"
Badmouthing the Dean campaign and the LIbDems in one breath. Josh deserves a kick in the balls for letting this guy sub. Seriously, a good, swift kick in the balls.
Maybe he's trying to lull the GOP into thinking the Dems are toast, and THEN thhe'll spring their clever trap!
The centrists are only going to doom us if we can't wrest control of the party from them.
I'm hoping that we can ultimately kick them to the curb as far as leading things goes. I'm not averse to keeping them around - I'm not in favor of exclusionary tactics like the fundie Repugs are into.
I'm more interested in subduing the centrists, and telling them to sit down and shut up for now.
I brought this up somewhere on the last thread, but I wasn't as nice about it...
it's not a war against an adjective. it's a war against an abstraction.
Olaf glad and big | Email | Homepage | 05.06.05 - 1:36 pm |
thank you.
I sometimes think that Josh picks his substitutes with half a mind on how best to wind up you and the Daily Kos lot 
It definitely seems to be a regular complaint when he goes on holiday.
"We're doomed."
Well, yes. But it might not be so bad. Even progressive Democrats are hitched to the same lifestyle wagon as the fascists, worship the same fundamental status quo. It's not "them," it's all of us, in other words.
If everything flips and we have to start from scratch, at least the planet will be better off. Some of us take solace in this.
Me, I found a momma horned toad yesterday with babies on her back! So I don't give a fuck about blogs or anything else today.
I concur....Baer is a fucking douchebag. Josh has done himself a dis-service in allowing that cunt to post on his site!
it doesn't really surprise me that he's been given posting privileges on TPM. Marshall was, after all, one of the democratic enablers during the march to war until his last minute recanting. After that, I've never been able to take him seriously
And let me add: Note that Galloway WON. And that Labour lost a shitload of seats. People want a real fucking choice, not the Coke/Pepsi challenge that dickface Baer would give us.
At least Josh didn't turn his blog over to a Bush apologist, ala WM.
I looked up the word lickspittle in American Heritage and found the following:
1. A fawning underling; a toady.
2. Kenneth Baer.
Remember, I'm not passing judgement here, just repeating what I've read.
..
Democrats need to give up on the idea of being a Minority Party, and take up the cause of being the Opposition Party!!!
A post at WM that got cut immediately (don't want to hurt any conservative's feelings now, do we?)
This is all fine and good, but when is Kevin going to get back to 'improving' us by forcing us to listen to the bloviatings of a liar?
(And let's be honest: anyone with half a brain -- as opposed to mindless Limbaugh parrots like Al -- who says anything about Bush's 'democracy promotion' is simply a liar. There is no way around it.)
I mean -- c'mon -- Bush apologists have such a hard time getting their message out, it is only reasonable for Kevin to want to help them out!
So go ahead, Kevin -- lecture us about how shallow and close-minded we are for not wanting to come to WM to read about Glorious Shrub and His Excellent Iraqi Adventure. We await your disdain!
"Centrist" is a nice word of saying "bend over further and take it even deeper up the ass."
No, thanks!
Name calling ain't gonna win elections.
a |
Heaven preserve us from these Pollyanna types!
Gawd.
Why does it feel like I'm waiting for Order 66 to go down?
josh marshall is pro-war and an avowed centrist..he's not that differant from his sub..
As I said about Mr. Baer on my blog:
I admit, I'm just from flyover country, so I don't know who Kenny Baer is, other than it sounds like a nickname George Bush would give Kenneth Lay...
"Hey, hey, Kenny Bear, come over here and give Dubya a crisp hundie and a big ol' hug"
Nevertheless, I'm getting the feeling that Kenny Baer is a pseudonym for Byron York.
After all Attaturk is actually a pseudonym for Raymond Luxury Yacht (pronounced "Throatwarbler Mangrove")
The centrists are only going to doom us if we can't wrest control of the party from them.
It's a curiously toxic formula that has emerged...
The Democrats are controlled by mealy-mouthed simpering "centrists" who are for most purposes moderate Republicans.
The Republicans are controlled by rabid foaming-at-the-mouth fascists who are dedicated to ideological (and religious, and racial, and gender identity) purity than to their actual jobs. Remember the quote about DeLay last week, when one of the goons in Congress complained that he was "hurting The Movement." No complaint about his behavior, his power-drunk excesses, or his increasingly apparent insanity. He's "hurting The Movement," by getting caught, and for that alone, he's a liability.
There's no major party left willing to actually defend the Constitution. One side is shitting all over it, and the other side is just looking around like a bunch of retarded syphilitic monkeys.
Buy guns, people. Stock up on ammo. Seriously. This is going to get worse before it gets better.
I suspect that Holy Joe still has Baer Communications on a retainer.
Josh certainly has some dimwit freinds. You get the impression he listens to Cokie Roberts' drivel on NPR and thinks to himself "...just so... just so..." I'd like to know which democrats out there actually employ this guy.
The centrists of the Democratic party are like the "cool kids" in high school: they want to be liked by everyone but are respected by no one. Trying to be a party of bi-partisan compromise gets us no where. Oy!
Josh's problem is that he's a straddler. His arse is full of splinters.
Agreed. The Galloway smear was particularly loathesome. I love how he approvingly quotes TNR's Forsythe:
Even before he was elected to Parliament, Galloway managed to persuade his hometown of Dundee in Scotland to symbolically partner with the West Bank city of Nablus
Heaven forbid. Nice subtle insinuation there: Nablus = Palestinians = Arab Terrorists.
Jeeezus. Yet another "I Have to Denounce Liberals Louder than O'Reilly or I Won't Be Taken Seriously by O'Reilly" DLCers.
Couldn't these fuckers just volunteer to test George's landmines?
Josh certainly has some dimwit freinds. You get the impression he listens to Cokie Roberts' drivel on NPR and thinks to himself "...just so... just so..." I'd like to know which democrats out there actually employ this guy.
bling
I for one look forward to the day Cokie tries to write in the english language on Josh's site.
Perhaps Joe Lieberman can pitch in when and if Josh has to attend his son's briss/and or christening.
i peer timidly over the rim of the parapet, squeak "but if the elections are fixed, what does it matter who we vote for in '06?" and duck back into the waiting batrachian arms of Dagon...
(nice one, Olaf!)
Col. David Hackworth dies. He spoke truth to power. His voice will be missed. http://www.hackworth.com
Come into the conversation pit, Mr Baer!
Um, while I like to read Marshall on Social Security, what's the big surprise/disappointment? He's a middle-of-the-road centrist himself who hangs around with other middle-of-the-road centrists. That's his milieu.
we are doomed.
Amen, Atrios --
As I recall, Ken Baer is a former speechwriter for Al Gore, and he's had a decent reputation as a reasonable centerist.
But in just a few short posts, he has revealed himself as a clueless centerist Democrat -- of the uber-wanker class that has incestuously bred out all that is worth while in the Democratic Party. Draining the Democratic gene pool, one consultant at a time.
Dean, Reid, and Pelosi are trying hard, but having to fight rear guard actions against these kind of brain dead jellyfish sellouts is just horrible.
Buy guns, people. Stock up on ammo. Seriously. This is going to get worse before it gets better.
Seraphiel: Ungrateful Magician
Don't you mean stock up on pies?
Even before he was elected to Parliament, Galloway managed to persuade his hometown of Dundee in Scotland to symbolically partner with the West Bank city of Nablus
HOW DARE THAT COMMIE INVOLVE THE ANGLO SAXON RACE WITH A BUNCH OF SAND NIGGERS!!!
A one-man circular firing squad...
Galloway's win is "a loss for us all," but the pointless carnage in Iraq? A win for everybody! Privatizion of British rail? Who can argue with "the market" (all-hail-Hypnotoad), especially when it produces the worst rail system in the industrialized world outside the US and hemmorhages money in the process? The Deficient Logic Coalition never ceases to make my head spin, as usually happens before I vomit.
even the stranger has a token republican columnist now. although reading his latest piece, in which he talks about going shooting with the UW young rethuglicans, i kind of wonder whether or not he's a satire mole.
I don't know anything about Galloway, but whoever he is he's entirely irrelevant to American politics.
There is not now, nor has there been in the living memory of any Democrat (save perhaps Robert Byrd) an institutional connection between American liberalism and Marxism. We trace our ideological roots to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin, for God's sake.
i peer timidly over the rim of the parapet, squeak "but if the elections are fixed, what does it matter who we vote for in '06?" and duck back into the waiting batrachian arms of Dagon...
(nice one, Olaf!)
cory | Email | Homepage | 05.06.05 - 1:50 pm |
careful throwing that term "batrachian" around, cory. i was born in rhode island. for all you know i might be one of the deep ones...
The centrists are only going to doom us if we can't wrest control of the party from them.
We already have. These guys are venting their bile at Dean - and his campaign staff - because they lost. Dean is running the party and I don't imagine the Ken Baer's of the world are gonna be picking up huge campaign contracts anytime soon.
So the Brits electing a far-left-left candidate is a tragedy that will inspire backlash, but the everyday occurance of the US electing wacky fundamentalist freaks is cool and normal?
Did I miss something or did Josh Marshall have a Republican filling in for him this week. 'Cause if it walks and talks like a duck ...
See Juan Cole today for some real news from Britain.
I just came over here looking for an open thread in which to rant about Baer's idiocies, and, presto, Atrios reads my mind and provides a thread dedicated specifically to trashing this dolt. Thanks, A.
Man, this guy is an idiot. It's like reading a column written by freaking Joe Lieberman (which is not, I think, a surprise, since apparently this guy worked as his speechwriter). His post on Galloway was moronic--Galloway himself may be a demagogue, but in what way is his victory "a loss for us all"?
And his post on the Rochdale race was just pure DLC spite, which uses the transparent pretext of some random labour candidate's loss in order to bash freakin' Howard Dean. WTF? I note he didn't point out Bob Shrum's illustrious role in helping Tony Blair lose seats.
And his crap about his "self-deprecating joke" about his SocSec ignorance was just pathetic. But at least we got to hear all about what a swell time he had at Oxford. Oh, by the way, did I mention he went to Oxford? If I didn't, I'm sure he will. Again. What a freaking tool.
If this is what passes for the new blood in the Democratic party, we need a transfusion, stat.
I just happen to think that one political party representing corporate interests should be enough for any nation. I know that's kind of naive, but I'm an idealistic kind of guy.
So in this spirit, to any democrat that denigrates activist groups like MoveOn let me politely suggest that they go fuck themselves instead of fucking the Democratic Party.
We trace our ideological roots to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin, for God's sake.
You left out Marx, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam's rape rooms, Hitler, Satan, Osama Bin Laden's dialysis machine, Jane Fonda, and Michael Moore's prodiguos bottom, I think.
"I'm a balla, high rolla, baby..."
With apologies to Chingy.
yes, he is wearing his rectum like a turtleneck.
I had sent him this email just before coming to Atrios to see if anyone else was as shocked as I was:
Re the Galloway post
I am a daily reader of Talking Points Memo, but occasionally I like to glance over at Free republic or Little Green Footballs for example just to see what the reactionary halfwits are mulling over at the moment. I take it Josh has decided to spare me the effort by letting you guest here for a bit. (I'm surprised you omitted a reference to "Eurabia" there.)
I can't even imagine how long it would take me to dissect everything that's wrong-headed, clueless, ignorant, and baselessly inflammatory about what you've written and as it's my lunch break, and I suspect you are beyond help, I have no intention of taking the time.
Since you are now such an expert on the UK I hope you will be familiar with the analogy when I tell you that your appearance on Talking Points Memo is like seeing a monstrous carbuncle appearing on the nose of an old and dear friend.
Josh, dear God, what were you thinking. Still I hope you had a good honeymoon.
Yours,
Brian OC (Real name not redacted in email) (expat N. Ireland)
P.S. And while I'm at it, didn't it even occur to you that perhaps the fact of the native food being bland is the *reason* the Brits like curry so much!
Word just came in that the far-far-far left, Islamist candidate George Galloway has defeated Oona King -- daughter of an ex-pat African-American civil rights activist and Jewish mother -- in the east London constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow. Galloway is not just anti-war and anti-American, he is pro-Saddam
- Kenny Baer
(May 05, 2005 -- 07:55 PM EDT // link // print)
Seems this Galloway bloke stood up and called his Dear Leader a liar.
Whenever I know that Josh Marshall's going to be gone for an extended period of time, I simply stop visiting his site. But it occurs to me that other measures might be necessary.
If you visit Josh's site, and he's not there, DO NOT CLICK ON ANY OF HIS ADVERTISERS. When Josh returns, feel free to click.
Josh might not get the hint, but his advertisers will.
He's rubbish, isn't he?
That smear of the Dean campaign worker was one of the most egregious bits, given that Rochdale is about as close as you can get to a Lib Dem heartland, where the seat has been on loan to Labour for the past eight years.
What is particularly sad about this whole venture is just how unaware and unself-conscious Mr. Baer is. His positions make it clear he has no interest in the Democratic Party as a vehicle for aiding people in distress and building a community or nation by taking care of real needs. The market will do everything. Poorly written, Baer's blogs reflect a lack of sensitivity as well as a lack of intelligence. A great choice by Marshall.
I've been avoiding Talking Points Memo since this shift took place.
Ick.
My dog will kick Baer's ass! Too bad TPM has no comments section...
Can we stop calling them centrists please? I think appeasers would be a more apt descriptor.
when I suggested InstaBaer last night I was corrected by a much wiser poster.
kenny InstaBoer
We already have. These guys are venting their bile at Dean - and his campaign staff - because they lost. Dean is running the party and I don't imagine the Ken Baer's of the world are gonna be picking up huge campaign contracts anytime soon.
What concrete actions is Dean taking right now?
I like how this historic win for Labour business is becoming the dominant meme. It's all part of the "voters vindicate the war" bullshit being peddled throughout the Murdoch Anglo-American media empire if you ask me.
Everyone, Labour did not pick up one seat. Not one. They did not "win" the election, they avoided being thrown out. Their majority has been cut drastically, and Blair is a lame duck. A bit of a difference from what's being sold.
Say it with me: "Thinking Outside The Box"?
Baerly readable.
rorschach's right TPM lost it proir to this. It is good to know what's on their pointy little heads though.
I like how this historic win for Labour business is becoming the dominant meme.
One that will be quietly shelved when Blair steps down in a few weeks.
he really is the whisperer in the dark, the horror over innsmouth, the rats in the walls, and any other lovecraft title you care to name.
Olaf glad and big |
"We shall swim out to that brooding reef in the sea and dive down through black abysses to Cyclopean and many columned Y'ha-nthlei, and in that lair of the Deep Ones we shall dwell amidst wonder and glory for ever."
clean sheets
I've lost a lot of respect for Josh over the past couple of years. Thought he was great in the beginning, but he plays it too safe these days. He becomes more timid as the stakes get higher.
Oh my god, that guy is a moron. Well, I took TPM off my blogroll for a reason, I like Josh's work occasionally but his guest posters are uniformly ill informed and frequently ill intentioned.
InstaBaer/InstaBoer/Instabore
indeed
aimai
I FULLY SUPPORT TONY BLIAR AND HIS EFFORT TO BRING SANNITY TO ENGLAND
YOU COMMIES WANTED CHIRAQ TO WIN
I like how this historic win for Labour business is becoming the dominant meme. It's all part of the "voters vindicate the war" bullshit being peddled throughout the Murdoch Anglo-American media empire if you ask me.
Nah. 'Historic' was always going to be the meme.
Blair's definitely not spinning this as a vote of confidence in Iraq. He's talking about everything but. It's a bit like that Fawlty Towers episode: 'Don't mention the war!'
Want to know why? Most of the anti-war Labour MPs are still around, and they have him by the balls. And if Blair so much as tries to hint that the voters have endorsed his decision to lick Bush's arse on Iraq, he will be slapped down by his own party.
After all Attaturk is actually a pseudonym for Raymond Luxury Yacht (pronounced "Throatwarbler Mangrove")
When in doubt, go for the Python quote.
IMHO the centrists are just GOP infiltrators. Whether active collaborators or just ideological parasites, they should be directed to shape up or ship out.
Wow what a load of crap and self serving garbage as well
Galloway is not just anti-war and anti-American, he is pro-Saddam
Is Baer making this up? this just rings false.
SWR:
What concrete actions is Dean taking right now?
Getting his people in the key party jobs, I would think. Plus getting the machinery geared up to take advantage of his netroots orgarnizing skills come 2006.
Phn'glui
M'gl wna'f, Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgha Nagl Ftaghn
Truer and more comprehensible than anything Baer has said!
My dog will kick Baer's ass! Too bad TPM has no comments section...
THAT is a nice dog.
I hope Atrios is not objecting to the sound description of that fruitcake opportunist demagogue Mr. Galloway?
That guy is a complete idiot. This guy addressed the tyrant Saddam as though he were a great statesman and a hero ... What is the deal with far left kooks who have a moral blindspot for murderous thugs like Saddam and Stalin? I guess it is the same impulse that causes Right-wing nuts to laud Pinochet or Alvaro Uribe.
It is entirely possible, indeed the only sane position to take, to condemn a fraudulent war (Iraq) and also state that Saddam is a dictatorial thug bastard. We may be glad that he is in shackles and also recognize that we cannot be in the business of making war on all abusive regimes.
His potshot against Dean aside, Mr. Baer is exactly right. Labour's victory was tremendous. The only thing that hurt Tony Blair's coalition was the justifiable anger of voters at the Iraq war.
M'gl wna'f, Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgha Nagl Ftaghn
Remarkably, that's what Bush said when he was fellating that hor...
oh, sorry. it was just a handjob.
for all you know i might be one of the deep ones...
PICKMAN? Is that YOU??
Pretty spooky to find i am hanging with a bunch of fellow Old Ones followers....
Pretty spooky to find i am hanging with a bunch of fellow Old Ones followers....
Vote Cthulhu and be eaten first.
I was turned off by the "I've got a meeting in a half hour so I'll just spout off until then" (/spoken like James Spader).
I work with people like this. They spend their life "going to meetings in a half hour". Not really sure what these people actually do in my office?
Class 'A' Tool
Want to know why? Most of the anti-war Labour MPs are still around, and they have him by the balls. And if Blair so much as tries to hint that the voters have endorsed his decision to lick Bush's arse on Iraq, he will be slapped down by his own party.
pseudonymous in nc
Caught a "round table" analysis on BBC WorldNews this morning. There are, of course, in Britain (surprise!) "domestic issues," which the panel agreed Blair now had to deal with. They also mentioned that he'd been very "Presidential" (not a good thing in a Parliamentary government), and would have to pay more attention to the back-benchers since his majority went from 160 to 66.
And basically, he won't win any more friends by focussing on Iraq when the British people want other things taken care of.
Fair assessement, pseudoynomus? (My ignorance of British politics is almost absolute; I ask in all seriousness.)
Remarkably, that's what Bush said when he was fellating that hor...
oh, sorry. it was just a handjob.
watertiger
Was watertiger going to say "horse" or "horowitz"? Or "horrifically ugly Jeff Gannon"?
You be the judge...
"I like how this historic win for Labour business is becoming the dominant meme. It's all part of the "voters vindicate the war" bullshit being peddled throughout the Murdoch Anglo-American media empire if you ask me"
Well if something happens for the first time in history, it really can be called "historic".
Seriously I don't know what all the bitching is about. Things in the U.K. worked out perfectly.
Labour retains power but loses enough seats to force Blair out. You people couldn't possilby have been hoping for a Conservative vicotry were you? That would be a huge disaster.
And as for the Lib Dems, they made a nice showing, but with Blair gone and Labour moving back towards the left slightly under Brown, the Lib Dems will fall back to their usual levels in the future.
The "pro-Saddam Galloway" meme is largely based on the following quote spoken to Saddam which begins:
"Sir, I salute your indefatigability...".
Which sounds pretty damning, except Galloway says he was talking about the Iraqi people.
Perhaps the part of Baer's screed that bugged me the most was referring to Galloway as "Islamist" - used pretty much exactly the way an LGF regular would refer to anyone familiar with the middle-east but unlikely to use the word "Raghead" or "Haji" to describe it's inhabitants.
Blair's definitely not spinning this as a vote of confidence in Iraq.
I'm not claiming that this is Blair's spin on it - it's Murdoch and his networks that will push this line, especially to the Fox audience in America.
Remember, surveys have shown that Fox viewers consistently overestimate (greatly) worldwide support for the war.
Afternoon, Moonbats.
The DLC is irrevelant; we can safely ignore them. They have no broad base of support in the Democratic Party. Given that the majority of the American population is uninformed & apathetic, progressives need to do 2 things to take the country back: 1) bore into the Democratic Party, which is in a state of decay, & take it over 2) go out & speak to average Americans about the corporate takeover of the country & how their interests are adversely affected.
The problem with Baer types is that their background is radioactive for improving things. Coming from upper middle class backgrounds & elite schools, they are disconnected from the situations of the bottom 2/3 of the population. They have no idea of their thinking process or their problems. The Washington DC environment, which is their home turf, further removes them from average Americans.
"What is the deal with far left kooks who have a moral blindspot for murderous thugs like Saddam and Stalin?"
What far left kooks?
Vote Cthulhu and be eaten first.
John
Why settle for the lesser evil?
i can't decide which is worse. baer's analysis, or the latest contradictions from the dKos camp. see here.
Campus Crusade for Cthulhu!
It Found Me!
Perhaps the part of Baer's screed that bugged me the most was referring to Galloway as "Islamist" - used pretty much exactly the way an LGF regular would refer to anyone familiar with the middle-east but unlikely to use the word "Raghead" or "Haji" to describe it's inhabitants.
Exactly. I don't know anything about Galloway but this line of attack makes me distrust the attacker, not Galloway.
Click homepage to see my jolly old pal!
Galloway is not just anti-war and anti-American, he is pro-Saddam
What precisely does this mean now?
Saddam is gone. Does it mean Galloway is in favor of lining the Iraqi government with old Baathists? Because that to me sounds more like Bush.
Do you know what's really "doom"-ing us? Liberal, petty bullshit.
There's NOTHING wrong with being a Democratic centrist... just as there is nothing wrong with being on the far left. If you demand that ALL Democrats believe in the exact same thing, you've become no better than the Republicans -- it's all poisoned Kool-aid, the intolerant Dems have just made it a different flavor.
And here's a news flash: you're never going to get everything 100% your way.
Here's another news flash: Having people with different beliefs in your party ISN'T going to make you change your beliefs. Just like gay marriage isn't going to turn everyone gay, centrist Democrats aren't going to make all Democrats centrist.
let love rule...
Oh, and by the way...
Fuck Kerry!
I know about Galloway and what Baer wrote was pretty much libel. So good instincts SWR!
There's NOTHING wrong with being a Democratic centrist... just as there is nothing wrong with being on the far left.
Your moral relativism is bankrupt.
So where's the betting pool on when the Brits will announce they are leaving Iraq?
Baer is all in favor of the Iraq war. Still. Knowing what he knows now. That makes him certifiably insane. Or else he just thinks that invading Iraq in order to gain military dominatin of the Middle East oil fields was a wise strategy in the "national interest," which makes him both evil and an idiot.
You just know this guy is used to going around and spewing this crap wherever he goes, and the wussy losers he hangs out with are all "yeah, uhhh, duhhh, good point", this is the first resistance he's getting to his lame ideas as its the first time he's espoused his ignorance in a public forum. People like Baer are EXACTLY what is wrong with the Democratic party. Know-nothing superficial ass-covering "I'll make fun of Dean, everyone loves that bit..." "I'll make fun of a leftist Brit politician about whom I know nothing, and then I'll do it again in a couple of days" fucking god-damn can't wait to apologize for their own point of view which they don't even believe in in the first place candy-ass bitches like this guy...
Joking aside, there are more important people in the world than Galloway to worry about. But, criticizing him for daring to associate with those dirty palestinians, referring to him as an "islamist" and linking being an "islamist" to being "pro-saddam" when Iraq under saddam, for all its flaws, was very secular, is your basic little green football-level rhetoric.
MaxKelly
It's the "centrist" democrats that are trying to influence democratic candidates to "renounce" groups like MoveOn and individuals like Michael Moore. Progressives have embraced Howard Dean, and we're fully aware that his political views tend toward centrism. It's people like Beinart and From that are shooting the guns in the circular firing squad.
Except MaxKelly, these are the guys who occupy the campaign-consultancy jobs, the punditocracy, and the WaPo editorial page, and thus possess inordinate power to define for the mainstream what it means to be a "Democrat" and to lose us elections. And they're the ones who called for a purge of Michael Moore and MoveOn and Howard Dean (and I'm no Deaniac, btw), and everybody else to the left of Lieberman.
I'm not feeling very "loving" towards these smug, myopic, destructive fools.
I have actually met, shaken hands with, been given a business card, and been called a "comrade" by George Galloway. He's an ... interesting ... fellow.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne...and/
4520121.stm
Galloway is not just anti-war and anti-American, he is pro-Saddam
What precisely does this mean now?
Saddam is gone. Does it mean Galloway is in favor of lining the Iraqi government with old Baathists? Because that to me sounds more like Bush.
SWR
Sounds like Galloway and King don't really hate each other too much. And of course a Galloway is exactly what the Dems are lacking.
(All I said in the Spring of '01 was "Not all us Americans like George Bush. In fact, my wife and I are embarassed he is our President.")
for all you know i might be one of the deep ones...
PICKMAN? Is that YOU??
cory | Email | Homepage | 05.06.05 - 2:13 pm | #
No, he's only a model.
I'm not feeling very "loving" towards these smug, myopic, destructive fools.
Me either, it takes a certain kind of stupid elitism to want to take apart a powerful fund raising apparatus like MoveOn. It's embarrassing to see the fear that a genuine grassroots fund raiser puts in the heart of these milquetoast corporatists.
BBC
George Galloway has denied "fawning" over Saddam Hussein as he continued his libel battle with the Daily Telegraph [WSJ-esque reactionary rag]
The MP said he saw the ex-Iraqi leaders as a "bestial dictator" and his pre-war visit to Iraq had been aimed at getting him to readmit weapons inspectors.
Mr Galloway has gone to the High Court in London over claims he took £375,000 from Saddam's regime.
The newspaper is standing by its right to publish the story, which it says was based on authentic papers.
There were heated exchanges on Tuesday as Mr Galloway was cross examined by the Daily Telegraph's QC, James Price.
Saddam meetings
The court watched a video of the MP telling Saddam Hussein in 1994: "I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability."
But he told the court the clip had been taken out of context and he had been referring to the Iraqi people in general, not specifically to their leader.
He said he always made clear he believed Saddam had presided over a brutal regime.
[]
Mr Galloway strenuously denies claims made in the Daily Telegraph.
Mr Price asked whether it had been necessary to tell the Iraqi leader many families were naming their new-born sons after him.
"It could be said to be a fair description - that you were fawning on the president," he said.
The MP replied: "No, it was just a salient fact."
He added: "Perhaps it's a measure of the failure of the policies supported by your client that people all over the world are doing so."
'No apologist'
Mr Galloway was also tackled about an article he wrote for the Mail on Sunday describing his meeting with Saddam in 2002, before the start of the war.
In the article, Mr Galloway described the Iraqi leader's "gentle" handshake, how he was "glancing shyly downwards" and "surprisingly diffident", said Mr Price.
He had also recounted how the Iraqi leader had offered the MP Quality Street chocolates and told him anecdotes about Winston Churchill.
Mr Price said people were entitled to think from the article that Mr Galloway was an apologist for the Iraqi regime.
"You appear to be presenting a rather charming shy man and no mention of the fact that you regarded him as one of the most brutal people in the world."
'Olive branch'
Mr Galloway countered that he had presented exactly what he found, even if it was not what the Daily Telegraph liked.
"I was trying to stop a disastrous war. I wanted to convey the feeling of the Iraqi people - that they should extend an olive branch to Great Britain," he said.
Sounds like Galloway and King don't really hate each other too much. And of course a Galloway is exactly what the Dems are lacking.
We could line up behind Kucinich and support his run for the presidency but I don't know if he's got the right qualities for the job.
I would like to see his position get more representation though. I think his leftist politics probably represent more people than he got votes in 2004.
FWIW, I really don't care who the "leader" is as long as he/she takes the rank and files opinions into account. If it's Clark or Dean or Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid, I'm fine with it. But after seeing Kerry not fight back against the Swift Boat campaign, something deep inside me distrusts him, as if he has no sense of honor or ability to be pissed off.
AnotherBruce beat me to it. Good on ya, Bruce.
And by the way, *I'm* at heart a centrist, and these idiots infuriate me.
It's just that the "center" has moved so insanely far to the right that anone who thinks war is in general a bad idea and government has a responsibility to its weakest citizens is labeled by "centrists" like these dudes as "far left" and purge-worthy.
I think Atrios once defined himself as an "angry centrist." That describes me too.
But after seeing Kerry not fight back against the Swift Boat campaign, something deep inside me distrusts him, as if he has no sense of honor or ability to be pissed off.
What I saw was a person who listened to his advisers who foolishly said "Stay above it all; it'll all blow over. Besides, the American people want a clean fight."
He should have, right there, said "Bullshit! This isn't blowing over; you saw what they did to Gore in '00! And the American people want me to fight back! The American people want me to defend my integrity and honor, 'cuz that's all some of them have!"
But he didn't. He said "Okay. You obviously know what you're doing. You helped Gore win."
This is what I don't understand. You have a very real possibility of losing if you're Kerry. So why don't you just play to win, rather than to not lose? Call the bastard on his lies, fight back when it matters, and go for broke? Yeah, you may lose, but you may lose anyway! GAWD!
Now, see, I thought his Galloway post was so over the top, he was being ironic... joke's on me, I guess.
Though, he did do such a bad job at "joking" right out of the gate, maybe he really is that terrible, and it really was a joke.
Perhaps he'll clarify.
RMJ: your round table people were on the mark. I don't think the awkward squad will demand an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but I do think that there'll be pressure for a timetable. That's to say, Labour MPs will have more say in what Blair does than the White House.
My problems with most "centrist" democrats are twofold:
1) 'centrist' pretty much means just splitting the difference on every issue, just for the sake of being able to claim to be a 'centrist'. They don't have real beliefs, other than the belief in the need remain a 'centrist' at all costs - presumably to pre-empt other hacks from labeling you as a "liberal", the ultimate insult to members of the elite politico set.
2) most of them are people trying to be advocates for the lower income levels of society, and yet have no experience BEING a lower income individual. It is a very, very rare weathly person who can even come close to imagining what the lives of the poor are like on a day to day basis.
My exact reaction. What is that guy trying to say. I couldn't understand.
WendellGee: I think you are spot-on. These people aren't "Center" at all. They're pretty-well Right of center, and that's what's infuriating. I think most people tend to be, at heart, left of center, it's just that "Center" has been adjusted Right so far that being truly centrist means you get called a nasty liberal.
Frankly, I think Galloway should sue Josh Marshall.
--K
Disagree, though I rarely do. I have enjoyed Ken Baer's posts and this harsh treatment is unwarranted. Too much knee-jerk reaction against other Dems who you disagree with on some things. We are struggling against the Theocracy - let's focus on that. And George Galloway is "a nasty piece of work" (from my friend in England). Jumping on his boat does not help the reputation of the community here.
I like this comment from Honourable Fiend:
A quick note to those of you now wailing about Bethnal Green:
Face it: your candidate was shit, utterly mis-called the attitude towards the war of her own constituents - who are entirely entitled to want her out for that, then made a series of screwups in the campaign which caused her to lose.
Galloway will be ignored in the House, ignored in most of the press, have to operate without the assistance of any of the whips offices, and occasionally show up in the "and finally" part of the local TV news in London. Then Labour will put up a male Muslim candidate next time and he'll [Galloway] be summarily ejected again faster than you can say "Baghdad Central".
K: i have to agree with you about MP Galloway. i am no fan of his.
Jumping on his boat does not help the reputation of the community here.
K
Who is jumping on his boat? It's just that this community has seen enough smear campaigns to know to be skeptical when someone is labeled as a Saddam lover.
I mean, can you still say "pro-Saddam" and it not be funny? Maybe I'm reading too much Wonkette these days... but in my book, "pro-Saddam" is the wink that indicates a tongue is being maneuvered towards a cheek. Oops, yeah, I really have been reading too much Wonkette.
And George Galloway is "a nasty piece of work" (from my friend in England).
I don't know anything about him. But what Baer cited as evidence isn't enough to convince me that he's a "nasty piece of work".
Do you have anything beyond "my fried told me"?
Who is jumping on his boat? It's just that this community has seen enough smear campaigns to know to be skeptical when someone is labeled as a Saddam lover.
Well, the speech I went to in '01, where I met him..., let's just say that I'm not surprised he might be considered pro-Saddam.
By the logic of some commentators here, both Dan Rather and Donald Rumsfeld are "pro-Saddam" as well. I mean, when Rather interviewed him for the last time, he totally failed to leap across the room and stab him in the face. And we all know about the Rumsfeld-Hussain "here, have some weapons and satellite technology and noxious chemicals" handshake, now don't we???
Jumping on his boat does not help the reputation of the community here.
K
"Reputation" with whom. Why don't you be specific about whose ass I should be kissing?
Because I don't think you speak for "the American people". If you do, of course, I apologize.
and Ross Perot, he's "pro-Saddam" as well, since he made the point while running against Bush Sr. that Bush Sr.'s ambassador to Iraq had personally told Hussain face to face that the US had "no official position regarding your border dispute with Kuwait"...meaning 'green light to invade' in general diplomat-speak...Damn that Ross Perot!! He's dragging the whole left wing down with him!
Well, of course, Rummy was indeed pro-Saddam at one point! and it wouldn't surprise me if Galloway is no longer--if he was at all.
Isn't the Republican party objectively pro Al Qaeda?
So, too, in Afghanistan, the freedom fighters are the key to peace. We support the Mujahadeen.
Ronald Reagan
Damn that Ross Perot!! He's dragging the whole left wing down with him!
hahahahahaha! "Hear that giant sucking sound?" 
It is really obvious reading all these posts why the Denocrats can't seem to win any elections....we eat our own. We should engage people in our party who have different ideas and not demonize them. Intolerance is obviously not the province of the right wing alone.
SWR- a sentence later in Raygun's bloviating, there is this
Yes, everywhere we see a swelling freedom tide across the world -yep freedom is on the march. Of course neither Raygun or Horsewanker mention that the march is a form of musical chairs.
It is really obvious reading all these posts why the Denocrats can't seem to win any elections
Since Dave's not here I'll do the honors.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........
We support the Mujahadeen.
Ronald Reagan
That was the problem with Baer. he completely missed a chance to say, about Galloway, that this man may have been pro-Saddam at one point, may still be pro-Saddam, or maybe never was at all. I found the man to be a little much, but his speech in '01 was about doing something to ease the sanctions on Iraq because it was getting more than a little disgusting how many people were dying. If that's pro-Saddam, then I would suspect a whole lot of us would qualify as pro-Saddam. But the fact is, none of us that I know of, actually have any love for the man.
Galloway is out there, but I think his reelection is a pretty stunning example of how seriously the rest of the world takes the war.
Smarmy one, ain't he?
Thanks for taking the piss outta this Blair Snitch Project, Atrios. As one of the few whose politics actually pretty much line up with dreaded 'Old Labour (populist/progressive industrial Midwesterner)' positions, I must say that I'm really fucking enjoying the New Dems' current Winter of Discontent.
-yep freedom is on the march. Of course neither Raygun or Horsewanker mention that the march is a form of musical chairs.
or that it's been on the march for so long, it's gone around the world and is right back where it started.
No, he's doomed, since no one will be hiring him in the future.
We, we'll be OK.
If that's pro-Saddam, then I would suspect a whole lot of us would qualify as pro-Saddam.
The line about Galloway's town developing relations with Nablus is pretty revealing. I've never been especially pro-Palestinian, and, as an atheist, I'm no fan of Islam.
But do not demand that I demonize a whole people and a whole religion. If you do, I'm very likely to to you to go fuck off.
And in a lot of peoples' minds, that would make me "objectively on the other side".
This has nothing to do with being centrist vs. liberal.
It's about being a neutered fu$kwit or an effective advocate for sane public policy. I'm a centrist and a fighter.
Howard Dean is a centrist, and he always has been. He's also the only person to have made a high profile and sustained case against the radical policies of George W. And who broke Howard? Yes, the Democratic fu$kwits in DC, John Kerry chief amoung them.
Get over yourselves. You were wrong about the war in Iraq. And you get rolled by the idiot from Texas every other day. So what the fu$k does that make you? Yes, that's right: Bigger fu$king idiots than W.
The line about Galloway's town developing relations with Nablus is pretty revealing. I've never been especially pro-Palestinian, and, as an atheist, I'm no fan of Islam.
But do not demand that I demonize a whole people and a whole religion. If you do, I'm very likely to to you to go fuck off.
And in a lot of peoples' minds, that would make me "objectively on the other side".
That was one of the things I was most struck by when I lived in London. THe vast majority of Europeans actually like the Palestinians more than the Israelis. I don't know if it was latent anti-semitism, or disgust that the oppressed had become the oppressors, or what, but truth was that the Palestinians had whole lot more sympathy from the average European than I was used to. So making Nablus a sister city of Dundee is not so out there for the British! Which is why Baer clearly has his head well up in his ass, and needed to find something better to discuss than Galloway, who is a rather vocal minority over there.
deacon: too true, too true. i always laughed at reports that Dean was a leftist; he's just a vocal centrist who happened to think that going to war was not in our best interests. (as an aside, i wonder if he tried to poohpooh the reports about him being a leftist and if so, whether the press reported on that...) these New Dems are too far right for their own good and they will keep getting rolled.
That was one of the things I was most struck by when I lived in London. THe vast majority of Europeans actually like the Palestinians more than the Israelis.
I only know two Israelis and one (well 1.5) Palestinians anyway. How could I possibly judge either.
But I simply don't see the problem with a city in Scotland developing ties to a Palestinian city. My problem with Baer is that he thinks it should be self-evident that I do.
Sorry. Do not tell me who to hate. I'll figure that out on my own.
I thought Baer was going to have a stroke when he wrote about Galloway. I have to say, it made me think that the English political system is far more vibrant than ours -- a guy like Galloway would have no chance of even winning a small local election in the US.
K,
I think you don't quite get why people are pissed off. I think most of us can exist with disagreement and we can all live with a certain amount of compromise -- but then there are things that one HAS to believe if there is to be a Democratic Party. 1 is Social Security and he's so fucking glib, that he couldn't possibly communicate why it's a good program and why Bush is trying to destroy it. All of which would STILL be fine, if he wasn't a campaign consultant for Democrats.
Second is their kneejerk reaction to people who actually have a point of view. God help me but they're -- they being the DC democratic establishment -- absolutely fucking terrified of it. MoveOn? Is that a joke? MoveOn is by now a proven cash cow for progressives. All I can imagine is that hacks like Baer are just scared shitless than a virtual entity can do a better job than he can. It's also why he, and his ilk, are so dismissive of Dean -- who by ALL accounts is a centrist guy -- because, for whatever reason, they want to muddle his message and blunt his impact.
God help us if because of spineless losers like Baer (and if he was one of Gore's guys, we can see why he folded in Florida), we have to continue to put up with this kind of feckless to hostile government we have now.
They have no guts and no vision -- regardless of whether or not I agree with his whole slate of issues --- and that's why we're so hostile toward them. They're clueless, they've ruined the Democratic Party and they discredit liberalism whenever they get the chance. Fuck them.
Sounds like Galloway and King don't really hate each other too much. And of course a Galloway is exactly what the Dems are lacking.
We could line up behind Kucinich and support his run for the presidency but I don't know if he's got the right qualities for the job.
I would like to see his position get more representation though. I think his leftist politics probably represent more people than he got votes in 2004.
FWIW, I really don't care who the "leader" is as long as he/she takes the rank and files opinions into account. If it's Clark or Dean or Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid, I'm fine with it. But after seeing Kerry not fight back against the Swift Boat campaign, something deep inside me distrusts him, as if he has no sense of honor or ability to be pissed off.
SWR
I don't mean as a president. But a real firebrand with wits mouthing off in the senate or house would be a big net benefit.
Similar to how Lieberman is hopefully par-broiling as we speak, the dems gotta get all the burners fired up in the kitchen. The American people deserve nothing less than a feast.
The problem I'm having is that there is a prevailing thought in many blogs that the Democrats have to be far left... or centrist... or whatever. The Republicans have a singular view, and anything/anyone that is not within the party-line is rejected -- it just happens that they are on the right.
I became a Democrat in the early 90's because I felt it was a party that was open to ALL ideas. The focus seemed to be "what was the BEST idea" not "what is the most liberal idea".... I really don't care where the "center line" is drawn, because I don't think there should be lines at all. So even if someone is conservative and a Democrat, they should be welcomed and engaged -- the only prerequisite is that they be open to ALL ideas as well.
I really don't care where the "center line" is drawn, because I don't think there should be lines at all.
Obviously there are some places where a political party can have disagreement (tolls on the New Jersey Turnpike, for example. Property taxes. Energy policy) and places where you have to have some core principles.
Right now, I consider supporting gay rights a core principle. Some people consider opposing it a core principle.
How can we be in the same party?
Josh is right up there with John Conyers on the credibility scale.
Elaine -- Thanks for the link to the blog, which I enjoyed immensely. I'll be passing the link along to my buddy who lives just on the other side of the river in Birkenhead, and who could very well have written those same blog entries, from a political point of view. (I hope that maybe, since they seem to be so politically compatible and so on, that they could get together for tea in Liverpool or something -- my friend needs to get out more! Social engineering is a wonderful thing...)
FWIW, interrobang, that just happens to be my favorite punctuation mark.
"THe vast majority of Europeans actually like the Palestinians more than the Israelis. I don't know if it was latent anti-semitism, or disgust that the oppressed had become the oppressors, or what,"
I'm surprised anyone would find that surprising, though I'd suggest that it isn't Israelis per se but rather their govt that is less popular that the Palestinian Authority. (Most Israelis in fact tend to take a more sympathetic approach to the Palestinians than the average America) . I don't think you need to stretch to proposing anti-Semitism as an explanation for that. And I hope you noted the clear distinction between Europeans supporting suicide bombings and their supporting basic human rights. Snarling LGF-style pro-Israeli bigotry is certainly less rampant in Europe than it is in the US, and LGF regulars of course consider that prima facie evidence of "Eurabia"'s anti-Semitism.
On a side note: where I used to live in Belfast some Nationalist areas used to fly PLO flags, while some Unionist areas flew Israeli flags. (And that didn't have anything to do with anti-semitism either)
For those missing the point on the George Galloway issue, I don't think anyone here is trying to say criticism of Galloway's conduct is impermissible. Merely that the terms in Baer's criticism was couched was beyond the pale and well into LGF style commentary. If that's the kind of thing you want in a "broad church" Democratic party then I (and a lot of other liberals) might find the church is not quite broad enough to include us.
They're still trying to run the show, too.
On a side note: where I used to live in Belfast some Nationalist areas used to fly PLO flags, while some Unionist areas flew Israeli flags.
?????
I know Ian Paisely has ties to the Christian right in the US. Do the loyalists in Ireland share the same pro-Israel views that American evangelicals do?
BrianOC: yeah, i meant to come back and clarify my point re the Palestinians. I tend to suspect that the sympathy for the Palestinians tends to come from sadness at seeing the oppressed become the oppressor. and you are right to say that Europeans like most Israelis just fine, it's just the government they aren't thrilled with, just like they feel great pity for the living conditions of the Palestinians while not condoning suicide bombers. one thing about the Europeans, they are able to hold many ideas in their head at once, and it is so refreshing to be around that!
the reason i was surprised is that i grew up in Houston, which is pretty pro-Israel, so unless you experience something else, you tend to suspect that's just how all people see it. that's why i wish i could travel more. its so important.
But thanks for reminding me that i needed to come back and clarify.
George Galloway, Eschaton favorite and all around swell guy....
Thanks folks for reminding me that criticizing Galloway is the same as LGF-style race baiting. Go go party of nuance!
Yeah, I haven't read TPM for the last week since it has been so boring and inane.
I don't think the centrist Democrat's really have a grasp on the political reality in America today. They do seem like the Cult with No Name in their blind devotion to the Old Ones.
"It was small--maybe one-fourth the size of a regular bumpersticker, black and white, entered on the trunk of a new Honda Civic. It simply said, "Fuck the Republicans."
Understated. Elegant. To the point."
If that doesn't elect more liberals, it's hard to know what will. Brilliant.
Y'know, r@d@r's goggle-eyed handle does kind of have that "Innsmouth Look"...
Thanks folks for reminding me that criticizing Galloway is the same as LGF-style race baiting. Go go party of nuance!
Why don't you try the party of reading-what-people-actually-wrote?
How 'gorgeous george' deals with real Iraqis....
Its no surprise to see George Galloway admired on this website. Unbelievable.
Why don't you try the party of reading-what-people-actually-wrote?
WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY WROTE:
"Merely that the terms in Baer's criticism was couched was beyond the pale and well into LGF style commentary"
Hmm gee, idiot, I read that Baer piece and nothing in it sounds like LGF-style commentary to me. Mind telling me what you think does please?
Thanks Poppy for clarifying that. I take your point.
SWR:
I know Ian Paisely has ties to the Christian right in the US. Do the loyalists in Ireland share the same pro-Israel views that American evangelicals do?
Not as far as I know. It doesn't have anything to do with religion per se. It has do do with differing attitudes on colonialism/resistance/terrorism.
Basically the Nationalists feel some kinship with the Palestinian's belief that their land is being illegally occupied and colonised by better-armed foreign invaders.
While unionists feel more kinship with the Israelis' belief that they have a legitimate right to be there and to claim the place as their home, while being constantly assailed by indiscriminate terrorism.
Of course the parallels are rather strained on either side - no modern Nationalist community has ever been so harshly occupied as some Palestinian communities by the military, and no unionist community has ever suffered the same intense and ongoing ferocity of terrorism that the Israelis have to deal with.
But we Northern Irish have a proud history of pretending we've had it worse than anyone else, anywhere else, ever
Brian OC, I'm giving you an opportunity to clarify your completely idiotic comment cited above, comparing Baer's condemnation of the loathsome George Galloway to LGF-style commentary. Let's have it, please, fool.
Further (less significant) evidence of Kenny B's toolishness: He's just been entrusted by JMM with one of the biggest political-opinion platforms on the internet, and he can't even be bothered to take the gig seriously. He's added almost nothing of substance (and a lot of self-regarding crap), summarized press reports we already know, and asserted his expertise on British politics based on what his British friends tell him, and now (as we learn in his latest non-post) he's mostly blowing it off in order to travel "to the family homestead in South Jersey" (as a Jersey boy, I am saddened to share a homestate with this bonehead). And his last post is basically a reader-survey question in the service of either cocktail-party conversation or his own business interests (which also includes the nonsensical option, "If you have read a long magazine article do you prefer to read it... not at all?" I pity the Dem candidates this Einstein is advising). Really crass.
I obviously won't be crying at the absence of further posts from the estimable Kenny, but you'd think he would feel a little more obligation to his good buddy Josh not treat his website with such casual, self-serving contempt.
Sorry to still be ranting. This Baer dude has just really got me all het up...
Got oil?
-
Self-hating Kurd tells gorgeous George where to stick it....
I just spent a half hour writing emails to kenny, and deleting them.
Putting this asshole in charge of his blog raises a lot of questions on Josh's ability to judge character...
"As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman says, Tony Blair is a man of principle. So was the Ayatolla Khomeini. Both were willing to have others pay any price for their beliefs. "
Some commentary from our man in England, Greg Palast
http://www.gregpalast.com/
blair_...blair_card.html
'Why don't you take some more drugs, druggie?'
Atrios,
You prove to be a continual disappointment to me. In an America where liberals are AT MOST twenty percent of the population, I think it's delusional of you to insist that the rest of the country be anything other than what it always has been.
If you really want to promote change, and progressive change at that, I think you should spend your time finding issues that the rest of the country is willing to move on, instead of wasting your time bitching about the fact that the world is not the way you want it to be.
weltschmerz:
Hmm gee, idiot, I read that Baer piece and nothing in it sounds like LGF-style commentary to me. Mind telling me what you think does please?
My obscure reference to "reading what people actually wrote" seems to continue to elude you.
What I actually wrote was:
Perhaps the part of Baer's screed that bugged me the most was referring to Galloway as "Islamist" - used pretty much exactly the way an LGF regular would refer to anyone familiar with the middle-east but unlikely to use the word "Raghead" or "Haji" to describe it's inhabitants.
And if you did actually read this:
I don't think anyone here is trying to say criticism of Galloway's conduct is impermissible. Merely that the terms in Baer's criticism was couched was beyond the pale and well into LGF style commentary.
... and thought that said
"criticizing Galloway is the same as LGF-style race baiting."
... it is not news in that slightest that you have difficulty understanding what you read.
(Just to clarify - do you consider the term "LGF style commentary" to be an insult or a compliment"?)
I just spent a half hour writing emails to kenny, and deleting them.
Sounds like time well spent. I'm thrilled to see how Eschaton-volk deal with commentary just a few degrees off message. Very Stalinoid. I hope it illustrates for Mr Marshall what kind of a crowd he hangs with.
Just to clarify - do you consider the term "LGF style commentary" to be an insult or a compliment"?
An insult, naturally. Now put up, or shut up. What resembles "LGF style commentary?" Explain yourself, imbecile.
In an America where liberals are AT MOST twenty percent of the population
Wombat: Can you back up this figure, please, or did you pull this out of your ass?
Kenny isn't a centrist...
That is unless you think the center now is firmly to the right of Bob Dole.
How 'gorgeous george' deals with real Iraqis....
Its no surprise to see George Galloway admired on this website. Unbelievable.
weltschmerz
Harry's Place, comments closed.
Might as well be, seeing as it's nothing but a pile of steaming shit thrown in the faces of over 16,000 London voters. Something like 12,000 of them swing voters.
TESTIFY! He is the absolute worst worst one sofar.
If that's the kind of thing you want in a "broad church" Democratic party then I (and a lot of other liberals) might find the church is not quite broad enough to include us.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out! See ya! Sayonara! Adios! Arrividerci!
S Ty, does that mean you approve of George's disgusting treatment of Iraqi Salam Pax? Of George's approval of suicide bombing?
>In an America where liberals are AT MOST twenty percent of the population
And 60% are apolitical.
So that makes us equal with the right wing of the nation.
People who self-identify as moderates, when questioned issue by issue, tend for the most part to be social liberals.
Atrios: wish you would have taken a minute or two to elaborate just what has pissed ya off so much.
I've noticed of late a change in tone from you. Digby and Kos regarding centrists. A few posts or two to elaborate would be appreciated.
FWIW, I'm with ya, but wondering....
"I hope JM was just trying to discredit Baer and the centrists by giving him a mega-idiot-phone."
Josh has always been this way, and I think these people count as friends..or if not friends certainly respected colleagues. Nothin new.
When Bob Dole and Donald Rumsfeld met with Hussein, were they pro-Saddam, too?
The guy just drones on and on about british politics...I mean, yeah it's important, but if I want to know that much about it, I'll just read the friggin' economist, or London Times, or Financial Times, or something else British.
Atrios: wish you would have taken a minute or two to elaborate just what has pissed ya off so much.
Hah! fat chance. Better to say "Oy" or somesuch and then let his catspaws fill in the blanks (like that LGF idiot upthread), while Atrios himself retains some measure of deniability.
There ISNT all that much to get worked up about here, and Atrios knows it or he would have spelled it out.
weltschmerz I can give you quotes. Indeed I have. But I cannot give you the ability to understand them, or the impetus to even try.
It is fine that you disagree with my opinion on Baer and his posts. I don't think you do your views any credit by the tone in which you level them.
But the fact is you asked me to illustrate what I thought was comparable to LGF and I have done at least twice. Using the term "Islamist" as he did is exactly what I said. Also calling him pro-Saddam, and pointing out his opponent's Jewish ancestry is extremely LGF-redolent.
Finally the claim at the end that Galloway's election could be to blame for an "anti-Muslim" backlash - as opposed to blaming the perpetrators of this anticipated violence is fairly despicable too. (Pondering future violence against Muslims while implicitly blaming them for it is course another fairly common LGF theme)
All my opinions of course, with which you are free to disagree - though ideally with a little more civility than you have demonstrated up to this point.
what the hell happened? Matt was there just the other day calling repubs bastards -- it was great!
S Ty, does that mean you approve of George's disgusting treatment of Iraqi Salam Pax? Of George's approval of suicide bombing?
weltschmerz
Please try cutting down on the projection by one post a day, or one post a week if that's all you can manage.
As to Galloway, I don't know much about him aside from that he was the first MP to stand up like a man and call the leader of the government of Great Britain a liar - and, as we are indisputably seeing, correct in his charge.
By all means, clue in on the rant about Salem Pax, suicide bombers and whatever else. I'd have to see the statements in their original full context to be able to draw any kind of an opinion, or a few lines in someone's blog purportedly describing a brief transitory encounter between two people crossing paths at a function.
Go check the Gallup polls where people self-identify as liberal/conservative/moderate.
It's been consistent over time (all the way back to the 1960's): liberals around 20%, conservatives around 30-35%, and moderates around 45-50%.
Now, if you think you can win elections with a base that's 2/3rds the size of the other sides by blowing off moderates with name-calling...well, good luck to you outside of Berkeley and other liberal enclaves, and get used to seeing lots of R's in national office, in the courts, and so on.
I can appreciate not simply following along to the crucifixion because one person you like calls another "pro-Saddam". But it seems to me that a lot of posters here did the corollary and decided to defend someone because one person they don't like calls that person "pro-Saddam". Equally not a good idea. Read up on Galloway and make your own decision. That is the whole point.
Further, no one "speaks for the American people" (how lame). But this board does have a reputation (and if I had posted it didn't I am sure I would have gotten flamed for that). my point is that jumping on a bandwagon with no facts is not good, and we should avoid it.
BrianOC, is it your position that calling someone an "Islamist" is itself "LGF style commentary?" Because I have to tell you that expression is used far more widely than maybe you realize. It can be found in the stylebooks of most major newspapers, including the Guardian. Or do you think the term is inapplicable in this instance? Is it your racist idea that only brown people can be Islamists?
http://www.workersliberty.org/no.../node/view/
2090
"Respect is functioning as a means to convert the socialists who provide its active forces into advocates of Islamic communalism or Islamism."
thank you all for expressing the anger and frustration I've felt reading that asshole baer's nonsense!
>It's been consistent over time (all the way back to the 1960's): liberals around 20%, conservatives around 30-35%, and moderates around 45-50%.
Yeah, but "centrist" isn't the same as "moderate" and on an issue by issue basis, self identified moderates tend to suddenly turn into liberals.
Thankfully, EC, I don't have a vote so I don't have to face the dilemma of compromising with those whose opinions I find odious.
josh is so far in the middle he can't see the left from there. i have written to him myself to say that now is not the time for half measures. this guy baer is far less than a half measure. what is wrong with the "centrist" democrats that they think the best way to battle evil is to camoflage one's self by ingratiating attackes on the left? I AM A LIBERAL AND PROUD of it. These mini men running around saying we'll never win should just go over to the other side to allow a fair distinction between us and them. Instead they are the brunt of every triangulation, the impetus to stagnation.
Also calling him pro-Saddam, and pointing out his opponent's Jewish ancestry is extremely LGF-redolent.
Pointing out Jewish heritage is LGF redolent? I'll have to remember that next time the "jewish neocon cabal" crowd chimes in on one of these threads. The anti-Muslim backlash was a paraphrase, and only a fevered nitwit could interpret it to resemble hopefulness. As for George being pro Saddam, his own words speak better than mine:
http://enjoyment.independent.co....sp?
story=520943
I fail to see why it is a victory for Labour to win back Oona King's seat by "running a male Muslim" - perhaps this was a joke I missed? kind of ironic to see this comment in with all of the others proclaiming Galloway won only for saying Blair was a liar and the Iraq war was wrong.
weltschmerz wrote, There ISNT all that much to get worked up about here, and Atrios knows it or he would have spelled it out.
For starters:
First, the UK is our strongest ally in the world -- and especially in the war in Iraq and in the war against terrorism. This election sent a very loud signal to the British leadership, across all parties, that there is very little upside in being such a staunch supporter of President Bush. I believe that Blair’s support of Bush is both in the strategic interest of his country and springs from his deeply-held beliefs about the threat jihadist Islam poses to the world (see Philip Stephens’ biography on Blair for more). Yet, with about 50 hard-core Labour rebels and a diminished majority, Blair will have to walk gingerly when it comes to foreign policy. And if, as expected, he gives way to Gordon Brown in a year or two, British support for Iraq – or similar adventures -- will not be anything close to automatic.
This is the same moronic conflation of Iraq and the war on terrorism that Bush repeatedly makes.
Antebellum, there was no meaningful connection between Saddam and the Islamacist nutjobs---in fact, clearly, they were clearly in ideological opposition.
Now, of course, post-Saddam, there's a connection between Islamic terrorism and the war in Iraq, but that's because we let the place go into a state of anarchy. (Furthermore, note that much of---indeed, perhaps the bulk of---the terrorism in Iraq isn't Islamicist/foreign Arabs, but disaffected Baathists.)
hey as a tribute to baer, let's all financially contribute to Joebob Lieberpants' opponent in what will surely be a primary contest. k?
weltschmerz:
BrianOC, is it your position that calling someone an "Islamist" is itself "LGF style commentary?"
I try to make a point of avoiding ad hominem attacks weltschmerz, but if you aren't going to read what I wrote, and at least try to understand it, what options are you leaving me?
Here's an idea: why don't you:
(a) read the posts in which I clearly state what my position is, and then
(b) engage it?
Do you think you might be able to at least make a stab at that?
Amen.
His diatribe against Galloway was pure tripe. Nothing about how Galloway is the one prominent figure who has been vindicated by his resolute stance against Iraq.
I guess it's enough just to call him "far,far,far left" as if the label disqualifies anything the man says.
I want Josh back.
Yeah, but "centrist" isn't the same as "moderate" and on an issue by issue basis, self identified moderates tend to suddenly turn into liberals.
Uh, no.
That's way wrong. I know because I'm a moderate and I shake my head at a lot of the comments here.
Too late. Must run. Seriously W - you have issues, but try to have a pleasant weekend, and come back a little bit sunnier, eh?
what is wrong with the "centrist" democrats that they think the best way to battle evil is to camoflage one's self by ingratiating attackes on the left?
Left-wing extremists are every bit as "evil" as right-wing extremists.
Using the term "Islamist" as he did
This is what you said. Whatever does it mean? Does it mean the term "Islamist" is somehow LGF-like? How? Is the Guardian "LGF-like" whenever they use the term? The New York Times? the BBC? Do explain please! You're not giving me much to go on here, bud.
Ok, run along, little BrianOC. I hope you get your head out of your hindquarters real soon.
Yeah, but "centrist" isn't the same as "moderate" and on an issue by issue basis, self identified moderates tend to suddenly turn into liberals.
Depends on the issue, "framing" (God, I hate that term now), and so on. You can turn them into conservatives, as well.
Witness my state, Washington: voted for D's for President since 1988, 24 years and counting of D governors, passed a statewide minimum wage initiative. Also has passed a number of statewide initiatives cutting taxes promoted by Republicans, rejected a statewide gay rights initiative, came THIS )( CLOSE to electing a R governor this past year, and so on. And this is one of the most secular states in the nation in terms of church attendance and so on.
Socially liberal? Maybe- but people love their tax cuts and can identify with Joe Average against "Big Government" too.
Geez, people, I had to make editorial comments but: BORING.
Yep. The Democratic party cannot succeed as Republican lite for the very reason that - unless you are living on the moon or something - you know that the republicans have moved so far right as to be courting Hitler. So Moderate becomes liberal and so on.
I will never ever vote for a Republican for anything other than the death penalty. They are completely and unabashedly UN-AMERICAN and proud of it. I wish they would all go perform an anotomical absurdity on themselves.
The centrists are only going to doom us if we can't wrest control of the party from them.
I consider myself a centrist (I didn't intend to let it happen but somehow I sagged toward the middle with age). I don't know what these clowns are, but they seem like closet Republicans to me. And Republicans are uncentered, out of orbit, fallen off the edge.
Maybe I'm just a moderate on some issues and lib on others as Vol suggests.
But I still think "centrist" is too good a word for these jerks. Howard Dean would be a freaking conservative in almost any other democracy you could name. Hell, he's a conservative here on many issues.
Wombat pulled it out of his ass.
Liberals elected Al Gore and John Kerry in two presidential elections that were stolen.
We should engage people in our party who have different ideas and not demonize them. Intolerance is obviously not the province of the right wing alone.
Which is why, of course, these centrists advised Al Gore and John Kerry to give in for the good of the country, right?
Which is why these centrists supported going to war when the entire progressive blogsphere was producing evidence that the WMD data was fradulent.
Which is why these centrists say the DINOcrats must have a plan to "deal" with Bu$hie Whoreswanker on Social Security.
The list goes on. The centrists want to can MoveOn. The centrists are talking Howard Dean into saying we should "stay the course" in Iraq now.
But it's the liberal progressives who aren't inclusive, right?
No shit, huh?
Why are we supposed to give a damn one way or the other about Geoge Galloway?
Other than his being a favored target for slander during the runup to the Iraq War, what possible interest of "ours" could he possibly be?
Antebellum, there was no meaningful connection between Saddam and the Islamacist nutjobs
Completely false! Don't you idiots read any newspapers? Or do you simply filter out the information you don't like?
HAMAS & Islamic Jihad were each lavishly funded by Hussein. They are Islamicist nutballs. On this score alone, Hussein was in violation of 687:
"Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;"
one problem we have is that the culture has embraced fascism, so that ecntrism appears to be appeasement. One can't placate fascists and expect to be considered moderate. the missile heads and the crony capitalists need to be exposed for the criminals they are. they are not just victors entitled to spoils as many self described modewrates would have you accept. wake up. stand up and be counted if you are for a genuine change. perhaps we never get there but it doesn't change what is righteous and what isn't.
But D.o'D. financed trolls are a different privately contracted critter altogether, aren't they?
Their empathy or outrage is totally meaningless 'cause its totally for hire.
What? You don't represent that? Then don't resent it.
Just sayin' as one extremist to another...
Uhh, you guys do realize that Howard Dean got slaughtered in the primaries right? Is someone like Karen Hicks someone you want heading up a grass-roots campaign in England after that performance? You don't see anything comical as seeing her described as an "ace-in-the hole"? Are you guys insane? Hell, I like Dean too. I think who's doing an awesome job as the head of the DNC. But when I start reading NY times articles about people like Bobn Shrum being hired to steer English election committees, I cringe.
And I'm not familiar with Galloway AT ALL, but if his quote about the Soviet Union is accurate, then I want nothing to do with that idiot.
Uh, no, Dean bowed out 'cause the media were giving him total hell for suggesting their deregulation wasn't in America's interest, and because Joe Trippi ran through his campaign money.
Centrists again...
Fine--Baer's attack went too far. The fact that Galloway opposed the war doesn't make him someone you want to carry water for. Pat Robertson is against the war--does that make him heroic? Why the outrage?
Anyone who can refute Galloway;s"I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life" quote should do so. Was that taken out of context? Otherwise, the time and effort spent on this thread defending this dubious man is just a refexive distrust of all things centrist. Even worse are the rather thoughtless attacks on TPM. Josh Marhsall has been a crucial supporter of Social Security--instrumental, in fact, and probably more important than any other blogger in defending a key principle for liberals and centrists alike. To attack him for one guest blog, to suggest boycotting his ads, or even that Galloway should sue him for libel (shades of Luskin?) is the worst sort of narrow-minded stupidity.
I enjoy the diversity of views on Democratic blogs, from Atrios all the way to Bull Moose. This thread is one of the few instances where I've been embarrassed by the posts of people on my side of the aisle. Note: it isn't Bernstein leveling the circular firing squad here, it's the posters who are under the delusion that this sort of invective (a different thing from "fighting" or "not fighting," a critique readily leveled against centrists or moderates in circumstances like the bankruptcy bill) does anything to advance our cause.
>I know because I'm a moderate and I shake my head at a lot of the comments here.
Well, I hate to break it to you, Vol, but you don't speak for all American "moderates." As a matter of fact, if you are like any "moderate" I have ever met on line, you don't speak for all Democratic Party conservatives.
If you don't believe me, go to any polling organization and read the list of questions on one if these mega polls, and see the results...
Americans are much more liberal than DLC Democrats. They only identify themselves as moderates because they are afraid to appear outside the mainstream. This is what is known as "the socially acceptable response."
Online "moderates" tend to be much more conservative than average Americans who are not politically active, but when polled....and answer on an issue by issue basis tend to come out on the liberal side.
... but no, the poodles didn't directly bark at him on that issue, they barked at him for having a funny yell of defiance.
Sorry W. My have fulfilled my troll-feeding quota for this week
Karen Hicks ran Dean's NH campaign and did a great job considering the disaster which happened the week before under the leadership of Jeanie whatever her name was in Iowa.
Karen Hicks became John Kerry's field director, but was given little support or money by the top heavy Kerry clueless assholes running that campaign.
Amen go vols - what I was trying to say.
"It's been consistent over time (all the way back to the 1960's): liberals around 20%, conservatives around 30-35%, and moderates around 45-50%.
Now, if you think you can win elections with a base that's 2/3rds the size of the other sides by blowing off moderates with name-calling...well, good luck to you outside of Berkeley and other liberal enclaves, and get used to seeing lots of R's in national office, in the courts, and so on.
eponymous coward"
EC: this is the entire rationale for any sort of 'centrist' belief...ie that the votes simply do not exist to run a campaign catering to 'the base' of the party. In fact, right up until the day of Kerry's defeat, the DLC centrists were proclaiming Bush would lose with his polarizing, hard right, base-centric strategy.
And Dems took that centrist strategy to heart while the goopers engaged in the most viscious, partisan campiagn I've ever witnessed. In fact, they've promoted that belief for at least a decade and we've watched the party lose ground in the meantime.
In fact, the DLC Centrist types think there are more votes to be gained by actively being disrespectful to anyone to the left of them. Besides the fact that this least election once and for all repudiating their idea that a national campaign can ONLY be won from the center, what does this mean for our 'base'?
What it means is that for anyone willing to extend themselves on behalf of the party(finacially, by walking precincts or working phone banks, etc)is an 'activist' and is therefor far to the left of the electorate as a whole. Further, this constituency is not to be tolerated but instead actively mocked and derided.
All I can say to centrists is this: it's a two way street, assholes. You can lose my money and efforts if you wanna bash my well-meaning and legitimate claim to a place in the party. Fine. But good fucking luck trying to make up for that by trying to attract an anemic, unfocused and fickle 'center'. Centrists also don't have enough votes to get over the top and this should bother anyone who is truely concerned about the excesses of the gop. But many centrists I read really don't seem all that alarmed....
Completely false! Don't you idiots read any newspapers? Or do you simply filter out the information you don't like?
HAMAS & Islamic Jihad were each lavishly funded by Hussein. They are Islamicist nutballs.
... and both are totally unrelated to the bin Ladens, a Saudi family whose members at various times trained with and worked for the CIA, who were and are business partners of the Bu$h family, and who are major shareholders in General Electric- who happen to be making tidy sums off of contracting to the Pentagon for Iraq and selling nuclear technology to third world countries and China.
Hamas had nothing to do with the War on Terra until Bu$hie decided it was a better target than the real perpetrators...
Bush planned to invade Iraq before 9/11....
and terrorism had nothing to do with it.
For that matter, Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terra until Bu$hie decided it was a better target than the real perpetrators...
And the only Al Qaeda cells in Iraq while Saddam controlled it were located in a region controlled by the Americans in the northern no-fly zone.
I have a problem with any person calling themselves a Democrat who uses the phrase "war on terror."
weltschmerz wrote, "Antebellum, there was no meaningful connection between Saddam and the Islamacist nutjobs"
Completely false! Don't you idiots read any newspapers? Or do you simply filter out the information you don't like?
HAMAS & Islamic Jihad were each lavishly funded by Hussein.
Not in the bin Laden sense, as kelley b. pointed out.
I was referring to Islamicist nutjobs a la bin Laden.
I have a problem with Democrats who haven't noticed that running from the middle has resulted in the disaster we are now in...
and think that 14 years of failure should be rewarded.
And that by insulting the rank and file of the Party they are going to continue get the free labor Democrats have come to rely on in election time.
I have a problem with any person calling themselves a Democrat who uses the phrase "war on terror."
How about "The war on terror that has been conveniently moved to a nation with lots of oil."
liberal, nowhere does that Baer piece mention anything about Binladen. It refers to " jihadist Islam" and in that regard it is completely accurate, as HAMAS (which received millions from Hussein) is certainly involved in jihadist Islam.
Some one get the troll spray.
bin Laden has America exactly where he wants it.
If you're too much a centrist to think that, you haven't been paying attention.
Or maybe you get paid to post otherwise.
weltschmerz wrote, Completely false! Don't you idiots read any newspapers? Or do you simply filter out the information you don't like?
HAMAS & Islamic Jihad were each lavishly funded by Hussein. They are Islamicist nutballs.
Another point besides these groups not being al Qaeda is that, while these groups are both (a) Islamic, (b) terror groups, you have to ask about their objectives and political origins before you can reference them in this context.
Here's a standard description of Hamas, from the US Dept of State, excerpted on a USN website. It's clear from the excerpt that Hamas' objectives are concerned with the Palestinian dispute with Israel, not the more general objectives of Al Qaeda. Furthermore, Hamas targets Israel, not e.g. the US.
weltschmerz wrote, liberal, nowhere does that Baer piece mention anything about Binladen. It refers to " jihadist Islam" and in that regard it is completely accurate, as HAMAS (which received millions from Hussein) is certainly involved in jihadist Islam.
Nonsense. Hamas is involved in the Palestinian fight against Israel. You can call that a "Jihad" if you want to, but then you could call any Islamic movement with strong political or quasi-military goals a "Jihad".
kelley b, thanks for the conspiracy rant. The interesting thing about rich people or big companies is that you dont have to go very far to see where their interests or agents have coincided in the past. It's a fun game, but its ultimately pretty stupid and proves nothing. Sure, halliburton makes money if we go to war, but other companies lose money. Believe it or not, there were US and european oil companies eager to do business with Hussein (and a few that did right up to the day of invasion.) IN all likelihood, more western financial interests were served by keeping Hussein in charge than by getting rid of him, as your own illustration suggests!
Another point is that, IIRC, it's come out after the Iraq invasion that Hussein thought (post Gulf War I) he could continue to present himself as a kind of Saladin-esque bulwark against Iran.
weltschmerz wrote, IN all likelihood, more western financial interests were served by keeping Hussein in charge than by getting rid of him, as your own illustration suggests!
Well, there's always the neocon-Likud connection...
"And that by insulting the rank and file of the Party they are going to continue get the free labor Democrats have come to rely on in election time."
Nancy: I'm well-aware thru TT of your many, many efforts over the years trying to get Dems elected. So maybe you find this crap about bashing anyone to the left of the dlc centrist position du jour as insulting as I do.
I'm still trying to catch up financially from the last election. Yet I see 'centrists' whose votes are bought by the likes of mbna for as little as $1,000. I'm wondering more and more, wtf am I getting besides my face slapped? Where's my fucking lobbyist? Who's doing anything while thinking of people like me?
liberal, Are you claiming HAMAS is not a terrorist organization? You're in a very small minority there.
BTW, there appear to be more than one group referred to as "Islamic Jihad".
http://haganah.org.il/harchives/...ves/
003976.html
{I know, it's written by JOOOZ so it's suspect. }
>So maybe you find this crap about bashing anyone to the left of the dlc centrist position du jour as insulting as I do.
Especially when these big mouths have never lifted a finger or a phone to get any Democrat elected..
Forget about walking a precinct.
These people think it is a big deal if they vote.
Forget about actually writing a check. And when I think about the money I gave to Centrist Democrats in the last election cycle, and I know from looking at Open Secrets that that money comes from liberals, I get mighty discouraged at the cluenessness of the 101 Flying Keyboard Political Action Committees.
Okay...now Likud equals Jews.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Americans are much more liberal than DLC Democrats. They only identify themselves as moderates because they are afraid to appear outside the mainstream. This is what is known as "the socially acceptable response."
Which explains President George McGovern, President Jesse Jackson, President Jerry Brown and President Dennis Kucinich exactly how? Or do "socially acceptable responses" also apply to the privacy of the voting booth?
In fact, the DLC Centrist types think there are more votes to be gained by actively being disrespectful to anyone to the left of them. Besides the fact that this least election once and for all repudiating their idea that a national campaign can ONLY be won from the center
Name a Democrat who's won a nationwide election campaigning as an unreconstructed liberal since the 1960's. Let's look at 20th century Democrat presidents:
Wilson: "progressive"... but more than willing to lie in bed with with Southern Dixiecrat racists.
FDR: given
Truman: also given- but he was more of a Western independent/progressive, and had his conservative moments too
Kennedy: Missile gap? Tax cuts? Definitely centrist.
LBJ: Given...but note he "lost the South for a generation" on civil rights. And was a warmonger well beyond what Bush has done so far.
Carter: centrist
Clinton: centrist
Compare with the "liberals" like McGovern, Humphrey and Mondale. Gore and Kerry have pretty liberal records as senators, too, while we're at it.
I'm going to argue that liberals don't have the luxury of numbers being on their side on any issue where we are against conservatives. Until such time as liberals aren't outnumbered by conservatives 3-2, we will be having to rely on moderates if we want a meaningful role in US federal government.
That being said, there's a difference between "I don't agree with your ideas on issue X, but we can work something out because there are bigger issues at stake, and this is a national party" and "Liberals/DLC'ers SUXX0R!!111".
Sure, halliburton makes money if we go to war, but other companies lose money.
Sure, but Halliburton's bosses run the government, and that's what the problem is.
In case you haven't noticed.
Also, somebody killed 3000 people, did a billion dollars of property damaged, and stampeded the nation into the greatest rip-off of civil liberties since the slave states were established.
I'd say pointing out the connections was not stupid at all, and was the duty of someone willing to risk the ire of the centrists and the trolls.
Oh yeah, and risking the ire of the apologists making something like half a trillion dollars because of those connections.
Thanks! I thought it was just me...
weltschmerz wrote, liberal, Are you claiming HAMAS is not a terrorist organization? You're in a very small minority there.
My post at 05.06.05 - 5:51 pm:
"Another point besides these groups not being al Qaeda is that, while these groups are both (a) Islamic, (b) terror groups..."
Clearly, my point was that Hamas' main concern is their struggle against Israel. They might have some informal ties to bin Laden et al., but they're not a threat to the US. From that USN page I mentioned above: "HAMAS has not yet directly targeted US interests, although the group makes little or no effort to avoid targets frequented by foreigners. HAMAS continues to confine its attacks to Israel and the territories."
Does that mean I think it's OK for Hamas to conduct terrorist attacks? No. On the other hand, does that mean I think we should confuse Hamas with Al Qaeda, or Saddam, or whoever Bush/Blair/etc are trying to mix together? No.
You see, the world is actually a pretty subtle place...
Nancy Richardson wrote, Okay...now Likud equals Jews. Thanks for clearing that up.
Who said Likud = Jews?
i feel the plates shiftin.
kelley b, dick cheney stands to gain very little from halliburton, nd if you think we went to war so he could enrich his cronies, you still have to explain why a lot of other people (myself included) understood the non-halliburton reasons for unseating hussein, and I'm not on Halliburtons payroll and neither is Tony Blair or a raft of other left wing supporters of the war. That is a clinically pure ad hominem fallacy.
Hear, hear!
And what a contrast: Yglesias, supersmart - and this facile, fatuous Baer dude.
Mossad and Likud= all jews according to weltschmerz- who is probably a TheoCon himself.
Somehow I can't make that generalization.
And I can't see how bringing an apocalyptic global war to center on Jerusalem is really in the interest of the long term survival of Israel.
Funny how the neocons and the theocons never address that point...
And Wolfowitz is still dating that Saudi at the World Bank too, isn't he?
>Who said Likud = Jews?
weltschmerz implied as much.
And of course, Israel isn't the third rail of American politics for nothing.
Nancy, Likud is the new code word for people who use the term "Zionist" as a pejorative, even though Zionism refers merely to jewish nationalism. (also, lots of the Zion bashers probably dont realize that herzl the author of the movement was a completely secular jew.)
weltschmerz implied as much.
Nice projection. Until the last post, I hadnt mentioned Likud once.
eponymous coward wrote, That being said, there's a difference between "I don't agree with your ideas on issue X, but we can work something out because there are bigger issues at stake, and this is a national party" and "Liberals/DLC'ers SUXX0R!!111".
Depends on the issue and the ideas.
Take abortion. The Dems will almost certainly pick Casey in the upcoming PA senate primary. Henry Reid is anti-abortion and also the US Senate minority leader. While I'm pro-choice, I think this is reasonable given the current state of play.
On the other hand, if someone in 2005 is still stupid enough to agree with Bush's despicable conflation of Saddam and Al Qaeda, is unchastened by the failure to find WMDs in Iraq, and is too stupid to realize that the invasion of Iraq and the way the occupation has been conducted could destabilize the entire region, etc, etc, etc, then no, I don't have any use for them.
>Likud is the new code word for people who use the term "Zionist" as a pejorative
Only to people invested in making sure that Israel turns its back on its socialist roots...
Mossad and Likud= all jews according to weltschmerz
huh? My comment was intended to pre-empt any charges of "all dot-il links are suspect." Oh well. Internet haganah is not affiliated with Likud, but again, nice projection.
weltschmerz wrote, Nancy, Likud is the new code word for people who use the term "Zionist" as a pejorative, even though Zionism refers merely to jewish nationalism.
I was the one who used it. I used it to mean "the Likud party of Israel; in particular, the leaders and operatives of said party."
Oh, what the hey, I'll sum up this way...
Some of our DLC'ers and liberals need to be less like Joe Lieberman, spending time saying "My fellow Deomcrats are wrong by...", and more like Ben Nelson- who may not be orthodox, but sure as hell does not go out of his way to slam wings of the party.
>I hadnt mentioned Likud once.
What part of implied don't you understand. Your position is pretty transparent.
When are you going to accuse people who opposed Iraq of being anti-semites. We have come to the time in this discussion when that usually happens.
"Name a Democrat who's won a nationwide election campaigning as an unreconstructed liberal since the 1960's."
Which is exactly the problem with the DLC and their ilk. Every inch given toward the right, a mile is taken. If you want to a party of the "left" that equivocates wars of aggression and torture regimes then by all means start your own. If being a Democrat must mean, as you DLC Republican poodles seem to insist, excusing these policies in the name of some mythical mechanism of building power by giving it away, I'll pass thank you very much.
It couldn't be more black-and-white: no to wars of aggression, no to torture. Iraq has given us both and DLCers want to continue to make excuses and equivocate with every opportunity. If you want to support these policies then there is already a party for you to join: the Republicans (and while you're at it, put your money where your mouths are and enlist!).
kelley b, dick cheney stands to gain very little from halliburton, nd if you think we went to war so he could enrich his cronies, you still have to explain why a lot of other people (myself included) understood the non-halliburton reasons for unseating hussein, and I'm not on Halliburtons payroll and neither is Tony Blair or a raft of other left wing supporters of the war. That is a clinically pure ad hominem fallacy.
Boy, you really haven't been paying attention, have you?
A report by the Congressional Research Service undermines Vice President Dick Cheney's denial of a continuing relationship with Halliburton Co., the energy company he once led, Sen. Frank Lautenberg said Thursday.
The report says a public official's unexercised stock options and deferred salary fall within the definition of "retained ties" to his former company.
At a minimum.
And then let's start talking about all the Carlyle Group affiliated contractors in Iraq.
And all the money that's "disappeared".
So you're either uninformed or seeking to actively disinform people here, weltschmerz.
Good night, and see you later, Atriots!
Only to people invested in making sure that Israel turns its back on its socialist roots.
Not sure what you mean there Nancy. Nowadays people wanting to criticise "Israel" -- the very idea of Israel -- use the term "Likud" or Likudnik to mask their Zion hatred. Do you disagree? I cant count the number of times Ive heard the expression 'likudnik' misapplied to some Israeli centrist or even leftist.
(another interesting fact is that the most religious Israelis are the LEAST likely to be Zionists in any sense.)
kelley b , George Soros is Carlyle affiliated, and he emplys our host here. So tread carefully.
kelley, I know all about Cheney and his Halliburton ties, its all pretty public. I disagree with the conclusions of that report. Cheneys retained ties are limited to credit exposure not to stock price or earnings in any meaningful sense. I'm not sure you want me to go into the various left wing luminaries (including Soros) with Carlyle ties. More Michael Moore style dimwitted ad hominems. Even if you're right, youre wrong -- I don't own Halliburton shares, nor am I on the board of the Carlyle group, and youre having this argument with me, not with anyone like that.
Do you disagree?
Of course I do. And so does the Labor Party in Israel.
You are aware that Likud is a political party? Right?
And rejecting the policies of Likud is hardly the same as being an antisemite, unless you are talking to someone highly invested promulgating Likud policies, which many, many Jews reject...
I don't read blogs run by sellouts like JM. This is why.
When are you going to accuse people who opposed Iraq of being anti-semites?
Nancy, if the jackboot don't fit you dont have to wear it. I'm glad my internet haganah link has been received so fairly, although Im still unclear whether the group position is that they are a likud front group or some arm of Mossad.
Nancy, a more interesting question for you is: why do you tolerate the use of "Zionist" as a pejorative term?
You are aware that Likud is a political party? Right?
I certainly am aware, although many HERE seem not to be, or choose to conflate any "militant" Israeli posture with Likudism, or term any Israeli they dont like a Likudnik. Im sure you know better so Im not talking bout you of course.
"Compare with the "liberals" like McGovern, Humphrey and Mondale. Gore and Kerry have pretty liberal records as senators, too, while we're at it."
You mentioned Carter...who got clobbered by Reagan, but no matter. But it's intellectually infantile to analyze any presidential race, look at who lost on our side and then say, 'aha! the guys that lost were very liberal' and then equte their 'liberal-ness' as a sole or major contributing cause to their defeat. While that might be a convenient way to look at things in light of their agenda, it is horseshit.
Which is exactly what the DLC did during their founding....ie came to the conclusion that Liberals were the cause of Presidential defeats. Which was total horseshit.
Using their own logic, the dems would automatically win IF we had a process set up that would inevitably choose the most Conservative member in the party. Taken for this last election, if we woulda all been smart enough to run Zell Miller we'd be in the WH today, right?
>why do you tolerate the use of "Zionist" as a pejorative term?
I don't.
When did you stop beating your wife?
>Which is exactly what the DLC did during their founding....ie came to the conclusion that Liberals were the cause of Presidential defeats. Which was total horseshit.
A lot of people are very confused about why people lose elections....they think they lose on issues, and think that by taking "reasoned positions" they can innoculate people against attacks.
Clinton didn't win because he was a moderate, he won because he was a gifted politician.
DLCers think that finessing issues can make them winners....but they still don't understand that incompetent campaigns tend to lose.
When did you stop beating your wife?
If and when I DO stop, it'll be because she learned to KEEP HER MOUTH SHUT for once!
I don't.
I look forward to watching you bust on your fellow Atriots next time one of them uses the term 'Zionist' to mean something bad, which shouldnt take too long. Hands up: who hates 'Zionists'? SWR? you out there bud?
You havent explined what an Internet Haganah link has to do with Likud, much less my own politics!
Skipping down here..I'd just like to say..I know I would appreciate it the criticisms would be specific.
What's the problem with Marshall's sub?
Whatever does it mean? Does it mean the term "Islamist" is somehow LGF-like? How? Is the Guardian "LGF-like" whenever they use the term? The New York Times? the BBC? Do explain please!
Brian OC has left, but perhaps I can explain what he meant.
An Islamist is someone who believes that a society should be governed according to the priciples of Islam. Galloway doesn't believe this. The point of labeling him an "Islamist" in this case was simply an attempt to say that he's something bad, because Islamists are bad. It was an insult both to Islamists and to Galloway. Likewise the allusion to the sister city relationship with Nablus, as though such a thing were beyond the pale.
The only difference between that and what LGF does is volume, and you seem to be trying to turn the volume up to LGF levels. I admire Brian for not trying to match you in that respect.
"Islamist" is a code word for enemies of Israel...which basically means it was ok to overthrow Saddam because he gave money to the Palistinians....just like the Saudis...and a lot of other Arab states which we don't feel like invading right now.
I've got some very interesting Baer info to share but boy, did I have to pick my way carefully through a thread just littered with troll turds to get here.
weltschmaltz- go schlep your tired tukhes off and take a shluffy, or whatever it is you LGF types do in between marathon clown porn masturbation sessions.
Fellow Atriots and Eschatonians: A Distinction with a difference.
An Islamist is a Muslim who adheres to one of a variety of forms of political Islam, some are very radical extremist and violent, some are fairly moderate and non-violent.
An Islamicist- is a person who studies Islam. Like Juan Cole ( or yours truly)
Now the bidness:
I found these four comments about the Baer over on a British Election thread at Crooked Timber. A lot of the Timberites, posters and commentors are English persons, and many are academics so it's good stuff. Here they are in order, the first two are nothing much but the last two are short but so so sweet. (IMO, kvetching is better with fresh content).
----------------
Hmm, Kenneth Baer, guest-blogging at Talking Points Memo, calls him “the far-far-far left, Islamist candidate George Galloway”. Even if he were pro-Saddam, how does that translate to Islamist?
Anyway, Galloway sounds like a loon, but I don’t think that excuses Paxman’s interview technique. I’ve heard no indication that Galloway is a racist, and even if he were, “Are you happy you knocked a black woman out of Parliament?” is no way to start an interview if you actually want it to continue.
Posted by KCinDC · May 6th, 2005 at 8:00 am
#
Ken Baer’s post also includes organizing sister-city relationship with Nablus as an apparently self-evidently evil thing to do.
Ritual deploring is something to avoid, especially on command.
What a gigantic gulf between the British system and our increasingly monarchical one: Tony Blair has to stand right there and listen to vote totals for the ‘Tony Blair Must Go Party’ and stand within five feet of a woman wearing an enormous hat reading ‘LIAR’. And take in the ringing applause for the candidate whose son was killed in Iraq.
Meanwhile, here in the land of the free, middle-aged schoolteachers with the wrong bumper sticker on their car are physically hustled out of taxpaper-funded, public meetings at which our President takes scripted questions from carefully screened supporters.
Posted by Nell Lancaster · May 6th, 2005 at 9:15 am
#
For someone who (allegedly) completed a doctorate in politics at Oxford, Kenneth Baer is a remarkably rubbish commentator: his comments on Rochdale, for instance, are a sad little snipe at Howard Dean, apparently ignoring the fact that it was Cyril Smith’s old haunting ground, and basically on loan from the Lib Dems for the past decade.
Posted by nick · May 6th, 2005 at 10:21 am
#
Baer is a moron. Almost all of his comments on the British election have been worthless at best, and downright misleading at worst.
Posted by john · May 6th, 2005 at 11:09 am
from RESPECT's website:
"That the resistance in Iraq is engaged in a battle to liberate the country. That resistance is
composed of elements which are Islamic, nationalist and socialist. It is a national liberation
movement."
Barry Freed, maybe you dont read too good, but my post about "LGF-style race baiting" might have clued you in about my opinion of LGF, dummy.
Whatever may be the deal with Mr. Galloway, taking potshots at Dean and the "left wing" of the party seem to ne to at the core of Atrios' and most posters' ire here. I find the banter about only 20% percent of Americans defining themselves as liberal to be largely ridiculous, because for the most part, the "liberal" label has become such a pariah term that it really doesn't say where someone stands with respect to the Democratic Party. Most people that I knowe that would have defined themselves as liberals ten or more years ago would no longer claim the label, not because their position on the issues has changed, but because their perception of what "liberalism" or the label represents has changed. In my activist days, the term "liberal" was often used to refer not to progressives like Dean, but the DLC ilk. The popularity and success of Dean and Progressive (a better term than liberal) groups like Move On suggests a hunger for speaking out and defining differences. I, like many others, am tired of tentative politics of the DLC, which seems more about a Sophistic gaining of power at any cost. I see no reason to support Democrats who support War, undermine labor, underfund the government, won't support enviromental potection, education, reproductive and gay rights, and generally ignore the needs of working class Americans. If I have to choose betweeen Republicans or Democrats standing on my throat, it's not much of a choice. Has anyone considered the number of Americans who are simply choosing not to vote? "Nobody" has really won all Presidential elections dating back decades. The Max Baer's, Josh Marshall's, Joe Libermann's should do us all a favor and join the Republican Party ala Zell Miller, and let the party represent the people who are truly closer to its core principles. The failures of Gore, the 2002 Congressional Race, and more recently John Kerry speak volumes to your ineptitude, incompetence, and inability to inspire anything other than mediocrity.
Barry freed, thanks for cutting and pasting those comments from Crooked Timber. Those UK academics sure have it goin on, ill tell ya, they sound like some smart guys, and I bet they have some cool acents as well. But next time I think it might be better just to link to the thread, rather than airlifting 40 column inches verbatim.
>might have clued you in about my opinion of LGF, dummy.
Oh, I think you would fit in there real good.
Oh, I think you would fit in there real good.
Oh I think you're wrong. I fit in so ungood I am banned, and have been for over two years. Nice try.
Whatever does it mean? Does it mean the term "Islamist" is somehow LGF-like? How? Is the Guardian "LGF-like" whenever they use the term? The New York Times? the BBC? Do explain please!
Brian OC has left, but perhaps I can explain what he meant.
An Islamist is someone who believes that a society should be governed according to the priciples of Islam. Galloway doesn't believe this. The point of labeling him an "Islamist" in this case was simply an attempt to say that he's something bad, because Islamists are bad. It was an insult both to Islamists and to Galloway. Likewise the allusion to the sister city relationship with Nablus, as though such a thing were beyond the pale.
The only difference between that and what LGF does is volume, and you seem to be trying to turn the volume up to LGF levels. I admire Brian for not trying to match you in that respect.
No pref, you said that already. Then I quoted you RESPECTs website, wherein they declare their solidarity for the head sawing car bombing whackjobs currently murdering innocent Iraqis by the hundreds. Hence 'islamist' fits.
Baer is a moron. Almost all of his comments on the British election have been worthless at best, and downright misleading at worst
OMIGOD Baer is SUCH a moron!!!!! This guy IS smart, thanks for sharing this totally awesome insight with us Barry Freed!!!!!
You're wurth your weight in... oh, I don't know, pick something rare and valuable.
"That the resistance in Iraq is engaged in a battle to liberate the country. That resistance is
composed of elements which are Islamic, nationalist and socialist. It is a national liberation
movement."
-- RESPECT
big up yoself George Galloway!
Weltschmaltz- gay cocken offen yam already. I haven't seen such pathetic attempts at trolling and flame-baiting since the swift boat shit hit the net. Seriously, you're a lying zhlub, and a total nebbish to boot. Do you know the tears your mother would cry if she could see you know making foolish arguments with people you've never even met?! Such tears, such sadness, such shame. Go do something real and productive now or it'll go badly for you and your own mother, your own mother, who bore you for 9 long months and fed you and wiped you, and gave out of her own life's blood that you might be, your own mother will curse the day you were ever born or conceived and as she nears her end she'll be so mortified that she'll pray, she'll pray that you were born a Momzer, if only to lessen the shame.
barry, your quaint yiddishisms made me chuckle. don't you have some good comment threads to cut and paste already?
barry, your quaint yiddishisms made me chuckle. don't you have some good comment threads to cut and paste already?
weltschmerz
And don't YOU have an "Aunt Mom" card to buy for Sunday?
Weltshcmaltz- you racist
meshugina troll. 40 column inches, duh
I excerpted those from 40-50 comments irrelevant to this very thread.
weltschmerz--- Wasn't that the name or maybe it was the motto of one of the Waffen SS units?
When weltschmerz sadly but proudly claims to be banned by LGF....I don't know, get all Skeptical....
and it is noted that s/he only thinks that people object to Baer over the Galloway thing, which is fascinating, and utterly parocial.
There is plenty to hate about Baer...(as one hates say, the Yankees) which has nothing to do with Israel...including he did a piss poor job writing speeches for Gore...and seems to be the consultant to hire if one isn't interested in good political advice.
Check this out: it's from "dailykos" a left-leaning political website. Not academic, but I bet some of them are British.
"Hee Hee Hee (4.00 / 2)
I am teaching my bird to say, "George Bush sucks."
She's getting there."
LOL! she's teaching her bird to say that! Just thought I'd share, cuz I thought it was funny, that she's teaching her bird to bust on George Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cut and pasted to you directly from the streets of Brooklyn, NY. Bensonhurst more precisely, which, back in the day, for those who grew up in Alabama, like weltschmaltz here, was pretty much a Jewish/Italian ghetto.
>I excerpted those from 40-50 comments irrelevant to this very thread.
Ah, I know this person who has been banned from so many sites, s/he has set a record.
and it is noted that s/he only thinks that people object to Baer over the Galloway thing, which is fascinating, and utterly parocial.
Well gee, Nancy, thats the only thing that's been put forward; that and some BS about how Blair is against Islamic fundamentalist terror groups, and how that buys into bush's lies! etc etc which is a completely hollow complaint. So whats your explanation?
Cut and pasted to you directly from the streets of Brooklyn, NY.
vey ist mir, we're neighbors!
Atrios: Smarter Trolls Please.
And one's who wipe after defecation, rather than throwing their "art" all over the place.
Cut and pasted to you directly from the streets of Brooklyn, NY.
How are you internetting from the street? Is this what people do in front of their stoops nowadays instead of playing stickball, cutting and pasting from CT?
weltschmerz is the sentiment embodied by the echt Atrios kvetch : "OY"
>which is a completely hollow complaint. So whats your explanation?
You are so full of shit. You gave me the LGF bullshit over me saying I spent an hour writing emails to Kenny and deleting.....you are big on assuming shit...
and not to mention, your world famous paranoia.
huh? who is kenny? world famous? I'm a complete unknown anonymous internet guy! you are one weird lady!!
the LGF stuff is on the level though. Banned way way way long ago. So I never get enough of people telling me how I love Charles Johnson ( a zitty douchebag with a squeaky voice and no musical talent.) Hows that?
Ken Baer...
the topic of this thread.
ahh yes.. You wrote:
"I just spent a half hour writing emails to kenny, and deleting them."
A self parodying comment, and yet I made fun of it gratuitously. I apologize. I can tell it hurt you badly. That wasnt the idea, I know people can be sensitive over the internets.
We're neighbors? Present tense. That explains a lot. Potentially. I said "back in the day" Things have changed a great deal since then. And I've since moved on and all over and back again and when I come back to Brooklyn, Bensonhurst isn't the neighborhood I have in mind.
Seriously, your sorry attempt at flame-baiting was pathetic: "Zionist, do your friends say Zionist? Do they hate Zionists? What do you think of Zionists? Do you hate Zionists? So it's you don't like Zionists, I understad the Joooooooozzzz. Go ahead say it, I know you want to say it go say it: Say I hate Jews, Jew Jew Jew I dare you I double, nay triple dog dare you to say Jew, yid, kike, hebe...."
Now, I don't know if you are Jewish or not, nor do I know in the case that you are, how much you know of your tradition but really now: Have you ever read Talmud? Absolutely some of the finest, subtlest, keenest, most brilliant ethical thought and logical argumentation that any human being ever put thought to record on paper.
But from you there's this refried Father Coughlin shit. You really should feel ashamed.
Now look at your community, where are the great moral voices of two generations ago? Where are the Martin Bubers, the Abraham Heschels, the Hannah Arendts, the Albert Einsteins even? Because I see nothing. Sure, I know a few names. And then I see them go and pretend that the Armenian genocide never happened because assuaging modern Turkey's feelings is much more important to the security of......
Shame.
I'm through here so feel free to plotz and spread some more feces all over.
Barry Freed, that certainly was a touching paean to the Jewish cultural and intellectual tradition. I'd cut and paste it into a thread on LGF G-d knows if they'd let me. Unfortunately, it has little to do with my 'zionism' gripe. I read these atrios threads a lot, and I see 'zionist' thrown about A LOT as a pejorative expression, and I havent seen Barry Freed, jew lover or Nancy Richardson, jew loving shikse step in once to say something about it EVER. Juan Cole who you seem to like is the worst in this way, calling every other guy a Likudnik or crypto Zionist or whatever. It's sickening, just as sickening as anything over on LGF. So reserve some of your vitriol for people like that if you dont mind, as a personal favor, from one Brooklynite to another.
>read these atrios threads a lot, and I see 'zionist' thrown about A LOT as a pejorative expression
That is a flat out lie.
By the way, I fail to uinderstand what anything I have said is Father Coughlin esque or bgoted. Some of the most potent criticisms of both Islamic extremism and Baathism have come from thelikes of Fouad Ajami, Kanan Miyaka, Ibn Warraq, Ammar abdulhamid etc, so there isnt anything islamo- or arabophobic about anything i believe. You might have encountered some of these folks in your "studies."
That is a flat out lie.
"judeo-christian means christian organization led by funded by and serving jewish neocon interests."
This from only yesterday! Oh, right, that doesnt insult Zionists, just Jews.
You're are so right about Baer. Is this guy the pits, or what.
>read these atrios threads a lot, and I see 'zionist' thrown about A LOT as a pejorative expression.
>This from only yesterday! Oh, right, that doesnt insult Zionists, just Jews.
no, it insults Jewish Neocons...you know, the people who run the Project for the New American Century...
It is a crude point, however when one is looking to be insulted, and is addicted to making irresponsible accusations, and otherwise detrailing conversations because of a necessity to hunt down liberal antisemites...
one will expect you to lie.
You can't help it. Because you are a liar.
you know, the people who run the Project for the New American Century...
Jewish Neocons run PNAC? Why do you think it's interesting that they're jewish nancy? That ol' "dual loyalty" -- those people are so clannish aren't they!
otherwise detrailing conversations because of a necessity to hunt down liberal antisemites
I don't need to hunt you guys down. I just sit here and you run headlong into the net -- note your beautiful "Jewish Neocons run PNAC and therefore AMERICA" inference above. I actually don't think many of you are real anti-semites, just addicted to sloppy ad hominems. Hence your overreliance on guilt by affiliation and association ("Carlyle"/PNAC/Likud/etc) - even the truth of which adds nothing of substance to any real debate on the Mideast. Yet you are addicted, because you are both dumb and dishonest.
because you are both dumb and dishonest.
I left out the most important qualifier: LAZY. Only laziness permits weak ad hominems to sub for rigorous criticism, which is why kelley b gets away with posting her inane conspiracy BS without getting laughed out of the room.
No, I object to Baer over his last post -- a very 'how do you use these Internets?' post?
Aside from the stupidity of the idea on its face, I can't imagine anyone who isn't collecting quite the decent consultant/hack's salary being able to print things from the Internet to read offline.
Yeah, I'm being petty. But there's something so blatantly out-of-touch with that post.
Even the dumb term "neocon" means nothing anymore -- you idiots have diluted its meaning so much it takes in everything from norman geras to paul wolfowitz to richard perle. It should tell you something if you are now scratching your head and saying "whats the difference?" PNAC, AEI , AIPAC, its ll the same shit isnt it? Just a bunch of Arab hating jews, sitting around plotting world domination, right?
It should also tell you something that the expression is rarely if ever applied to the many arab authors academics and political figures who favor Mideast reform.
Just read Kevin Baer today with dismay--the assumption behind stigmatizing support for the people of Nablus, for example--and am relieved to see the protests here; I'm among friends again. Having just donated to Josh's drive for the TPM Cafe, I'd feel a bit sick to think I'd inadvertently, in any way, supported this weirdly unJoshian voice (I mean, I really assume Josh is unBaerian: am I right to so assume?)
Atrios, my God, the Republicans are gutting unions, Social Security, the Clean Air Act, the Senate... your most hyperbolic bile is reserved for a fellow Dem.
Get a grip on yourself.
weltschmerz, anybody who's anybody here knows kelley b. is 100% breeder male, baby. And really happy about it. I'm married with 2 lovely teenage kids.
And kelley's even my real name, silly. And I even like girls. How's that, a male heterosexual feminist progressive. From the South. Living in Ann Arbor. Your head spinning yet?
Also, my friend Atrios has been aware of my problems with Soros, and by extension, Kerry, for years now. Which is how long I've been here. He even knows my real name and who and where I am. A number of the Atriots do.
He's always been patient and tolerant with my paranoia. Just consider me something of a psychedelic high tech Rod Sterling. For your consideration... another bubble in the multiverse.
Why, when I constantly diss his benefactor?
Because I support and even respect his benefactor in his attempt to wrest control of this country from an apocalyptic death cult that also happens to be entrenched in the military-industrial complex.
I don't support his boss's penchant for wanting to keep a dysfunctional system together for his own profit. But I would agree you can't change it all overnight.
His boss, Soros, overall knows what he's doing. Atrios knows what his benefactor is doing. The Bu$hCo wing of the Carlyle Group doesn't understand the world it lives in nor the consequences of its actions.
Overall, Soros does. Overall, John Kerry does. Overall, I support them both. That doesn't mean I don't have problems with them.
It means I live in a world of nuance. And guess what?
Atrios, Kerry, and Soros do, too.
Which is why I support the efforts of all three.
They're the best bet we've got.
ok kelley, you seem not to understand what a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy is.
here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/f...ad-
hominem.html
note examples 3 & 4.
# "Of course the Senator from Maine opposes a reduction in naval spending. After all, Bath Ironworks, which produces warships, is in Maine."
# "Bill claims that tax breaks for corporations increases development. Of course, Bill is the CEO of a corporation."
our example:
Geroge bush: We should invade Iraq because Saddam is an evil dictator hell bent on acquiring WMDs and who supports terrorism and who is in violation of countless UN resolutions and the 1991 cease fire yadda yadda
kelley b.: Your family has a stake in the Carlyle Group! Dick Cheney has a stake in Halliburton! You stand to benefit from this war!
see kelley, this is a fallacy. Not cause its wrong that cheney stands to benefit (which is false anyway.) But because it doesnt matter even if it's true. The same arguments could be made re: prominent war opponents (and have been, re:TotalFina and other european oil companies courting Hussein, and whole countries holding bns in Iraqi sovereign debt like Russia and China.) Those too are irrelevant, but help reveal why the fallacy is unsound. Financial interests can be found on all sides of every conflict. They remain irrelevant to any substantive political conversation. They counter no POSED argument.
I know this means throwing out the whole Michael Moore "see what sticks" playbook, but that's what it'll take to be taken seriously among adults.
btw, in addition to being a sleazebag Soros is a blowhard and an egomaniac. People shouldnt try to buy their way into politics, even when they claim to be on "your side." He's not on my side. I didnt ask him to buy my party or fuck with my candidate's chances for election.
Amen
Dear Mr. Baer,
Let's see, in what form do I prefer to read articles?
Answers to survey questions such as these seem to be the stuff of your for-profit business. This surmise is based on my reading of your commercial web site.
Is it not customary in your trade to pay for focus group participation?
Kindly publish the results of this misplaced query in regard to how many TPM regulars simply responded, as compared to how many saw your justification of "settling a debate" as cover for a survey you are being paid to conduct.
-- Cliff
Dear Mr. Baer,
Let's see, in what form do I prefer to read articles?
Answers to survey questions such as these seem to be the stuff of your for-profit business. This surmise is based on my reading of your commercial web site.
Is it not customary in your trade to pay for focus group participation?
Kindly publish the results of this misplaced query in regard to how many TPM regulars simply responded, as compared to how many saw your justification of "settling a debate" as cover for a survey you are being paid to conduct.
-- Cliff
That is a HUGE 10-4, good buddy. We need more Harry Reid, less centrist Dem's. What a fucking loser that guy is.
or it could be that this comment on atrios goes to show just how fucked the left is. keep at it, you clowns and you'll never put people in power ever again. you've blown the presidency, the house, the senate and the majority of gonernorships in this country. what's left for you to screw up? i'll take the centert over chumps like you any day of the motherfucking week.
passing thru -- keep moving.
atrios -- you're right.
What bobzilla said.
I am glad that Josh, Matt and Ezra are for most purposes on the side of light today but each and every one got Iraq wrong and between you, me and Duncan had to be educated on Social Security initially. I am more than happy to have these talented writers working on our side from positions of prominance but Billmon and Atrios got all of this right from Day One. Bow down.
Of course Atrios is right.
weltschmerz is ingenuous, and quite obviously either a paid troll or a theocon zealot. Or both.
Of course Cheney's piracy "doesn't matter"- except to a prosecutor and to the millions of people whose lives he's ruined.
The man has stolen billions of dollars, and will steal billions more, and continue to take the lives of thousands of people due to his actions for corporate gain.
weltschmerz, you're a liar, and you can post here under as many different names as you like, and you will still be a transparent plant.
Ad hominem? When the person you're arguing against has massive conflicts of personal interest supporting their arguments, pointing out these inconsistencies is a vital part of judging their validity.
If I simply said, weltschmerz, "your arguments suck because you stink" that would be ad hominem.
But if I say "Dick Cheney is unfit to be vice-president because his policies are primarily designed to enrich himself and not for the good of the nation" that is in no way ad hominem.
Those points are crucial to the arguments against this criminal.
It's a good thing war crimes have no statute of limitations.
And one more point: while Soros, too, works to enrich himself, the policies he supports will increase the common good for all and are consistent with American democracy.
The policies Scaife, and Cheney, and you for that matter, support promote a Dominionist agenda that seeks to re-establish an old feudal social order.
It's not only un-Democratic, it's un-American.
Ad hominem? When the person you're arguing against has massive conflicts of personal interest supporting their arguments, pointing out these inconsistencies is a vital part of judging their validity.
This is the very definition of ad hominem. See examples cited above. "Pointing out conflicts of interests" is not a childish exercise, not rigorous argumentation.
http://www.cuyamaca.net/
bruce.th...cumstantial.asp
" The argument attacks a position by appealing to the vested interests of the people who hold the position."
If I simply said, weltschmerz, "your arguments suck because you stink" that would be ad hominem.
It would be a different more obvious type of ad hominem. Like saying "weltschmertz is a paid troll" or "kelley b. is an idiot."
...is a childish exercise...
It's not only un-Democratic, it's un-American.
More ad hominems, more McCarthyism.
http://www.bcskeptics.info/
resou....circadhom.html
"Lower taxes would make my opponent richer, so of course he considers them a good idea."
"The President supports drilling for oil in Alaska, but of course, because he made a lot of money in the oil industry"
Interesting isn't it that all of these examples of ad hominem fallacies sound just like posts to Eschaton? That's because Eschaton is all about ad hominem fallacies and no substance.
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/
maye...ntrofallacy.htm
"Ad hominem" is Latin for "against the person." Anything that involves an attack on a person's character we call an Abusive Ad Hominem. Anything that appeals to a person's unique circumstances we call a Circumstantial ad Hominem. These are both fallacious for the simple reason that the personal character and circumstances of the individual reasoner are logically irrelevant to the question whether the reasoning itself is any good.
By the way kelley b, I'm flattered that you think my trolling is of a professional caliber. You should thank the RNC for its largesse, this way you get free lessons in logical reasoning on the republicans' tab.
(curious to know how you arrived at 'theocon' though. I think those types view the internet as sinful.)
weltschmerz,
I'm all for arguing with "adults" as you put it, but for some people, ad hominem attacks are what it takes to get them to move and vote the right way.
How about this: let's not call people "adults" and non-"adults." That's somewhat insulting. I think the people you refer to as "adults" are people who have the time, energy & effort to follow politics. That's not everyone. To me, a "big tent" party means arguing in a way that appeals to political pros and non-pros. In American culture, that means "intelligent" "well-reasoned" arguments, and simple, powerful, punchy ad hominem ones.
Matt
going through these posts and stories have convinced me that 1) galloway and respect are far to the left of most of the people here, and 2) i'm very interested in the further success of their party.
weltschmerz all your arguments simply beg the question.
Know what that means?
You argue from authority when you assume Dick Cheney knows best.
You engage in observational selection.
You misunderstand the nature of the statistical data you use to derive your conclusions.
You are inconsistent.
You also engage in ad hominem when it suits you- let's use Soros for an example.
You exude a slippery slope.
You make a straw man.
Suppress evidence, use half-truths, and engage in weasel words- none of these help your argument either.
Basically your entire defense of the criminal Dick Cheney and the whole Bu$hCo organization is a non sequitor.
Follow some links here. You will find there is quite a bit of substance in the condemnation of the administration. But you knew that.
Oh- and it does matter if it's true.
Josh must do better. This idiot from DLC is a huge embarrassment.
Baer is idiotic and an embarrassment to TPM. Josh, how could you?
kelley, I'm not representing too many arguments here. My only point directed at you concerns conspiracy theories and ad hominems, and why they are unconvincing and fallacious. I don't assume Dick Cheney knows best -- my opinions (unlike yours) are governed by factors other than Dick Cheney's personal wisdom or virtue.
"arguing in a way that appeals to political ...non-pros = punchy ad hominems"
demagoguery. Ever hear of Gresham's law?
I'm all for arguing with "adults" as you put it, but for some people, ad hominem attacks are what it takes to get them to move and vote the right way.
This comment is just amazing, especially coming from the president of a debating society at a decent university. Don't you have any scruples at all matt? Are people like kelley b just cattle for you to steer this way and that with punchy fallacies?
Josh Marshall's great, but I disagreed with his decision to accept advertising for Ann Coulter's book.
good luck in 2006. maybe you geniuses will throw away a few more votes to ensure the left never comes back to power. you've already done a fine, fine job making sure the democrats have essentially zero power.
Josh Marshall's TPM is fine with Josh, but when he is away I would wish he would just pause the site. His collection of guest's makes me question his own ability as a "credible" blogger. Remember you are judged by the company you keep or in this case the "guests" you let blog.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
