…and so badl-ee!
Mcjoan, linking to my post criticizing her post, says Lieberman’s words are being defended by “a few die-hard Lieberman Democrats (an oxymoron if I ever heard one).” This is a clear reference to me personally, since it’s followed immediately by the link to my post… which is odd because I’m not a Democrat anymore, and the reason I left the party is precisely because of oxymorons like mcjoan!
What’s even more odd is that, in the very next paragraph, mcjoan says my criticism of her post is “good, old-fashioned right wing Republican misleading.” Wait, so am I an oxymoronic Democrat or a deceptive Republican? Inquiring minds want to know! (Actually, I’m a “mindless crypto-neocon zionist petro-military-industrial complex apologist” and a “redneck reactionary” … but, shh, don’t tell anyone!)
Of course, in reality, I’m a moderate, sensible centrist, a hawkish yet progressive independent with no allegiance to either party, and what bothers me about mcjoan’s original post isn’t its politics (she’s entitled to her opinions; this is America, and we all have the right to be wrong), but simply that it’s a lie. If she wants to criticize Lieberman for buying the faulty pre-war intelligence on Iraq “hook, line and sinker” — just like, you know, pretty much everyone else in the world, both pro-war and anti-war, did — that’s fine, she can go ahead and criticize him for that (and be quickly and rightly debunked). But to claim that Lieberman “lied” when that’s plainly not the case is just despicable.
It’s telling that, in her original post, she didn’t address any of the nuance she is now seeking to explain away; she thought her readers simply wouldn’t notice the obvious, crucial distinction between “developing” and “having,” so she didn’t mention it at all. Now that the distinction has been pointed out, she seeks to dismiss it as “gibberish,” even though it’s plainly not.
Her argument about the “context” of Lieberman’s words is interesting, but by no means self-evidently correct. That said, if she’d made that argument in the original post, and called Lieberman’s original statement “misleading” instead of a “lie,” it would have been a more respectable post, and I probably never would have blogged about it. What speaks volumes is that she didn’t address the glaring weakness in her own argument until somebody pointed it out (and got linked by a national blog for doing so). She was perfectly content to distort the truth until someone pointed out her distortion. Now she switches from distortion to deflection. Color me decidedly unimpressed.
P.S. This is the first time I’ve been linked on the front page of Daily Kos, and I must say, the link is producing a surprisingly feeble amount of traffic… just 23 hits in the 45 minutes since it appeared. That’s roughly one hit every two minutes. A link from InstaPundit or Michelle Malkin will bring in 10 or 20 times that, sometimes more! I guess the Kos Kidz would rather stay in their comfortable little world, reading their compatriots’ characterizations of the opposition’s arguments rather than bothering to go to the original source.
[CLARIFICATION: The above paragraph gets criticized here. I defend it, sorta, and clarify it, sorta, here.]
UPDATE: Now this is hilarious… and pathetic. In comments on mcjoan’s latest post, “RonK Seattle” writes: “Sorry, this only weakens your case.” He elaborates:
These are all assessments on which reasonable people could disagree, given the environment of incomplete and equivocal intelligence and inference on the subject, and there’s nothing contradictory (or weaselly) about Lieberman’s current description of his 2002/2003 position.
In response to which, a commenter hilariously named “Big Tent Democrat” — oh, the delicious irony! — threatens to “troll rate” RonK Seattle (a method of community feedback which can result in the banishment of an unwanted user from Kos’s site) and says: “Sorry, this only proves you are a Lieberman lackey.”
Nevermind that RonK Seattle’s diary page makes it clear that he’s solidly liberal — just like Lieberman’s voting record makes it clear that he is solidly liberal. He dissents on one issue, so he must be disappeared! Ladies and gentlemen, this is the attitude of Howard Dean’s beloved “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,” in a nutshell: If you dare disagree with the party line, you will be smeared, ostracized, banished, and “troll-rated”!
RonK Seattle isn’t alone, by the way. Citizen Earth, under the caveat, “I’m not [a] Joe fan, but…” (a necessary assertion of one’s bona fides to prevent banishment by the “Big Tent” mob), writes:
in fairness, but the quotes you cite are pretty clear: he didn’t agree with Cheney that Sadaam possessed nukes. He did agree that a nuclear program was active and ongoing, which like the biological and chemical claims, turned out to be false. But there is a difference and I don’t feel that’s accurate to dismiss the difference as “parsing”.
A lonely voice of reason in Kosworld! But alas, both RonK and Citizen Earth, and anyone else who might dare agree with them, must deal with inforet’s wrath.
Troll rate all stealth pro-Liarman comments
As far as I am concerned anyone who tries to defend Lieberman IS a republican and a neo-con, whether they can admit it to themselves or not.
Read that again: “anyone who tries to defend Lieberman IS a republican and a neo-con.” In the world of inforet, “Big Tent Democrat” and a bunch of others over in Kosworld, reasonable people CANNOT disagree. All disagreement with the party line will be punished! All dissenters are trolls! You’re either with us or against us! Dissent is treason!
This is what the Left in this country has come to. How they look themselves in the mirror while being such bald-faced hypocrites, I have no idea.
UPDATE 2: InstaPundit accuses me of “customary insouciance.” I must admit, I had to look it up. :)
UPDATE 3: Another voice of reason surfaces… only to be dismissed by “Big Tent Democrat” as yet another Lieberman (er, excuse me… Liarman) “lackey.”
It’s almost as if they don’t know how to make arguments, and can only respond via name-calling!
CORRECTION: In comments, Big Tent Democrat writes:
I did not threaten to troll rate RonK. I point out that RonK has been trollrating me. I never have trollrated anyone. I am not a trusted user at daily kos.
I honestly misunderstood the subject line “Troll rating coming.” My mistake, and my apologies.
That said, Big Tent Democrat’s whole attitude — that anyone who defends Lieberman on the merits is nothing but a “lackey” — is still well worthy of criticsm, and except for the reference to troll-rating, I stand by what I wrote.
CORRECTION #2: Well, now Big Tent Democrat has managed to thoroughly shame me by sounding entirely reasonable in comments:
There is disagreement on Lieberman obviously. But consider where you agree. I assum[e] Ford, Webb, Tester, Casey are candidates we all can support.
I urge kossacks to not think of Ed Kilgore [of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council, which traditionally supports centrists like Lieberman] as enemies, but rather colleagues in an intellectual debate.
As I just wrote to him via e-mail:
Just saw your comment about Kilgore, among other things. Needless to say, I whole-heartedly agree.
Perhaps I’ve misjudged you. You and RonK obviously have a history, and it seems your comments to him about being a “Lieberman lackey” aren’t necessarily representative of your views toward Joementum supporters generally.
I guess I should have saved my fire for inforet, whose comment really was an excellent example of the “with us or against us” attitude I was decrying.
|
Categories: Joe Lieberman, Election 2006
|
October 11th, 2006 at 1:59:15 pm
“…’a few die-hard Lieberman Democrats (an oxymoron if I ever heard one).’ This is a clear reference to me personally…”
It is not. It’s to Me :) ~ and the rest of the 35% of Connecticut Democrats whose votes will so oxymoronically provide our Saintly Senator with More than his margin of victory next month. :) Us, Die Hard? Hardly. :> No Vengeance implied ;} but for Whom the bell Tolls on November 7 will be Little Lord Ned . / Yes, the only real question now is, will the Daily Kossacks demand a Do-Over? :]
October 11th, 2006 at 2:07:34 pm
I love how Instaputz says you were “attacked” by Kos — you called McJoan a “moron” and her post about you contained no personal attacks. Uhh, the right wingers’ reality. . . . And Brendan, I read your posts when you “left” the Democratic party because the Democratic voters of Connecticut actually exercised their right to, you know, remove an 18 year incumbent as their nominee — you are not a Democrat, you are just a pro-incumbent.
October 11th, 2006 at 2:13:37 pm
Jon, I actually agree that I wasn’t really “attacked” by mcjoan, at least not with any more ferocity that I “attacked” her. That’s Glenn’s choice of words, not mine.
As for the rest of your comment…
you “left� the Democratic party because the Democratic voters of Connecticut actually exercised their right to, you know, remove an 18 year incumbent as their nominee
ANNNNNNNNK. Wrong. I repeat:
Indeed, I reiterated this point just yesterday:
You can disagree with my stance, but please don’t mischaracterize it. It has nothing to do with being “pro-incumbent,” and I certainly respect the right of Connecticut voters to vote however they want. As I said: this is America, we all have the right to be wrong. What I don’t respect is the dishonest national smear campaign that helped convinced Connecticut’s Democratic voters to make the wrong choice.
Oh, and by the way, when Lieberman is re-elected in November, I assume you will respect the fact that the “voters of Connecticut actually exercised their right to, you know, keep an 18 year incumbent as their senator”… right?
October 11th, 2006 at 2:15:34 pm
>I’m a “mindless crypto-neocon zionist petro-military-industrial complex apologist”
You left out kitten eating. You must eat 5 kittens a day to qualify.
October 11th, 2006 at 2:18:12 pm
“redneck reactionary�
Mode=Foghorn Leghorn
Ah, ah, ah say, boy, you is a great many things, but ah, ah, ah say, boy, this ain’t one of them.
October 11th, 2006 at 2:19:11 pm
[…]
Quote Of The Day II
October 11th, 2006
Brendan Loy: This is the first time I’ve been linked on the f […]
October 11th, 2006 at 2:20:16 pm
Actually, it’s looking more and more like the Democratic voters are nonetheless going exercise their right to vote in said 18 year incumbent as an independent, with a healthy assist from Republican voters. It’s Democrat primary voters in CT who nominated Lamont, and he didn’t even win that contest by a sweeping margin.
Maybe Brendan considers mcjoan calling him a “Republican” to be a personal attack…
October 11th, 2006 at 2:22:19 pm
Maybe they’ll pull an Obrador when they lose and set up a shadow-party and invoke “civil resistance” - seems like that’s the model for losing leftists, and a natural inclination since they’re already pretty shadowy in a big-brother cannibalistic kind of All dissenters are trolls! way.
October 11th, 2006 at 2:28:59 pm
I’ve argued for months that Brendan isn’t a Democrat, even before he realized it himself.
It’s kind of like when you run into a guy who everyone knows is gay. The guy has a wife and three kids, but it is patently obvious the guy likes the high, hard one. The entire time he claims he’s not gay, but you know he is. Then one day he files for separation from his wife. We all know what’s going on, but he still insists he is not gay. He hangs around guys named Lyle and Steve who wear pink Oxfords and spend their days at Pottery Barn. Then one day one of his kids walks in on him at his “bachelor pad” and find their father wearing a leatherman outfit, drinking from a saucer of milk while Steve is pounding him in the ass. Only THEN does he admit he is gay.
Seems to me Brendan spends a lot of time hanging out with Andrew and reading Instapundit and MichelleMalkin. I just hope one day Becky doesn’t walk in to see Brendan getting a “Mark Foley” from Denny Hastert. Ahhh!
October 11th, 2006 at 2:34:58 pm
I feel like I should make the point when we talk about comments made on blogs and boards, both right and left can be very ‘enthusiastic’ as to condemnations and name-calling. Not really here, but Kos, LFG, Lucianne.com, FireDogLake. So I think that problem is more of a bi-partisan one that afflicts those who comment due to the gift/scourge of internet anonymity.
BUT (and this is a big BUT), the lefty leaders due exhibit the same behavior of scorched earth politics, leave the those to the wolves who can’t keep up in their progressiveness. You’ll find healthy debate in most influential righty sphere sites, but lefty side is far more fratricidal.
A pity too, because I would really like to hear more of what they have to say other than Booosh BAD!!! Problem is that’s their entire pitch right now.
October 11th, 2006 at 2:35:06 pm
But Angrier, that doesn’t make any sense… everybody knows that only liberals engage in homosexual pederasty!
;)
October 11th, 2006 at 2:38:28 pm
Fair point, Lojo. But as you say, the fratricide over on Kos is indicative of a broader trend on the Left, which is why I point it out. If it weren’t, I would just write it off as more bloggy nonsense. But alas, that’s not the case.
October 11th, 2006 at 2:49:43 pm
” the link is producing a surprisingly feeble amount of traffic”
As you’ve noticed, the substance of Kos isn’t logic, pursuing a modicum of truth, or noble ideals. It’s ‘feelgood-hate’ that feeds on hate, and the site is skewed to stoke the fires (hence the ‘troll rating’ feature which insures that everyone pulls in sync). ‘Kos’ (both the ‘asshole’ - as he refers to himself - and his site’s business model) isn’t about political ideals. It’s about profit. According to this month’s WIRED, the site’s pulling in around $600,000 a month. No wonder he doesn’t want to lead the ’storming of the gates’. He just wants to stir the pot that rakes in the cash, all from a site promoting ‘equal distribution of wealth’ and similar hypocricies. Gotta admit, the guy knows a cash cow when he sees one. Even pulling the curtain back like this makes no difference. At this point, the Kossacks are addicted. They have to get that self-affirming daily fix, no matter what.
October 11th, 2006 at 2:50:11 pm
IMO the fratricide is an expression of the Left’s naturally latent totalitarianism, which they are unable to recognize because their own narrative is deliberately confused to disguise it in favor of a morally-vain worldview which presents them as Saviors.
October 11th, 2006 at 2:51:47 pm
Our sense of such exchanges is that an insular, parochial, mutual-admiration society such as the Kos Kommunity is content merely to hurl libelous labels at all and sundry. Reality seems strangely beside the point… today’s world presents many issues, simple to state but subtle in nature, that together stretch a skein of rationality over matters better described as “temperamental” [opinions-of-a-time, that is, a Zeitgeist]. Arguments as such cut very little ice with True Believers.
As a Small Dragon, Egg of Skagenhex –a Drakar of Good Fortune mounted on the prow of Ranulf Far-travelled’s long ship– I of course remain immune to controversy. Mischaracterize Dragons as you will… we merely wing away, admonishing “There is only The Dance”.
October 11th, 2006 at 2:55:17 pm
The labels don’t achieve much but reveal more about them.
October 11th, 2006 at 3:07:07 pm
Mister Snitch, you’re off by a factor of 12 on the revenue number reported in the Wired article:
“Moulitsas says he’s on track to make $600,000 in revenue this year, and his expenses don’t go much beyond programming and $7,000 a month for servers and bandwidth.”
October 11th, 2006 at 3:09:12 pm
“Oh, and by the way, when Lieberman is re-elected in November, I assume you will respect the fact that the “voters of Connecticut actually exercised their right to, you know, keep an 18 year incumbent as their senatorâ€?… right?”
Of course not. All that will prove is that Rove stole another election, the monster!
October 11th, 2006 at 3:32:41 pm
Pardon me if I don’t hold my breath while Brendan, Lieberman, Cheney, or anyone else who cares to take a stab at it, attempt to explain why it was right and just to invade and occupy Iraq because Saddam was “developing” nuclear weapons, yet North Korea does not warrant a military response.
The point is that the nation was willfully lied to and Joe Lieberman aided and abetted that deception. (”We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over one of our cities,” warned the far-sighted Rice, brushing aside concerns about, you know, being right about something that was such a big deal.) You can parse and parse and parse and you’ll still be wrong. Cheney deliberately sought to obfuscate the issue. It is received wisdom that The Entire World Believed Saddam Had Weapons. The American intelligence community did NOT believe this, but they are not allowed to speak to the world with the same megaphone as Vice Presidents and Senators. We know now that Saddam’s weapons programs were in shambles following 1991. Saddam’s top advisors and generals routinely lied to him about the status of the nuclear weapons program, out of fear for their own safety. Funny thing about dictators, they like to blame the messenger. Just like Cheney (ask Joe Wilson).
The catch with Iraq was that Saddam felt threatened by his neighbors, and even his own people. On the one hand he needed to be feared by his enemies, internal and external, in order to maintain power. On the other hand, he needed to cooperate with the UN just enough to avoid international action that he had no means of stopping (as we saw in March-April 03). Hence the ritualized inspections dance.
Cheney and the neoconservative junta heard what they wanted to hear regarding pre-war intelligence. (Unless there’s an innocent reason why Cheney visited Langley twice, when no sitting VP had ever done so even once.) It’s been demonstrated repeatedly. You can go on believing the Gulf of Tonkin was really worth the lives of 58,000 Americans and that we’ve always been at war with Eastasia….
October 11th, 2006 at 3:41:19 pm
“But Angrier, that doesn’t make any sense… everybody knows that only liberals engage in homosexual pederasty!”
That Weaver guy really is a DINO. Holy cow! He makes Zell Miller look like Robert Byrd.
October 11th, 2006 at 3:50:57 pm
PS re: Kos’ revenues….typical. A leftist who’s starving is an idiot who needs a haircut and a job. A leftist who’s successful is a sellout. No in-between. If Kos was Only In It For The Money, I think he would have set up on the right side of the aisle, since that’s where the real, aristocratic, fuck-you money is.
October 11th, 2006 at 3:53:14 pm
Brendan: What I don’t respect is the dishonest national smear campaign that helped convinced Connecticut’s Democratic voters to make the wrong choice.
Fair enough if that is your view; I don’t see how it is a “smear campaign” to point out that Lieberman has, time and again, been used willingly by Republicans as an example of a “reasonable Democrat” every time he disagrees with the party. I don’t think it is a “smear campaign” to point out that Lieberman often votes with Democrats on the symbolic stuff, but against us when it matters (e.g., the bankruptcy bill, he voted to stop the filibuster (which assured passage), but then voted against the bill). Is it a “smear campaign” to point out that Lieberman wrote an op-ed on the pages of the Wall Street Journal accusing Democrats of disagreeing with the war of being unpatriotic? Is it a “smear campaign” to point out that Lieberman put a lot more energy in condemning a fellow Democrat for sexual misbehavior on the floor of the Senate than he has put into condemning Bush, Cheney and others for their misleading statements in the run-up to the war. Indeed, Lieberman, the man who thought it was his “moral duty” to step in the floor of the Senate to denounce Bill Clinton for consensual sexual conduct, has not done the same when the much more outrageous conduct of Republican Mark Foley has been exposed, and the House Republicans’ years-long cover-up of it has been exposed. It is these things, not the war alone, which have led many Dems to turn their backs on Lieberman. Harry Reid himself is more “conservative” than Lieberman. Hillary supports and supported the war just as much as Lieberman. Yet we Dems have not turned our backs on them.
I must ask also: Did you speak out re the much more real smear campaign against John Kerry in the last election — where Michelle Malkin went on National TV and said that Kerry had intentionally shot himself to get a purple heart? And that is just one, of many many, absurd and outrageous smears made against Kerry and his record in that campaign. Do you contend that Lieberman has been “smeared” worse than that, or even close to that??
Finally as to this statement: “Oh, and by the way, when Lieberman is re-elected in November, I assume you will respect the fact that the “voters of Connecticut actually exercised their right to, you know, keep an 18 year incumbent as their senatorâ€?… right?”
If he wins, he wins and of course I support the right of the voters of Connecticut to retain him; just as I support the right of voters of this country two years ago to retain Bush (though I think obviously that was a big mistake). As to “stolen” elections, please Florida was six years ago, and we should get over it. But there is no doubt, no reasonable question at all of the following facts: (1) Al Gore won more votes nation-wide than Bush (Bush is only the President in the last 100 years to win an election without the popular vote). (2) More people in Florida intended to vote for Gore than for Bush (see the Buchanan votes). Does that mean that Bush was not “legitimately” elected? No, he probably was. But any serious constitutional scholar — including many conservatives such as Judge Alex Kozinski and even Judge Posner — have admitted that the US Supreme COurt’s opinion in Bush v. Gore was not supported by any reasonable interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, and was in fact quite contrary to both pre- and post-Bush v. Gore precedent. (Posner justifies the opinion on “pragmatic” grounds, but admits that the opinion was very lacking and not supported by authority.)
October 11th, 2006 at 3:53:34 pm
Brendan, in response to the pro-incumbent charge, you should ask them if they wish to get rid of Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd who have been in the Senate 45+ years each.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:26:21 pm
Jon -
A) Last I checked, Kos and crew were no fans of Hillary and want her to lose the primary for Pres, if she runs.
B) Situation Clinton: Sexual misconduct, Democrats and Left defend him after revealed. Clinton stays in office and initially lies about his misconduct. Situation Foley: Sexual misconduct, Republicans and Right burn him on the stake after revealed. Foley admits what he has done and resigns within hours of it being fully revealed. Which one is not like the other?
C) Bush stole the ELECTION!!! Damn you, he STOLE IT!!
D) What does Kerry have to do with this? Brendan is not a republican and the issue here is one of infighting, not outfighting. Are his points not valid if he doesn’t retroactively denounce any smear attempts against Kerry for the past 4 years? This is dodging the question.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:28:38 pm
“If Kos was Only In It For The Money, I think he would have set up on the right side of the aisle, since that’s where the real, aristocratic, fuck-you money is.”
Huh?
You mean John Kerry, Ted Kenedy, and Jay Rockefeller are Republicans? Who knew?
October 11th, 2006 at 4:34:03 pm
“Brendan, in response to the pro-incumbent charge, you should ask them if they wish to get rid of Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd who have been in the Senate 45+ years each.”
To the extent this was directed at me, I think the country would be better off if we did get rid of these guys and had more regular turn-over by both parties in both Houses of Congress — as a Democrat (for now, and a former Republican), I would vote for them (were I resident of their states) against Republicans because I think Democratic control of the Senate is very important for procedural reasons. Nevertheless, if a compelling person were running against them in the Democratic primary, I would vote for the primary opponent.
We should support term-limits in Congress (as many Republicans used to do, i.e. during the Contract for America, but then reneged on). Unfortunately, term limits on Congress are clearly and unequivocally unconstitutional right now — we should amend the Constitution and limit Senators to three terms, and House Reps to nine terms. I.e., 18 years in each house. That’s more than enough to get expertise and longer than that is too much — fresh blood in the Houses of Congress is a good thing.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:35:33 pm
You can just feel their frustration.
Nothing is going their way. Lamont is tanking badly. Ford has been caught in a baldfaced lie. McCaskilland her allies ACORN has been caught pulling dirty campaign tactics in Missouri. The whole Foley fiasco is not having the desired results for the Dems. In fact it is beginning to have quite the opposite effect. You can tell because all of a sudden the MSM is trying to quietly let the story die. Unfortunately for them and Nancy Pelosi this is now in the hands of the FBI and the House ethics committee. Guess they never heard of that old adage “people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.”.
North Korea is reminding everyone as to what the Democrats stand for as far as national security goes-weakness, appeasment, defeatism, and the good ol’ cut and run. it also serves to remind people that it was Carter and Clinton who essentially gave the NorK’s their nuclear material. Also, Clinton and the Dems throwing that hissy fit over “Path to 9/11″ only served to highlight the Clinton administration’s record when it comes to Islamofascist terrorism. The economy is going great guns, the deficit is down and despite the lack of press out of the MSM concerning it people know it with their wallets. The Immigration debate is not a winner for the Dem’s, either. They have not quite gotten the clue that multiculturalism and the “victim culture” is very passe now, even the Euros have gotten the clue on that one.
All this is going on and we have not even hit the true campaign yet! Some of the sound bites that have spewed forth from Pelosi, Kerry and the rest of the “usual suspects” can and will be used against the whole party. They will meet the campaign reform law because they are not getting “bad mouthed”, their own words will be used. All that has to be done is to play them and then super/VO at the end “Are these really the people you want running the country?”. I guarantee you that with the exception of the very, very, very blue states the answer will be a resounding NO!
And finally the MSM and the Dems fail to take into accoount the “average American”. I am not surprised because none of them actually know them. They sit in their elitist enclave echo chambers and think that what they and their friends think is what America thinks. I can assure you that is not the case.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:41:13 pm
“Situation Clinton: Sexual misconduct, Democrats and Left defend him after revealed. Clinton stays in office and initially lies about his misconduct. Situation Foley: Sexual misconduct, Republicans and Right burn him on the stake after revealed. Foley admits what he has done and resigns within hours of it being fully revealed.”
Uhh, where do you get your facts? Let me guess: Rush, Hannity and Instaputz. The evidence is overwhelming that many in the House leadership knew about Foley’s problems years ago, and at least at the beginning of 2006. Evidence is clear that they warned Republican pages about Foley but NEVER informed the Democratic member of the page board. So, uhh, you might want to actually read the real news before making a fool of yourself by citing Republican talking points that are not true, err, are lies.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:43:22 pm
“You can just feel their frustration.
Nothing is going their way.”
What are President Bush’s approval ratings? I forgot.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:45:10 pm
Jon -
“We should support term-limits in Congress (as many Republicans used to do, i.e. during the Contract for America, but then reneged on). Unfortunately, term limits on Congress are clearly and unequivocally unconstitutional right now â€â€? we should amend the Constitution and limit Senators to three terms, and House Reps to nine terms. I.e., 18 years in each house. That’s more than enough to get expertise and longer than that is too much â€â€? fresh blood in the Houses of Congress is a good thing.”
Now, if the Left started preaching this more often, I’d be voting Democrat. I understand why the DNC doesn’t reflexively go this direction, but why the hell don’t the steal the issues from the GOP that have been reniged on. Conservative fiscal spending (Obama could lead that march), term limits (Get Teddy to say he will give up his seat to a young Democrat if it means he can get Ted Stevens out of office). These can be bi-partisan issues. And this is also what the public wants to hear.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:47:43 pm
Nahanni, I don’t agree. True, there’s not much real love for the Democrats out there, but there is real and deep loathing for Congress in general. I think the Republicans have outstayed their welcome.
(FWIW, I think the Democratic majority lasts exactly two years. But I do think it happens.)
Oddly enough, the politician most likely to benefit from this disgust is….
Joe Lieberman. He has shown he’s not just a machine politician, and he has all the right enemies. He’s the one guy who can believably say “I am in the Congress, but I am not of it.”
October 11th, 2006 at 4:49:18 pm
Jon -
AGAIN, what does Lieberman need to be saying here about sexual misconduct? Maybe you need to READ what YOU wrote:
“Indeed, Lieberman, the man who thought it was his “moral dutyâ€? to step in the floor of the Senate to denounce Bill Clinton for consensual sexual conduct, has not done the same when the much more outrageous conduct of Republican Mark Foley has been exposed, and the House Republicans’ years-long cover-up of it has been exposed.”
You pass off Clinton’s behavior as not immoral by calling it consensual (which it was) and ignoring it was misconduct (which it was).
Foley is no longer in office. Clinton remained. I think that’s in the news, isn’t it?
So exactly what is he supposed to be denouncing here? And is it something that is already being defended, like it was in Clinton’s case?
October 11th, 2006 at 4:49:51 pm
“Fred Thompson” is quite right, I got my months and years mixed up. That’s $600,000 annually, NOT monthly. The monthly figure I saw was bandwidth charges. So: $7K per month in bandwidth costs comes to $84,000 in expenses, leaving him with a mere half-million or so for selling vitriol, mostly provided for free by his readers. A pretty good profit, though not nearly as extraordinary as I’d imagined.
A real capitalist’s only ‘principle’ is money. Kos is making money where he found it, on the foaming-mouthed fringes. No doubt there are some rabid righties, too, but no one’s figured out how to cash in on them to the extent Kos has. This suggests they’re possibly (1) fewer in number or (2) harder to fool, than the lefties.
“typical. A leftist who’s starving is an idiot who needs a haircut and a job. A leftist who’s successful is a sellout. No in-between.’
Pretty weak swipe, fella. Actually, there’s nothing ‘typical’ in my complaint here. My objection is that the guy deliberately and unapologetically sells distortion and hate. It’s no nobler coming from him (on the far left) than from Hitler (on the far right). BTW, the guy makes no pretense toward noble ideals - he’s a self-confessed ‘asshole’. His words, not mine, but who am I (or you, ‘nota bene’) to disagree?
I suspect that being an asshole is, in fact, one of his BETTER qualities.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:55:31 pm
“North Korea is reminding everyone as to what the Democrats stand for as far as national security goes-weakness, appeasment, defeatism, and the good ol’ cut and run. it also serves to remind people that it was Carter and Clinton who essentially gave the NorK’s their nuclear material.”
More of the same, tired Republican talking-points that you obviously picked up from Rush and Instahack. Here are the facts:
1994-2002 — Era of Clinton ‘Agreed Framework’: No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.
2002-2006 — Bush Policy Era: Active plutonium production. No international inspections of plutonium stocks. Nuclear warhead detonated.
Facts are sometimes so hard for die-hard Bush cultists; aren’t they? I am out of here — see you all on November 7. Keep supporting torture, detention of US citizens without any process, failed foreign policy leading to a North Korean nuke, an absolutely disastrous war based on out-and-out lies, etc., etc. I know, we Democrats are the ones who hate America because we speak out against this stuff.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:57:34 pm
I’m a moderate, sensible centrist, a hawkish yet progressive independent with no allegiance to either party,
Hmm I agree with this statement except the sensible part when it comes to Joe Lieberman. As I have said in the past I have no problem with you leaving the Democratic party. What has bothered me the whole time though is your melding of the actions of the actual party leadership vs the actions of some vocal individuals.
What do I mean? Well one of the things you have said repeatedly is how you felt that the Dems abandoned Lieberman, or turned their back on him, or forced him out. Yet you have to this day not answered my simple question, i.e. what should the Democratic Leadership have done?
Would you want them to put preassure on Ned Lamont NOT to run?
Would you want them to not support the candidate elected in their primary?
How are those things true to the ideals of the party? Isn’t the whole point to let the Democrats in Connecticut choose who they want to represent their party in the primary?
Again I ask, what should the leadership of the Democratic party done to convince you that they weren’t the ones kicking Lieberman out?
On top of that I am amazed, simply amazed, at someone who claims to be sensible basing their characterization of the left on a blog commentor. You rage on and on about “Big tent Democrat” as if he is some poster child for the entire party. I bet I could find a commenter on a conservative blog who acted in a very similar fashion on the other side and hold them up as an example of what the right truly is, hell I could use Alasdair as an example of that. But would that be fair? No, it would not.
I mean GOOD LORD Brendan, just look at what YOU wrote:
Read that again: “anyone who tries to defend Lieberman IS a republican and a neo-con.� In the world of inforet, “Big Tent Democrat� and a bunch of others over in Kosworld, reasonable people CANNOT disagree. All disagreement with the party line will be punished! All dissenters are trolls! You’re either with us or against us! Dissent is treason!
This is what the Left in this country has come to. How they look themselves in the mirror while being such bald-faced hypocrites, I have no idea.
YOu are kidding right? You know that this EXACT SAME THING has been coming from many on the right for years now don’t you???? Are you saying that the Republicans have come to the same exact position? That the right is exactly the same? Good lord even *I* don’t think the entire right holds to the “with us or against us” belief system. Yet you seem to think, based on the comments of some random person on an internet blog that you can apply it to the entire left wing in this country, and you want us to think you are sensible?!?
I don’t know what it is that gets you so fired up anytime Joe Lieberman is criticized, but seriously, you come absolute unhinged when you do, and it makes you sound absolutely UNsensible.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:58:17 pm
“What are President Bush’s approval ratings? I forgot.”
Ah, Jon, so strident and yet so easily dismissed. Bush’s ratings are typical of presidents in time of war. Truman, Lincoln, FDR - revered today, reviled in their time. And this is what you snidely offer as “proof” of - something - shorn of its historical context.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:59:20 pm
Actually, Jon, Bush’s approval figures have been trending upward as of late. Looking at even his lowest ratings, he’s always polled better than Congress in the aggregate.
No, if the Democrats win in November, it will be more a case of Republicans outdoing the Democrats in the “Stupid” category. Which takes some doing….
October 11th, 2006 at 5:01:47 pm
“typical. A leftist who’s starving is an idiot who needs a haircut and a job. A leftist who’s successful is a sellout. No in-between.”
One more thought on that… wouldn’t a successful leftist be called a sellout BY THE LEFT? Why would the right do that, having already sold out, and all?
October 11th, 2006 at 5:06:42 pm
Lojo, i expect better from you.
B) Situation Clinton: Sexual misconduct, Democrats and Left defend him after revealed. Clinton stays in office and initially lies about his misconduct. Situation Foley: Sexual misconduct, Republicans and Right burn him on the stake after revealed. Foley admits what he has done and resigns within hours of it being fully revealed. Which one is not like the other?
This is both an incorrect characterization, and on top of it irrelevant to the question at hand.
Jon asked why Lieberman went out of his way to condemn what he considered to be Clinton’s immoral act, but has failed to do so in Foley’s case. It has nothing to do with what any other Democrat said or did re: Clinton. ZERO. If Lieberman truly was standing up and denouncing Clinton, not for political points with the right, but because he honestly and truly thought it was wrong and he should do so, why not do the same for Foley? I mean unless he thinks what Foley did was OK???
And in a semi-related note, your characterization of the situation is weak at best. As pointed out above there is incredibly strong evidence to show that the Foley situation was known about and covered up for 5 years, and only now that its been exposed is the GOP tripping over themselves condemning him.
October 11th, 2006 at 5:06:56 pm
BTW, for any lefty who wants to tell me how popular FDR was, here’s a link that’ll confound ya:
http://pieterfriedrich.com/lies.html
Compares Bush with FDR, at least in one key aspect. (Strange I haven’t seen more regarding this idea.)
October 11th, 2006 at 5:19:20 pm
Now that I’m LOOKING for it, the Bush/FDR/War comparisons seem to be everywhere:
http://www.mises.org/story/813
This one makes it seem that the sainted FDR was the worse transgressor (than Bush), by far.
October 11th, 2006 at 5:33:09 pm
David -
If that is the case then he would denouncing the GOP, not Foley. Of course it matters what the Dem did. What you want to completely ignore the entire context of what happened during the entire affair? Clinton did not resign and attempted to avoid any consequences for his actions.
If you want to make a comparison between Clinton and Foley, you have to make the full comparison. Foley has resigned and left public office, shamed. Why doe Liberman have to denounce him? The guy is BEING punished. That’s equivalent to saying he’s not being consistent because he isn’t denouncing every sexual predator in our court system. Why does he have to?
Now as for denouncing the GOP, again, why does he have to? Does it make his moral issue with Clinton any less valid because he won’t publicly denounce GOP leaders? Clinton was Liberman’s friend and was PART OF HIS PARTY.
I’m characterizing this fairly. You guys keep trying to simplify it to ‘Lieberman spoke out against Clinton’s badness, why doesn’t he speak out against Foley’s!’.
October 11th, 2006 at 6:01:32 pm
“1994-2002 â€â€? Era of Clinton ‘Agreed Framework’: No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.”
Sorry, Jon, but if you honestly believe that there was no nuclear work during this time period, please go back and sue your school district for failing to give you a proper education.
The Norks admitted as much to Colin Powell in 2002 when they said they’d been working on nukes for years. I love how you seem to think this is a “Bush bad” issue rather than an America needs to deal with it issue.
October 11th, 2006 at 6:20:54 pm
Lefties are as weird and uninformed as they are because they must shut themselves off from any information that doesn’t match up with their beliefs. Deep down, somehow, they know that they’re wrong about everything, but their religious beliefs are very important to them. It’s pretty sad.
October 11th, 2006 at 6:50:20 pm
Sorry Snitch, as much as there are tihngs that i think FDR did that were wrong, in that case there was an ACUTAL war going on, not one that was trumped up like Iraq.
Hitler == actual threat
Sadaam == not actual threat
But again, its another tactic of the right, not to defend what people are criticizng, but to say instead “hey look, these other people did bad stuff to!”
Sorry but no serious historian would consider an FDR / Dubya comparison even remotely valid.
October 11th, 2006 at 6:53:08 pm
In fact, the comparison falls apart in the first paragraph:
“…altering the image of the president from a likable man, not known for his mental agility, to a wise statesman in calm control of the nation, a man so obviously dedicated to his responsibilities that he could unilaterally declare “an unlimited national emergency” and be trusted with the power. “
Bush as a wise statesman in calm control? Funniest thing i have read all day. no, unlike FDR he is a bungling fool when it comes to statecraft, as is apparent by the situation in North Korea.
October 11th, 2006 at 6:57:25 pm
Falling from the Ivory Tower Hurts
We finally get the answer to whether mcjoan at DailyKos is illiterate or a liar - it’s both.
October 11th, 2006 at 7:02:29 pm
This post sort of proves mcjoan’s point frankly.
As for the particulars of my comments, you do not stick to them. Indeed, you mistate them. (Some bloggers might say you lied. I withhold judgment.)
I did not threaten to troll rate RonK. I point out that RonK has been trollrating me. I never have trollrated anyone. I am not a trusted user at daily kos.
As to mjoan’s points, you address none of them and they stand unrebutted.
A particularly pathetic post. I imagine the feeble traffic you got from the dkos link won’t be an issue in the future.
October 11th, 2006 at 7:04:08 pm
Sorry Russ, but this is an invalid statement:
I love how you seem to think this is a “Bush bad� issue rather than an America needs to deal with it issue.
Why? Because one can easily see that it is an issue that America needs to deal with BECAUSE Bush did a bad job, and that allowing Bush to continue to do a bad job, especially when he refuses to admit it, means it won’t get dealt with in a way that leads to any positive imporvemnts.
Imagine that you have a football team. Your quarterback is cocky and thinks he can do everything. Throughout the first half he is throwing interceptions, getting tackled for a loss by trying to run when he should throw the ball away, and fumbling the ball on hand offs. You lose your first few games because of your quarterbacks poor performance. Yes you need to deal with the situation, but part of learning to deal with the situation is realizing what is causing the problem in the first place.
Bush is the quarterback, and America is the coach. Its important that we realize that Bush is bad in order to lead to solutions to our problems. And its America’s fault for not doing a better job of sending him that message when it counts. Oh we disaprove in opinion polls, but not enough of us are showing up at the polls to elect democrats to the house or a new president in 04.
You’re absolutely right we need to find a way to deal with this problem. But part of the way we do that is by criticizing the mistakes that have lead to the problem! That means that the Bush administration needs to be criticized, and when the situation gets this bad, criticized harshly. Cutting off practically all diplomatic ties for the first two years of his presidency was the first of many mistakes that contributed to this problem.
So which group really wnats to solve the problems here. The one who holds Bush on such a pedastal that he is beyond criticism? Hardly. Its the one who feels that the President is a valid target for critique. And if you think he is doing such a great job, well, i think the evidence is agianst you, but go ahead, try and argue that, rather than simply saying “blah blah blah all you say is Bush bad”
October 11th, 2006 at 7:04:50 pm
Seixon:
You demonstrate the couth, civility and intelligence we have come to expect from you. In a word, none.
Noce friends you have Brendon. You must be proud.
October 11th, 2006 at 7:06:19 pm
If you want to make a comparison between Clinton and Foley, you have to make the full comparison. Foley has resigned and left public office, shamed.
Five+ years after the fact, after it had been reported to the leadership, and allowed to continue for that whole time. I’d hardly call that a fair comparison.
Not to mention i don’t think what Clinton did comes close to what Foley did. Both are morally wrong, but in Clinton’s case it was atleast consensual.
October 11th, 2006 at 7:06:43 pm
How cute. Big Tent Democrat is a blustery big boy. “Particularly pathetic post”…”some bloggers might…”. So adorably geeklame. It’s fun to watch the idiots fight the douchebags and forget which is which.
October 11th, 2006 at 7:10:12 pm
David, was it really consensual? Who says no to the President of the United States? Don’t you think it would be in the intern’s interest to put out? I’m not saying Monica wasn’t a slut, but do you really think Foley’s gay(oh, i’m sorry bi, oh, i’m sorry, pranking straight kid) page was any less consensually “seduced”?
October 11th, 2006 at 7:11:52 pm
Chris:
Are you in need of a dictionary? mcjoan is a nice person. I am not. I will call an idiot an idiot.
You qualify.
No insouciance in you.
October 11th, 2006 at 7:15:34 pm
Big Tent Democrat-
Perhaps mcjoan is. But you’re either on the idiot team or the douchebag team, and now I can’t tell which one you are. Probably because you’re both. Noce friends you have, too.
October 11th, 2006 at 7:45:50 pm
David -
I am not ascribing moral equivalence between what Clinton did and what Foley did. Though Clinton was more flagrant with what he told the public, that pales in comparison with the pedastry flirtations of Foley’s actions.
But I am using the situations of both as a comparison. One a democrat in power in a scandal over sexual misconduct (YES it was consensual, but it was still misconduct which is not a legal term but a label) and a republican in a scandal over sexual misconduct (what Foley has done, though predatory, does not appear to be illegal as no action took place. Though I’ll be surprise if Justice doesn’t look at the logs and comes back with soliciting a minor).
The sexual details are different, but those details are not relevant unless someone makes an argument that the only reason Liberman doesn’t denounce Foley is because Foley is homosexual. If they are fine, but that’s not what I am inferring from the arguments being made from people above.
October 11th, 2006 at 7:50:59 pm
David,
Me from earlier:
“I feel like I should make the point when we talk about comments made on blogs and boards, both right and left can be very ‘enthusiastic’ as to condemnations and name-calling. Not really here, but Kos, LFG, Lucianne.com, FireDogLake. So I think that problem is more of a bi-partisan one that afflicts those who comment due to the gift/scourge of internet anonymity.
BUT (and this is a big BUT), the lefty leaders due exhibit the same behavior of scorched earth politics, leave the those to the wolves who can’t keep up in their progressiveness. You’ll find healthy debate in most influential righty sphere sites, but lefty side is far more fratricidal.”
Kos is an influential leader in the new Left. There are certainly righties who prescribe to the ‘burn all libs’ policy, but Michael Savage, Ann Coulter (alot of noise about her, but little clout), and Pat Buchanan are hardly the new Right.
If anybody its people like Jonah Goldberg (and others in the NRO Corner), Captain Ed (Whom by the way has a guest post from John McCain on NK on his blog today!! Great catch!), and Powerline. These guys are influential but are hardly the same fire and brimstone that dominates influential Left.
October 11th, 2006 at 7:53:57 pm
Jon
“Evidence is clear that they warned Republican pages about Foley but NEVER informed the Democratic member of the page board.”
Better keep up. WaPo is reporting that the Dems were shopping the emails to the press for months. Why didn’t they warn the Democratic member of the page board?–or did he indeed know?
October 11th, 2006 at 8:07:31 pm
Big Tent,
I apologize for misinterpreting your comments about troll rating. It was an honest mistake. I will make a correction.
As for Seixon… he’s not my “friend.” I’ve never heard of him (or her), actually. Just because someone links to my post and issues a trackback/pingback, doesn’t make him my friend. C’mon now.
October 11th, 2006 at 8:21:47 pm
Come to think of it, I have heard of Seixon before, as he commented and linked to my blog the other day. But it’s silly for you to assume that someone who comments/pingbacks/trackbacks on my site is automatically my friend.
October 11th, 2006 at 8:43:14 pm
Lamont is toast. What are you guys going to do on Weds morning? If you do win due to Foley, what does that say for your ideas? When Gerry Studds was censured for having sex, actual sex, with a 17 year old page, he turn his back on the chair and the Democrats in the house gave him a standing ovation. Was that before your time? Do you really not know that? C’mon, do you really think this story will last through November? Why didn’t the Democrats, who knew about this for months. do something? I mean besides the unabashed gay bashing that they have indulged this past few days.
October 11th, 2006 at 8:50:00 pm
Big Tent Democrats - White Men, White Women, Black Men, Black Women, Hispanic Men, Hispanic Women, Asian Men, Asian Women, Jews, Catholics, Mainline Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Rich, Poor, Disabled, Empowered, Gays, Straights.
Big Tent Republicans - White Evangelical Men and Mrs. White Evangelical Men, Oil Executives and Condi Rice, Child Predators.
About says it.
October 11th, 2006 at 8:57:02 pm
Good point Brendan. My apologies. Seixon is not your friend.
On the other hand, you’ll find that mcjoan and daily kos can be.
There is disagreement on Lieberman obviously. But consider where you agree. I assum Ford, Webb, Tester, Casey are candidates we all can support.
I urge kossacks to not think of Ed Kilgore as enemies, but rather colleagues in an intellectual debate.
I wish you would not have called mcjoan a liar. That was out of bounds. She is not.
October 11th, 2006 at 9:05:26 pm
Heh, I just sent you an e-mail apologizing for my mistake… and then I come over here and see you apologizing for yours. Aww, see, we’re all friends now! :)
Yes, I support those candidates you mention. Well, certainly Casey, as I’m NOT a Santorum fan. The others, I don’t know a lot about them individually, but I support them because I want to see a Dem majority in the Senate as a counterweight to Bush. Not so sure about the House, as I have grave misgivings about Pelosi… though I do plan to vote for Donnelly here in IN-2, and cross my fingers Pelosi & co. don’t make me regret it. But anyway, I would definitely like to see the Dems take the Senate.
I applaud your comment about Ed Kilgore. You’re absolutely right, and if more people on the Left had that attitude (that we should be engaging in discourse, rather than trying to shout down those who aren’t sufficiently liberal, antiwar and virulent in their Bush-hatred), I might not have divorced the Democratic Party back in August.
As for calling mcjoan a liar… well, I wish she would not have called Lieberman a liar. That was out of bounds. He is not.
But perhaps you’re right; perhaps mcjoan was simply so caught up in her own rhetoric that she failed to recognize the flaw in her argument, and that intellectual blind spot — rather than dishonesty — is why she ignored the difference between “developing” and “having” in her initial post. (As I said above: “if she’d made [the] argument [about ‘context’] in the original post, and called Lieberman’s original statement ‘misleading’ instead of a ‘lie,’ it would have been a more respectable post, and I probably never would have blogged about it.”)
But until I see better evidence of that, I’m going to stick with the 3-year-old “SHE STARTED IT” argument, in terms of people unjustifiably calling each other liars. :)
October 11th, 2006 at 9:14:34 pm
Interesting how groups like the Kossacks and Democratic Underground have their “troll ratings” to ensure orthodoxy. Any comrade who dissents risks getting the Trotsky treatment, or at the very least denunciation as a thought criminal.
Sort of like Barbra Streisand telling a heckler to “STFU if you can’t take a joke”, and then later in the show extolling “tolerance.” The irony and the cognitive dissonance are beyond belief.
October 11th, 2006 at 9:33:44 pm
Nota bene “Only In It For The Money, I think he would have set up on the right side of the aisle, since that’s where the real, aristocratic, fuck-you money is.” Hey nota, two names for your dumbass Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry. What an maroon. lol
October 11th, 2006 at 9:43:58 pm
Lojo (and David)
“I am not ascribing moral equivalence between what Clinton did and what Foley did. Though Clinton was more flagrant with what he told the public, that pales in comparison with the pedastry flirtations of Foley’s actions.”
While I arrive comparatively late to this thread, I am curious as to why “pedastry {sic} flirtations” are considered to be more of an offence than actual varified perjury in a civil case ? Isn’t perjury significantly worse than flirtation ? Or are we *already* under a perverse form of sharia ?
October 12th, 2006 at 1:29:21 am
Wow. I have nothing much to add beyond Alasdair’s and Clyde’s words, only to say: I feel like I’ve just walked into my favorite neighborhood spot, only to find the place three-deep at the bar.
October 12th, 2006 at 7:03:40 am
Alasdair -
Are you meaning to tell me that lying on the stand about a consensual affair is worse than being sexually aggressive to minors and subordinates?
They are both sexual misconduct, but one is clearly worse than the other. If you’re going with (A), I really think you need to review your perspective.
October 12th, 2006 at 9:08:29 am
David K. “Hitler == actual threat Sadaam == not actual threat… Sorry but no serious historian would consider an FDR / Dubya comparison even remotely valid.”
Oh, I get it. Hitler was a real tyrant and murderer, killing citizens and invading neighboring countries. Sadaam wasn’t a tyrant, wasn’t killing his own people, and never invaded a neighboring country. Hitler was an immediate threat to this country, Sadaam wasn’t. (Which areas of the US did Hitler attack, again? I forget.)
Thanks for the historical insight. And, uh, you were saying something about what ’serious historians’ would say about FDR/Bush?
Had you checked out the links and poked around, you would have seen this comparison is being taken completely seriously. Sorry, but just saying it’s not valid won’t make the facts disappear, no matter how badly you want that to happen. (Only logging onto Kos will do that for you.)
October 12th, 2006 at 2:16:21 pm
Lojo - flirtation had better not become automatically considered to be “sexual misconduct” or, worse yet, “sexual aggression” or we will have to stop using the English language which is ripe with multiple meanings frequently flagrantly sexual if one understands those alternate meanings … there is a good solid reason for the existence of the saying “To the Pure, All Things Are Pure !” …
So, yes, I do believe that perjury IS a more serious offence than flirtation … sexual misconduct, on the other hand, depending on the actions involved, may or may not be …
As far as I know, rational people can successfully differentiate between “flirtation” and “sexual aggression” …
As far as I know, rational people can successfully differentiate between “white lies” and “perjury” …
Those who cannot do so risk finding themselves running afoul of the Laws of the jurisdiction in which they fail to successfully make the differentiation …
With what has ex-Congressman Foley been charged ?
With what was ex-President Clinton charged ? As far as I recall, he was not charged with lying about a consensual affair; as I recall, he was charged with perjuring himself about the truthfulness of another human being … please correct me if I am wrong in my recollection …
October 12th, 2006 at 2:53:40 pm
Alasdair -
I’m not talking about legal justification, I’m talking, as I said, about a moral equivalence. And I’m sorry, underage (please note the word) pages are coming forward saying he was making sexual advances towards them, unwantedly. Sir, that is nonconsensual. And that is where the other part of massive moral difference lies.
Nonconsensual, underage. Morally that holds more issue with me than consensual and underage. And the line of what has Foley been indicted for, the investigation just started. Its not like it’s been ongoing for multiple years here. Don’t you think if they decide to prosecute an ex-congressman they should get all their legal ducks in a row?
Now if he hasn’t been charged in a year, that is approach Nifong territory.
Again, I’m not defending Clinton or Foley. I’m pointing out though that Foley’s indiscretions, morally, hold more issue than Clintons to me. Doesn’t mean I think Clinton’s was minor, just that Foley’s is worse. Legally, depends on what the investigation shows.
October 12th, 2006 at 4:58:05 pm
Gerry Studds. Ring a bell? Remember him? Censured by Congress, given a standing O by the Democrats? I am sure you would rather compare it to Clinton, but Studds is the benchmark on how Democrats react to one of their own having homosexual sex with an under 18 page. Actual sex, BTW.
I can see why Democrats would want to forget it. That’s what makes a liberal, ability to studiously ignore any inconvenient facts.
October 12th, 2006 at 5:02:52 pm
moptop -
You not following the thread. The comparison between Clinton and Foley was because people above were decrying how Liberman voice moral issues with Clinton, but not with Foley. I didn’t bring Studds into it because he is not relevant to the Lieberman argument here.
But you are right, the comparison between Studds and Foley is someone apt, except that Foley, as far as anyone knows, did not actually have sex with the pages.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:28:11 am
I was responding to utterly hypocritical and self serving, if not utterly delusional comments like this:
“he was making sexual advances towards them, unwantedly. Sir, that is nonconsensual.”
I don’t remember Paula Jones consenting to sexual advances, or many of the others. There were too many to name, here, accusations of rape even. All of these right-wing tools had one thing in common, they were all young women who had volunteered to serve Democrat campaigns.
October 20th, 2006 at 12:33:49 am
Now this list of comments is a great example of a good fight in the center and not being an echo chamber of left or right. Great work Brendan, and fun reading. Your tag could be bringing the left, right and center together on neutral ground to clobber each other.
October 20th, 2006 at 9:05:42 pm
anyone who has “misgivings” about Pelosi after the reign of Gingrich and Hastert is not to be trusted
December 6th, 2006 at 3:44:18 pm
Good for you! I was part of a bunch of posters from Slate who tried out DailyKos at the urging of one of our best posters. He thought it had great technology, that the conversation was top-notch and that we’d have a bigger, better platform for our political views (everyone who tried was center to left in political orientation). One of us wrote a number of parodic diaries which are, fairly obviously, satire and which are intended to skewer people of the rightwing persuasion. An avalanche kossack comments ensued from those who either didn’t understand the diaries or didn’t find them funny. Fair enough to disagree on those points, but, predictably, the gangs started troll-rating. Then if anyone tried to defend him, or point out that disagreement was not a good reason to troll-rate, those defenders were in turn troll-rated. Bans of course ensued, all for the sin of defending someone who actually holds political views that should be well within kos norms. I do look over there about once a month just for kicks (much of the featured writing is poorly conceived, thoughtless, and invariably one-note), and they are STILL contending that “sockpuppets” from Slate are conspiring to ruin their site, months after we gave up even trying to talk to them. That look caused me to google kos and fascism, and I ended up here.
In summary, kos managed to alienate a well-heeled group of people who could give money to kos-supported candidates, provide connections and be part of the community because of the “fear” of a thought-crime. The site is people who are the political equivalent of crack-smokers. They don’t seem to understand that their approach actively undermines the Democratic party and the Democratic process, first, by insulating themselves from argument and second, by instilling the basic virtues of fascism in their community.