22
Shorter MichelleMalkin.com
- Despite the fact that he has tirelessly lobbied on behalf of blood-soaked autocrats, Charles Black is easily the best thing that McCain’s campaign has going for it.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard.
Gavin adds: See-Dubya, the Malkineer who wrote the inevitable shrugging eh-who-gives-a-crap defense of Charles Black, plays an interesting game of Twister:
It will be interesting, of course, to hear these Democrats explain why exactly Black’s ties with evil dictators are so bad, when their presumptive candidate is proposing to go work with them face to face and legitimize relations with a whole assortment of repressive thugs. Sit down for a tea party with Bashar Assad? Why, that’s exactly the sort of legitimacy and international prestige that dictators hire lobbyists like Charles Black to arrange for them.
Fine then, we’ll explain. When it really comes down to it, in this penny arcade of hopes and dreams that we call life, would you want a lobbyist for clients including Jonas Savimbi of Angola, Ferdinand Marcos, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida of Nigeria, Mobutu Sese-freaking-Seko, and Mohamed Siad Barre of Somalia (among others) to marry your dad and be your new gay dad? No, just kidding. The actual answer is that Black worked for them, while Obama is planning to work for us — i.e., against Bashar-hypothetical-Assad, i.e. ‘almost the exact opposite,’ as almost-exactly-opposite things are usually called by sane, as opposed to ding-whoop yar-yar crazy, people.
If See-Dubya ever faces arraignment, for instance for dazedly wandering a Wal-Mart while two-fistedly sniffing Sharpie markers, he would then do well to master the difference between ‘a defense attorney’ and ‘the prosecutor.’ The one is a nice man who charges you money to help you out of a jam. The other will offer you deals and may even bring you a cup of tea or coffee, but is not really your friend. Take heed, feckless wanderer!
Note that in this analogy, See-Dubya is in the hypothetical role of a bloody dictator who murders his own people. This is by way of irony, a thing which occurs when you open Black’s fly and he urinates into your Chardonnay, or however that whole thing went.
Jeesh. It’ll also be interesting to see how flexible and obfuscatory the term ‘ties’ can become as this hellacious campaign year wears on. It can link people who have little to do with each other (e.g., a public figure and some mortifying jackass who dropped money on his or her campaign), drawing us all a bit closer together, as it were; but it can also… Well, apparently Karl Rove isn’t listed as an official McCain advisor (and has only ‘been linked to’ the McCain campaign) because he has what some would call ‘ties with’ the Bush administration.
El Cid said,
May 22, 2008 at 16:53
Burma’s military dictatorship may have slaughtered the regime’s opponents and prevented any political development other than their constantly rotting authoritarian bureaucratism, but unlike the liberal fascists, they neither enrolled a 12 year old boy in a health insurance program nor did they recommend eating organic foods purchased at a Whole Foods Market, so, really, who’s the real villain?
gbear said,
May 22, 2008 at 16:55
Was that ’shorter’ supposed to be humorous? It’s the most solidly truthful political statement I’ve seen all week.
dan b said,
May 22, 2008 at 17:01
Given her ubiquity around here lately, I’m not sure whether to say this has or has not been Michelle’s best week.
gbear said,
May 22, 2008 at 17:13
Oh Man, this is so far OT but it’s too cool to not be a buttinski. The local lovably-whacko St. Paul Saints baseball team has a promotional givaway for an upcoming game. Usually they give away bobble-head figures of some sort. This time they’re giving away a bobble-foot figurine of a man in a toilet stall. It’s their tribute to Larry Craig at the MSP airport. I heart the Saints.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/19160729.html?location_refer=Homepage
DUDACKATTACK!!! said,
May 22, 2008 at 17:18
As long as the victims of Charles Black’s clients are really, really, really brown, he’s done a good job on Planet Malkin*
*population: 2
Hysterical Woman said,
May 22, 2008 at 17:33
I was surprised that she actually used the phrase blood-soaked autocrats. I thought she would pretend that they were noble freedom fighters wrongly accused by the pinko press.
Jim said,
May 22, 2008 at 17:43
It will be interesting to hear conservatives explain why exactly Obama’s alleged vague and poorly sourced alleged ties to people who belonged to the Communist Party in the ’60s are so bad, when their hero Ronald Reagan sat down face to face and legitimized relations with a whole assortment of actual leaders of the Communist Party.
Sit down for a tea party with Brezhnev and Gorbachev? Why, that’s exactly the sort of direct communication with Communists that critics of Obama have completely failed to demonstrate.
SamFromUtah said,
May 22, 2008 at 17:46
…their hero Ronald Reagan sat down face to face and legitimized relations with a whole assortment of actual leaders of the Communist Party.
Yeah. Plus his administration also sold weapons to Iran. I guess as long as they didn’t talk to the Iranians in the course of doing so, that’s OK too.
El Cid said,
May 22, 2008 at 17:47
Yes, we are all greatly offended that the presumed Democratic candidate was once near a guy who had connections with terrorism, given that the Republican party which supported so many noble, dignified, totally not terrorist Freedom Fighters in our areas of interest in the Caribbean & Latin America & Southern Africa & Afghanistan.
javafascist said,
May 22, 2008 at 17:48
I, for one, welcome my ethically compromised, advocates for blood-soaked autocrat overlords.
Or not. Some days it’s hard to find teh funny in all of this nonsense. Please send kittens.
jim said,
May 22, 2008 at 17:48
You can’t say Mr. Black doesn’t understand the primary value of the bottom line.
pedestrian said,
May 22, 2008 at 17:49
This time they’re giving away a bobble-foot figurine of a man in a toilet stall.
I WANT!!!
jim said,
May 22, 2008 at 17:59
The bottom line.
Djur said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:04
This right-wing “Obama is willing to parlay with our enemies” idee fixe amounts, if you take it seriously, to an open and complete rejection of the founding principle of human civilization — compromise and negotiation.
El Cid said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:08
Has there been something I missed which indicated that the right wing supports the reality or the very notion of human civilization?
I mean, other than the very humorous pretend appreciation for “Western Culture” or “Western Values” when it comes to bashin’ the furners but not when it comes to anything such as democracy or reason, because that’s just a game which allows them to pose nobly while imagining lots of Greek and Roman architecture.
Smiling Mortician said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:09
Well, I’m in a real quandary this morning. Michelle included this right up front in her post:
but I already have a full-time job.
Snort said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:12
I thought a Malkin was one of those fuzzy little dogs that yaps at your celing fan all day then takes a dump in your shoes.
Some Guy said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:13
So, Malkin doesn’t FBI/SWAT hostage negotiators, either? Just blow up the whole damn building, let god sort them out.
See, here’s the thing: if we’ve learned anything in the past 8 years, it’s that we can’t just blow up the world until it does what we want them too. It seems that we feel the need to re-learn this lesson every 30 years or so, but okay, fine, whatever.
So, it’s required that we engage in the non-exploding kind of efforts to get the things we want, or at least bend it to a less sucking agreement.
“Why, that’s exactly the sort of legitimacy and international prestige that dictators hire lobbyists like Charles Black to arrange for them.”
If a brutal dictator doesn’t have their shit together enough to have some form of foreign entourage or embassy establishment, they really don’t have any business to conduct with the US. Lobbyists who volunteer to work for their behalf (to give them that legitimacy and international prestige you claim to dislike so much, Malkin) for pay are greedy, soul-less fucksticks. Therein lies paradise.
Dave said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:17
It’s funny that Malkin mentions Bashar Assad…considering that Syria and Israel are having indirect peace talks in Turkey.
So…does that make Israel appeasers? Or are they just legitimizing a repressive thug?
Righteous Bubba said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:18
Why is John McCain consorting with a known thief and drug addict?
not even an mba said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:18
I’m changing the name of my band to Six Degrees of Idi Amin in honour of this thread.
Lesly said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:21
She hasn’t sloughed off the Cold War “better dead than Red” mentality. What she doesn’t realize is there is no difference now. Authoritarianism has trumped every ideology. The lesser of two evils choice doesn’t fly.
stryx said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:21
Lobbyists who volunteer to work for their behalf… for pay are greedy, soul-less fucksticks.
Kind of like this guy?
Snort said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:27
From comments: The sad part is a chimp would be a much better candidate than we are stuck with now.
Feel the love. They want another Bush.
Ripley said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:32
Diplomacy doesn’t offer a sense of “Victory.” Diplomacy does not feed The Beast.
Diplomacy does not give our “enemies” swirlies and stuff them into lockers.
PeeJ said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:33
Oliie Fucking North was bashing Obamalamadingdang for saying he’d talk with the Iranians. Yep. Convicted felon Ollie North. Illegal arms dealer Ollie North.
I want to hear Obama turn this around. Every time McSame or anyone does the whiny “OOh he’ll TALK to the bad guys!” he should say “What are you afraid of? You can’t stand up to them?”
Snorghagen said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:36
It certainly makes the Israelis flagrantly, dangerously anti-Israel. Leading neo-cons will soon be calling for an Israeli attack on Israel.
Athenawise said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:36
I’m so glad Sadly, No! has taken on the task of relentless Malkin bashing. You guys are earning your wings in heaven. Well, maybe ur-heaven. Or under-heaven.
owlbear1 said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:37
Malkin sure is desperate to get in on those McCain calls.
Susan of Texas said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:40
This is Chez Malkin’s source of income, and the wingnut funds are probably drying up a bit. I wonder how long it will take for her to realize that the power structure won ‘t pay her to attack them.
Athenawise said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:41
“I thought a Malkin was one of those fuzzy little dogs that yaps at your celing fan all day then takes a dump in your shoes.”
I thought a Malkin was a pubic wig. Oh, wait. That’s a MERKIN. Close enough.
jim said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:57
If it comes down to a contest between the Glorious Market Of The People & a goofy decadent fad like civilization, I think I can guess which team Chairman Maokin will be shaking her pom-poms for.
A lot of GOP support comes from a wing of Fundamentalism that IS overtly opposed to human civilization as we know it, & that funky little elite DC prayer-circle the Clintons’ve been chummy with is linked to it. McCain? Somehow it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if he was right there alongside them - although his Born-Again status is purely for political brownie-points. Odd - Obama’s made more noise about his good buddy God than either of them, yet I suspect he’s not being invited to join them on Sundays … I wonder why …
Reconstructionists or Dominionists believe that they have a mission from Big G to establish Biblical law, worldwide, as an essential precondition for the return of a certain famous DFH with buoyant & reincarnational powers. They’re not joking - if they can get their way, courts will be giving out death-sentences like candy.
George Grant:
“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish.”
Sounds like fun - as long as you’re a Christian, that is.
PS: comments in this post mark my first (& second) use of textlinks EVAR … those last 15 or so cuss-words must’ve done it … cue up Britney singing “Not A Girl, Not Yet A Woman” … I’ll try not to abuse it. Much.
SamFromUtah said,
May 22, 2008 at 18:58
I thought a Malkin was one of those fuzzy little dogs that yaps at your celing fan all day then takes a dump in your shoes.
This must be why the Rude Pundit keeps writing that Malking should be caged like a rabid shih-tzu.
Rabid Shih-tzus said,
May 22, 2008 at 19:05
We’re in the cages to protect ourselves from Michelle Malkin.
Sometimes she gets hungry.
SamFromUtah said,
May 22, 2008 at 19:10
We’re in the cages to protect ourselves from Michelle Malkin.
OK, then if she were caged, we could let all of you out. You’d write more coherent blogs than she does, I suspect.
mikey said,
May 22, 2008 at 19:17
Yes. Yes it does. But you see, if your overwhelming solution to every problem large and small is to bomb it, shoot it, invade it, kill it, detain it, grind it into greenish red sludge, then any talks, meetings or negotiations are counter-productive. You see, they can only serve the purpose of delaying or preventing the bombing, killing and detaining that you are god-in-heaven certain is the only solution to the problem.
mikey
mikey said,
May 22, 2008 at 19:19
Perhaps someone could make a PShop similar to the one that has Pammy eating a small animal, but instead of the malkin thing devouring a couple of rabid shih tzus like they were onion rings….
mikey
stryx said,
May 22, 2008 at 19:26
Shorter mikey:
If your only tool is an army, all of your problems start to look like wars.
tontocal said,
May 22, 2008 at 19:32
Poor Michelle!……why can’t you just leave her alone!!
The Great Fire of New York™³²®© said,
May 22, 2008 at 19:33
Image choices:
http://www.100monkeystyping.com/wlog/m5.jpg
http://uglyrepublicans.com/republicans/United-States/Michelle-Malkin/michelle-malkin-witch.jpg
Jim said,
May 22, 2008 at 19:34
Hang on.
This was on the CW?
Shit.
Did I miss an episode of Gossip Girl?
not even an mba said,
May 22, 2008 at 19:54
I can’t believe this hasn’t been pointed out yet, but I can’t imagine Michelle Malkin condoning caging.
Legalize said,
May 22, 2008 at 19:55
I think teh Sadly is doing a great service documenting the post-by-post descent of the Malkin thing. It might be a good idea to do screen grabs of her posts because there will be a time (shortly before the indictments of the Bush Administration and its Enablers) when she will realize that having her stuff out there might not be the best thing for her.
It’s odd that she doesn’t see what the GOP is starting to do to her now that she no longer serves a useful purpose. Ultimately it will be kind of like what Tony Soprano did to Chris when Chris outlived his usefulness and became more of a burden.
Snort said,
May 22, 2008 at 19:56
Poor Michelle!……why can’t you just leave her alone!!
With so much stoopid,it’s…too…much…fun!
Hoosier X said,
May 22, 2008 at 19:57
I’m sitting this one out. She’s just too pathetic.
Righteous Bubba said,
May 22, 2008 at 20:00
Poor Michelle!……why can’t you just leave her alone!!
Speaking as a crazy liberal moonbat I hate the poor.
henry lewis said,
May 22, 2008 at 20:14
Plus his administration also sold weapons to Iran. I guess as long as they didn’t talk to the Iranians in the course of doing so, that’s OK too.
- Let’s just say I know a guy who knows a guy. He says they fell off a truck.
Djur said,
May 22, 2008 at 20:23
You’ve got it backwards. The lesson of the last 8 years is that war is totally awesome and cool, and our only fault is that we didn’t fully embrace the glory of slaughter and make the Euphrates run red with the blood of every last Musselman, and that the hated liberals emboldened the terrorists and stabbed the troops in the back by objecting to torture, rape, and mass murder.
You know it’s true.
emmatx said,
May 22, 2008 at 20:28
OT, but have y’all seen this? http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/05/21/clinton-calvinball/
i never would have expected this from tbogg. pretty disappointing.
Righteous Bubba said,
May 22, 2008 at 20:35
i never would have expected this from tbogg. pretty disappointing.
Tat for tit.
mikey said,
May 22, 2008 at 20:37
I’ve always been willing to go up to 3 tats for a tit…
mikey
emmatx said,
May 22, 2008 at 20:41
but really, threatening to take his ball and vote for mccain (or not vote) just because hillary’s pretty distasteful? i don’t like her either but that is so wrong. luckily, obama will be the nominee so he won’t have the chance to take out his anger at her on the entire country by helping elect a republican warmonger.
emmatx said,
May 22, 2008 at 20:42
by the way, i’m usually a lurker (daily!). hi sadlynoughts!
not even an mba said,
May 22, 2008 at 20:43
I’ve always been willing to go up to 3 tats for a tit…
They’d have to be pretty small then, what a playboy bunny, some japanese character and a butterfly?
Righteous Bubba said,
May 22, 2008 at 20:44
but really, threatening to take his ball and vote for mccain (or not vote) just because hillary’s pretty distasteful?
I agree that it’s dumb and I hope a knob like Larry Johnson isn’t actually a factor in that. It’s like thinking deeply about a Gary Ruppert post.
Susan of Texas said,
May 22, 2008 at 20:45
Heh, RB.
Some people think it’s worse to pretend you care than to really not care. I would never vote for McCain because of his warmongering, but I won’t say that nobody is ever allowed to contemplate the option.
Righteous Bubba said,
May 22, 2008 at 20:47
I won’t say that nobody is ever allowed to contemplate the option.
It’s like you’re interested in democracy or something. What’s up with that?
Susan of Texas said,
May 22, 2008 at 20:48
It’s darn inconvenient, let me tell you.
pedestrian said,
May 22, 2008 at 20:49
I’ve always been willing to go up to 3 tats for a tit…
How about this:
A naked lady, with a tattoo of a naked lady on her boob, which also has a tattoo of a naked lady!
kenga said,
May 22, 2008 at 20:49
Now hang on just one minute!
He was freed on a technicality, so that conviction doesn’t count … other than to establish that he’s a criminal that got freed on a technicality, even though he sold weapons to terrorists.
That’s one of my favorite Mobius strips for Thanksgiving conversations wherein I don’t want to deal with listening to my Reagan-loving grandparents talk about current events.
DrDick said,
May 22, 2008 at 20:49
“Despite the fact that he has tirelessly lobbied on behalf of blood-soaked autocrats”
Actually, I think she meant to say, “Because of the fact that he has tirelessly lobbied on behalf of blood-soaked autocrats”. That is much more in keeping with her general tone and political frame.
g said,
May 22, 2008 at 20:52
Everybody’s hand-wringing about this like it’s a done deal. Nothing is static, particularly emotions. The next several months are going to change minds, particularly if Hillary does the right thing and enthusiastically campaigns for Obama - let her bring along her supporters to vote for him.
It would be supremely ironic if her supporters are so rabid that they refuse to vote for Obama even when she asks them to.
not even an mba said,
May 22, 2008 at 20:55
pedestrian,
Droste effect boobies! Link sfw until about halfway down - Aperitifs rule!
zeppo said,
May 22, 2008 at 21:03
Man, all this mean talk about Shih-Tzu’s
http://barkingrabbits.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-sunday-shih-tzu-blogging.html
She hardly ever yaps at the ceiling fan, although she does sometimes take a dump in some unexpected places.
Gary Ruppert said,
May 22, 2008 at 21:21
It’s like thinking deeply about a Gary Ruppert post.
The fact is, I don’t appreciate or need this abuse. My posts are thoughtful and insightful and have never been made with such detail or with such care.
g said,
May 22, 2008 at 21:29
have never been made with such detail or with such care
exactly.
henry lewis said,
May 22, 2008 at 21:41
The fact is, I don’t appreciate or need this abuse.
Easy, fella. Ya want love?
I’d take five Rupperts over one TwinSlow any day.
J— said,
May 22, 2008 at 21:42
S/he was a daily lurker
A Sadly reader, yeah
It took ‘em so long to come out
But s/he came out
henry lewis said,
May 22, 2008 at 21:50
S/he
How do you vocalize / ?
Susan of Texas said,
May 22, 2008 at 21:52
It’s silent, like the “p” in “Psmith.”
mikey said,
May 22, 2008 at 21:54
I thought that was PSmythe…
mikey
pedestrian said,
May 22, 2008 at 21:55
S’he
(aspirate the s)
J— said,
May 22, 2008 at 21:56
How do you vocalize / ?
Reader’s/singer’s choice.
(It’s really because I don’t know if emmatx would go by he or she.)
not even an mba said,
May 22, 2008 at 21:59
/
Sadly I know this. Like the last letter in the alphabet.
pedestrian said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:02
1) I think emmatx may be Emma from TX, therefore a “she”
2) I like zie
3) I’m full of s’hit
Another Rabid Shih-tzu said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:02
Yap yap yap yap yap yap!
Yap yap yap yap yap yap!
Yap yap yap yap yap yap!
I fuckin’ hate celing fans.
Yap yap yap yap yap yap!
Yap yap yap yap yap yap!
Oh look, a shoe.
smut clyde said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:06
Is the P in PShop also silent?
If I were mikey, I would not question Susan-of-Texas’s knowledge of the Wodehouse canon.
If your only C-in-C is a tool, all of your problems start to look like wars.
Dorothy said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:11
It would be supremely ironic if her supporters are so rabid that they refuse to vote for Obama even when she asks them to.
Here’s a point I haven’t heard made yet, too:
What kind of chance do you think Hillary has of landing a powerful position in the McCain administration? Like, Cabinet level or District Judge (as a stepping stone to the SCOTUS)?
Compare that to Hillary’s chances in an Obama administration, and explain to me why the hell any supporter of Hillary’s would vote for McCain???
Johnny Coelacanth said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:11
More OT Goodness: McCain officially rejects Hagee endorsement
Lydia, The Tattooed Lady said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:13
If you’ll step up and tell me where,
For a dime you can see
Kankakee or Paris
Or Washington, crossing the Delaware
(la la laa, la-la-la)
Righteous Bubba said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:15
McCain officially rejects Hagee endorsement
He had to suck that cock because there were a bunch of fat crazy white men around and he was scared.
Dinky Hocker Shoots Smack said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:18
He rejects the endorsement he specifically sought out… but makes sure to say that his relationship with Hagee is nothing like Obama’s with Wright.
mikey said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:22
The Wodehouse Cannon?
I believe it’s a lovely old eight pounder, a field gun on wooden spoked wheels with the foundry name in relief on both sides.
Isn’t it?
mikey
pedestrian said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:23
Oh noooooeeeees!! The unfairness has never been equalled!
SamFromUtah said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:25
McCain officially rejects Hagee endorsement
Hmf. I’m holding out for the denouncement.
Jennifer said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:27
“I thought a Malkin was one of those fuzzy little dogs that yaps at your celing fan all day then takes a dump in your shoes.”
I thought a Malkin was a pubic wig. Oh, wait. That’s a MERKIN. Close enough.
Uh…wrong on both counts. From merriam-webster online:
malkin
One entry found.
malkin
Main Entry: mal·kin
Pronunciation: \?mo?(l)-k?n, ?mal-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English malkyn servant woman, from Malkyn, diminutive of the name Maud
Date: 1586
1dialect chiefly British : an untidy woman : slattern
Snort said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:27
The fact is, I appreciate and need this abuse. My posts aren’t thoughtful or insightful and have never been made with much detail or with much care.
Jim said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:30
I thought a “malkin” was a cat.
SamFromUtah said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:31
The Wodehouse cannon is a nice little gun, but I always liked the ones that had “Ultima Ratio Regum” stamped on them.
“The last argument of kings”, I believe that means. Much more civilized than the no-negotiation-with-brown-people set, whose first and only means of argument is the modern equivalent of the cannon.
Then again, those old cannons were French, so they probably just surrendered and ate cheese and stuff.
Jennifer said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:34
Jim - that’s the second definition. For our purposes, I prefer the first.
J— said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:36
Ah, but when will McCain throw Hagee under the bus? And if he does, how will he throw him under the bus? Underhand, overhand, eephus pitch, spitter, sheaf toss?
not even an mba said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:37
Gazoogling “Wodehouse cannon” with the quotes turns up more than zero hits. Including from a site called goodreads.com Me thinks that they may read goodly butthey don’t write too well.
smut clyde said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:37
an Internet journalist seeking to use me as a political football
Hagee is ovoid, made of pigskin, and stuffed with kapok.
Actually it would be more fun if Internet journalists tried to use people as political billiard-balls, for a change. That way there could be up to 15 in play at any given time, and you miss a turn if you pot the white one.
t4toby said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:40
Slattern. snicker
Is that anything like a trollop?
And more than the C-word, I can’t believe that McCain called his wife a trollop.
Paging the Victorian Era: Some old fucker has escaped your time and is trying to be our president!
Slattern. Trollop. LOLzers.
smut clyde said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:41
When I mentioned the Wodehouse canon, I was actually thinking of Rev. Harold “Stinker” Pinker (curate in Market Snodsbury).
Jacob Singer said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:41
Just watch, the Hagee stuff will just be an excuse to get Wright back on the air.
SamFromUtah said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:42
Ah, but when will McCain throw Hagee under the bus?
McCain’s a traditionalist - if anything, he’d throw Hagee to the wolves. They didn’t have buses in his day.
You know, I kind of miss those wolves.
Legalize said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:43
I’m guessing McCain sets us up with a high and tight fastball to work us off the plate, and finishes this thing off by tossing Hagee under the bus like a splitter in the dirt.
jim said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:44
Off-Topic Yet Sweet Indeed:
Karl Rove got something special in the mail today, & it wasn’t a pony.
Jim said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:48
For our purposes, I prefer the first.
I got distracted by a number of less dignified insults possible with the second definition.
SamFromUtah said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:50
Karl Rove got something special in the mail today, & it wasn’t a pony.
Yay! Here’s hoping this goes further than prompting some Sternly Worded Letters. Not holding my breath tho.
whateverdude said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:52
OT, but have y’all seen this? http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/05/21/clinton-calvinball/
i never would have expected this from tbogg. pretty disappointing.
Holy shit. He says he’d be happier with a Republican president than he’d be if Hillary was elected? Geez, that puts a whole lot of what I’ve read from him over the years in a *very* different context.
Susan of Texas said,
May 22, 2008 at 22:56
And more O/T: Speaking of the Victorian Era, tbogg’s beloved America’s Worst Mother is back! Yes, Meghan Gurdon Cox regrets the loss of finger bowls, mainly so she can shake her cane at youth now-a-days.
My only regret is that there is no mention of the teenage son skipping merrily into the dining room, or Violet informing her mother that the latter isn’t very bright.
Lawnguylander said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:05
Brad once said something here that I thought was ill advised. I’m off to tbogg’s to take it up with his commenters and when I’m done I’m going over to Roy’s to register a complaint about the Editors. Busy, busy, busy.
tigrismus said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:05
It will be interesting, of course, to hear these Democrats explain why exactly Black’s ties with evil dictators are so bad, when their presumptive candidate is proposing to go work with them face to face and legitimize relations with a whole assortment of repressive thugs.
The attempt to paint Democrats as the hypocrites after these Black-defending (he’s been “scrupulously ethical” in his dictator-pimping!) fools have harangued Obama for weeks for promising to do what every president does is really precious. Tell you what, if Obama toils to further the interests of foreign nationals heedless of any detriment to our own interests we’ll call for his ass to get fired, too.
pedestrian said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:07
America’s Worst Mother is back!
Holy shit, did she write that in the Edwardian period and forget about it until now?
Lesley said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:08
Malkin:
Wow, just wow.
It’s too bad this psychobitch isn’t on Fox anymore because comments like this would seriously boost support for the Democrats.
Another Rabid Shih-tzu said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:10
Have you ever noticed how far the vomit goes when your owner dangles you from the ceiling fan by your collar?
You’ll have to excuse me now. That cardigan won’t hump itself.
Righteous Bubba said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:11
I’m off to tbogg’s to take it up with his commenters
I don’t read tbogg much anymore because of the site and all the clickery-buggery. Here at the, um, Wordpress site everything is, uh… Yes. Well.
Republicans are bad.
Susan of Texas said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:11
I want to hear about AWM’s new baby. I’m guessing it’s called Maude, or maybe Petunia if a girl, and Cecil or Wilberforce if it’s a boy.
Susan of Texas said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:14
Wordpress will eat you and spit you out, but it doesn’t want to get personal with you like FDL. If I’m going to be felt up by a computer I want dinner and a movie out of it.
Smut Clyde said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:18
In the first draft of “Demon Seed” the computer was called Wordpress, but the publishers made Koontz change it to “Proteus”.
pedestrian said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:19
Thus we get the unedifying sight of, for instance, a pretty woman in an evening gown standing near the swishing traffic trying to hail a cab while her tuxedoed date is busy texting someone.
It’s as though we’re still eager to carry on the glamorous outward forms of the past but are unwilling to maintain the inner social infrastructure that makes them possible.
How positively horrid. Why, the lady could be run down by a lorry and reincarnated as a Mexican!
Lesley said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:21
Although I spend very little time on TBogg’s new site because it sucks (technically), I’m certain - having read him religiously for the past few years - that TBogg would swallow his bile and vote Hillary if he had to…he’s just pointing out how compromised she’s become (and he’s right).
Gary Ruppert said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:22
The fact is, you are a cruel giant tea bag.
Jim said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:23
Cecil or Wilberforce if it’s a boy.
Damn me, what’s happened to the good old names like Hezekiah or Alpheus?
PeeJ said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:28
Sorry I had to go away for a while. I think the term you were looking for is grimalkin. ‘Twould be neat ’twere it a portmanteau. Alas and alack, it is not.
Alex said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:28
Although I spend very little time on TBogg’s new site because it sucks (technically), I’m certain - having read him religiously for the past few years - that TBogg would swallow his bile and vote Hillary if he had to…he’s just pointing out how compromised she’s become (and he’s right).
Sadly, No. She’s crossed the Lieberman line with T after comparing her attempt change the rules and to seat the delegates in MI and FL to the civil rights movement.
Sagra said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:29
Will McCain throw him under an energy-efficient diesel bus, or a tour bus filled with elderly casino visitors?
Peduncle Q Mackinac said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:30
Really, I have no idea.
Jehosephat Azriel Kolazonta said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:33
They went away?
Zehanpuryu'h said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:35
I think you’re missing something.
t4toby said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:36
Or Dave Matthew’s poo spewing bus?
Not all bus throwings are equal.
Lesley said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:38
Until TBogg out and out states he’d vote for McCain over Clinton (if she was the only option), I don’t believe it. Look, if Hillary=Lieberman in TBogg’s mind, there’s no way he could vote for McCain (whose bed mate is Lieberman). He’d throw his vote elsewhere…or not vote. Or he’d swallow his bile.
PeeJ said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:41
McCain (whose bed mate is Lieberman
Thnak you NOT so very much, Lesley.
[shudders]
jim said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:44
Either you’re ON the bus, or you’re UNDER the bus.
In Soviet Russia, bus gets thrown under YOU!
Lesley said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:44
Republican BFFs.
zeppo said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:47
I have a friend who knows this guy who has a cousin who tells me, on very good authority, that Wordpress was actually written by some guys at Merc, who have this splendid little scam going with drugs for high blood pressure. After you see this, hasn’t it been obvious all along?
Or else it was illegal aliens, who can’t write good software for sh*t.
emmatx said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:48
test
emmatx said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:49
Alex said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:49
Until TBogg out and out states he’d vote for McCain over Clinton (if she was the only option), I don’t believe it. Look, if Hillary=Lieberman in TBogg’s mind, there’s no way he could vote for McCain (whose bed mate is Lieberman). He’d throw his vote elsewhere…or not vote.
He didn’t say he would vote for McCain, he said he wouldn’t vote for Hillary.
emmatx said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:50
i really hope that’s what he meant, but this statement is pretty mindblowing for someone purporting to be a progressive/liberal/democrat/whatever:
(hope i didn’t eff up the tags, teh preview sux! and yes, i am a she, no s/ necessary :) )
Snort said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:52
McCain (whose bed mate is Lieberman
Thnak you NOT so very much, Lesley.
[shudders]
They have Lindsey Graham over for a threesome.
Lesley said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:53
He didn’t say he would vote for McCain, he said he wouldn’t vote for Hillary.
Alex…yeah, I know that and that was my point to whateverdude (if you read up).
whateverdude strongly implied otherwise.
Lesley said,
May 22, 2008 at 23:57
Those of us who are more than familiar with TBogg get what he meant.
Perhaps he needs to clarify for relative newbies to his site.
McCain and Lieberman are as tight as a spastic sphincter, so it should be pretty fucking obvious that TBogg would never in a million years throw his support behind McAsshole.
henry lewis said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:03
>he’s just pointing out how compromised she’s become
Hillary has now officially jumped the killer whale standing astride two tunafish wearing a zootsuit & being pulled by a cruise missile.
t4toby said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:05
Does the killer whale have…laser beams?
whateverdude said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:05
He’d throw his vote elsewhere…or not vote. Or he’d swallow his bile.
Well, he talks about how well he’s doing under a Republican administration (???) and that as long as there was a Democratic Congress, he’d be ok with it.
t4toby said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:07
I may not pay too much attention to Tbogg, but that statement about how we’d do just fine under a McCain administration has got to be the most thoughtless thing I’ve ever read over there.
Two Words: Supreme Court
Sure, we’ll do just fine. It’ll take a McCain SCOTUS at least ten years to shred the constitution completely.
emmatx said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:09
actually i’m not a newbie to his site, i’ve also been a daily tbogg reader for 4 years or so. i agree that he would probably NOT vote for mccain out of pique against hillary. but after the last 8 years, threatening not to vote for the democratic nominee in 2008 for any reason other than he or she personally pooped on your doorstep is just ridiculous.
and the statement i quoted above, about how he does okay under a republican administration, is what i really objected to. silly me, i thought liberals were all about the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and it was conservatives whose philosophy is “i’ve got mine so screw the rest of you”.
of course he can do with his vote as he chooses. that doesn’t mean i won’t lose some respect for him because of that choice.
PeeJ said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:10
I won’t bother to go over there and comment but maybe someone else will point out to the formerly “somewhat popular blogger” that he, or anyone else, will only do “well” under an ‘R’ admin for a short while. Before too long, we’ll all be conscripted, scrabbling for food, living in a police state, incarcerated…..
Righteous Bubba said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:12
but after the last 8 years, threatening not to vote for the democratic nominee in 2008 for any reason other than he or she personally pooped on your doorstep is just ridiculous.
Let’s keep this in perspective: Hillary won’t be the nominee.
Also everyone’s allowed a boner every now and then.
Lesley said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:15
Well, he talks about how well he’s doing under a Republican administration (???) and that as long as there was a Democratic Congress, he’d be ok with it.
whateverdude, clearly you are new to TBogg. He’s saying that Hillary would not be a big improvement over what’s current (and goldarn it, he might be on to something if you examine her campaign strategy and her track record). In any case, as he points out, she will never be president so it’s a moot point. He’ll be voting for Obama.
You might want to read his old blog…you know, the last three years of it or something. Or here’s a thought…why don’t you ask him instead of speculate in here what he means. Given your propensity to believe bullshit (911Americadidit!!!) it doesn’t surprise me that you’re on this tack.
t4toby said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:15
The only thing is that his tone sounds so much like the Particularly Rabid Hillary Supporters.
It is a small thing. I agree with his sentiment, but that part went too far.
emmatx said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:18
Let’s keep this in perspective: Hillary won’t be the nominee.
you’re right of course RB, she won’t be the nominee thankfully. i should just drop it, but i’ve loved tbogg’s site and special brand of snark for so long that i guess i took it a little personally that he apparently would not mind another republican presidency since he’s doing all right himself. my mind was blown that someone whose views i thought i knew could think that way!
t4toby said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:19
Damn, Lesley–
He really got under your skin about that 9/11 shit, huh? Good thing I had the wherewithall to keep my mouth shut about what I suspect or I’d never live it down with you.
I have been reading Tbogg for at least 2 years, but not religiously. The thing that stands out about this comment over normal tbogg fair is that he claims Hillary has gone over the Lieberman Line (Which I agree with ) but then he goes and takes the tone of those with whom he disagrees with the most.
Lesley said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:20
and the statement i quoted above, about how he does okay under a republican administration, is what i really objected to. silly me,
see, I read that as dripping sarcasm… if you’d read his old blog i don’t see how you could take that seriously.
i thought liberals were all about the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and it was conservatives whose philosophy is “i’ve got mine so screw the rest of you”.
well, if you think the Democratic Party is about the greatest good, you’re delusional. Compared to the current crop of Republicans, the Ds are saints, but really, that ain’t saying much given some of their track record. But then, I’m more of a leftist. I only vote liberal and sometimes NDP because those are the only options available to me in this oodley democratic society we live in.
t4toby said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:22
uh, ‘fare’ I mean.
emmatx said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:22
also, hee hee hee hee! boner!
mikey said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:23
With a large number of quite diverse dildos and one VERY LARGE wetsuit…
mikey
Lesley said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:24
t4toby - there’s plenty of verifiable ammunition to go after the Bush administration regarding their failure to prevent 9/11, but sites that claim the american government conspired with terrorists to bring the buildings down i.e. that the buildings were wired for demolition - are beyond the pale for me.
t4toby said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:25
So is tbogg being so snarky that he is going ’round the world?
Which would probably fit in better with what I know of him.
Now that would be some übersnark.
mndean said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:26
I remember that during the post-9/11 days, Oliver Willis made an impassioned argument for the necessity of torture.
.
.
.
I haven’t read a word he’s written since. Tbogg should think about that.
t4toby said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:28
I understand, lesley, but just because whateverdude believes something that you consider beyond the pale does not disqualify everything he says or thinks.
This goes back to the Nader argument where I was told I was beneath contempt for believing what I believe, which is asinine.
We need different opinions to guarantee diversity. Let’s not squabble about our differences. How about we focus on our similarities, like our collective contempt for Madame Malkin?
emmatx said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:28
lesley, i didn’t say the democratic party, i said liberals. and though democratic candidates may not always be liberal (i don’t believe hillary’s a liberal), they will certainly, on balance, enact policies good for the greatest number of people more often than republicans. so i don’t think i’m delusional after all.
and i have read his old blog, for years as i said. if that was sarcasm and i didn’t catch it, i’ll be happy to take back everything i said. it just doesn’t look like that to me, it looks pretty deadpan.
Repello said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:33
Is it wrong that I find Michelle to be rather hot in that picture?
Lesley said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:34
I’m waiting to see what Hillary does past the nomination. If she makes an effort to rally her supporters behind Obama and unite the party, she’ll have made good, but if she persists in being divisive then I’ll be wondering whose side she’s on? The election isn’t about crowning her Queen of America…she’ll need to get her head around that eventually.
oh mndean…lumping TBogg with a torture advocate because he wouldn’t vote for Hillary makes you a douchebag.
Lesley said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:35
I understand, lesley, but just because whateverdude believes something that you consider beyond the pale does not disqualify everything he says or thinks.
maybe, but it makes him far less credible in my book than Tom Bogg.
Righteous Bubba said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:36
I understand, lesley, but just because whateverdude
Toby, if you want one day we can set up a thread at either of our sites and I’ll argue 9/11 with you honestly and not just troll you and call you names like poor whateverdude. It sure doesn’t help things here though.
We fools should note that, in all likelihood, giving a hungry person a sandwich is a far bigger contribution to society than voting.
whateverdude said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:49
whateverdude, clearly you are new to TBogg. He’s saying that Hillary would not be a big improvement over what’s current (and goldarn it, he might be on to something if you examine her campaign strategy and her track record).
Actually, I was an old reader of his for years, prior to the FDL mess and say what you like, the guy said “The reality on the ground for us is that we do pretty well for ourselves under a Republican administration and I would be willing to take my chances with a solidly Democratic congress, but without her.” If that doesn’t read like “I’d rather have McCain as prez than her” then you’re going WAY out of your way to look the other way.
That’s your choice amd you’re welcome to it.
Lesley said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:52
though democratic candidates may not always be liberal (i don’t believe hillary’s a liberal), they will certainly, on balance, enact policies good for the greatest number of people more often than republicans. so i don’t think i’m delusional after all.
after Bush (and in my country, Harper), this appears so.
In Canada, the liberal parties (at the provincial and federal level) have become variations of what the Conservative Party used to be. In some provinces, liberal parties are liberal in name only…they’re all essentially right wing. The conservatives in power now are merely finishing up what the liberals who preceded them started: the privatization of health care, the demise of public health care, deregulation, privatization of government duties and responsibilities, handing over federal responsibilities to the provinces. The Liberal Party started that. In my province, the NDP that preceded the Liberal Party started the first massive welfare to work program, throwing thousands of the rolls. Homelessness started with this so-called left of centre party.
The Conservative party (federally and provincially) has evolved into a fundamentalist extreme rightwing freak show. This may make the Liberal and NDP parties appear more just and socially-minded but in truth there isn’t a single party in Canada that is truly liberal anymore. They are either right of centre or far right. There are more wingnuts and variations of wingnuts than ever in the liberal and conservative parties and more citizens seem to be subscribing to these wingnut camps.
mndean said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:54
Lesley,
Not doing anything of the kind. Just saying that when a blogger says something beyond the pale (for whatever reasons s/he may have) many people (like me) have a tendency to write said blogger off and forget they existed. I don’t have the time to hear explanations and mea culpas for such stupidity as Tbogg dumped. If he does well during Republican administrations and it matters little to him what a Republican president might do (Supreme Court, wars of convenience, trashing the economy for the less well off), the fuck him, he’s in the bozo bin.
Lesley said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:57
toby, if you want one day we can set up a thread at either of our sites and I’ll argue 9/11 with you honestly and not just troll you and call you names like poor whateverdude
suggesting i’ve trolled whateverdude because i’m defending tbogg isn’t fair.
Righteous Bubba said,
May 23, 2008 at 0:59
suggesting i’ve trolled whateverdude because i’m defending tbogg isn’t fair.
No no, I have. Glad people were paying attention to other things.
Lesley said,
May 23, 2008 at 1:03
mndean, i don’t think tbogg’s (literally) crossed the line into enemy territory. such a move wouldn’t be consistent with everything he’s written to date.
suggesting he could be the equivalent of someone in favour of torture is grossly unfair…”beyond the pale” perhaps? I mean, come on. Keep this in perspective.
Lesley said,
May 23, 2008 at 1:04
oh, sorry RB. :)
Lesley said,
May 23, 2008 at 1:13
I don’t have the time to hear explanations and mea culpas for such stupidity as Tbogg dumped.
I’d weigh the pages and pages of consistent text from TBogg with this one ambiguous (and probably poorly) executed message and give him the benefit of the doubt.
I’m also willing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt. If she can rally her supporters behind Obama going forward, she’ll redeem herself.
emmatx said,
May 23, 2008 at 1:14
lesley, the republican party in the US has also evolved into a rightwing freakshow, as the sadlynosians and tbogg himself document daily. to suggest, as tbogg did in what i believe was all seriousness (see his response, he doesn’t appear to have been sarcastic), that a mccain presidency with all the SCOTUS appointments and political appointees that entails wouldn’t be so bad is just batshit insane.
here’s hoping i got that link right :)
emmatx said,
May 23, 2008 at 1:15
i wholeheartedly agree though that hillary has truly gotten ridiculous, and can only redeem herself by campaigning 100% for obama after he gets the nomination. i think she will though.
Susan of Texas said,
May 23, 2008 at 1:25
Tbogg never said he’d vote for McCain. He said that he wouldn’t vote for Hillary, even if it meant a Republican president. I’ve read tbogg for years too. He’s always been a quality guy. Even if he did committed treason against the Pary, I’m not ready to condemn him. There’s no kindling and I’m out of matches and nobody brought marshmallows.
Gary Ruppert said,
May 23, 2008 at 1:27
The fact is, if we drilled in ANWAR, we’d see lower gas prices the next day and freedom from foreign oil. But the liberals don’t want to hurt a polar bear or two. So they are to blame.
Susan of Texas said,
May 23, 2008 at 1:28
The fact is, if we drilled in Gary we’d be knee-deep in bullshit in no time.
Gary Ruppert said,
May 23, 2008 at 1:36
The fact is, bullshit can be turned into bio-diesel, and is a renewabel resource, so you liberals are still to blame.
Lesley said,
May 23, 2008 at 1:39
emmatx, if you “wholeheartedly agree” that Hillary needs to redeem herself then you also have to agree, to some extent, with TBogg about her selling out. It’s not that she’s “ridiculous.” She plotted and carried out a divisive dirty campaign strategy of race baiting and promoting McBush over Obama.
Some support the idea that a candidate’s got to do what a candidate’s got to do to win. But if a Democratic candidate - especially after Bush, for god’s sake - takes the low road, they are going to leave a lot of people wondering who they are. Some believe Hillary has integrity and ethics, and opted for Republican-style campaign tactics just to win. Others question her integrity because she resorted to such tactics. Ultimately, she lost any chance of attracting more voters because of this (from my point of view).
Gary Ruppert's Third Grade Teacher said,
May 23, 2008 at 1:40
renewabel resource
No gold star for you.
tigrismus said,
May 23, 2008 at 1:42
The fact is, if we drilled in ANWAR, we’d see lower gas prices the next day and freedom from foreign oil for about a year and a half(based on current usage and the most generous reserve estimate).
Fixed that for you!
Lesley said,
May 23, 2008 at 1:45
TBogg: “I’m not willing to vote for a Democrat who exhibits the selfish stupidity of a Republican.”
Clear? I hope so.
This is all moot though because TBogg (unlike some Hillary fans) will vote for Obama.
(have to chuckle though, after all of TBogg’s rants against Nader…)
emmatx said,
May 23, 2008 at 1:56
yes lesley, i do believe hillary has taken the low road, even before the most recent stuff, with all her insinuations that poor whites are too racist to vote for obama. i’ve never supported her for president (or obama either, i was an edwards girl, sigh…). i just don’t think her lack of principles on the campaign trail is enough to cancel out her likely supreme court appointment, pro-choice policies, etc.
i don’t want her to be president but if she were the nominee (luckily there’s no chance in hell of that) i would work like hell to get her elected. the thought of another republican president makes me cringe for our country. which is why tbogg saying this:
“The reality on the ground for us is that we do pretty well for ourselves under a Republican administration and I would be willing to take my chances with a solidly Democratic congress, but without her.”
which he was apparently deadly serious about, is so upsetting to me. her “selfish stupidity” isn’t ideal, but is much better than a war with iran and another alito or two on the supreme court. not to mention domestic wiretapping, state-sanctioned torture, american gulags and kangaroo courts etc etc…
PeeJ said,
May 23, 2008 at 1:59
More fixification.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
May 23, 2008 at 2:02
So we’re fighting about Tbogg, now?
Hmpf.
Liberals.
mikey said,
May 23, 2008 at 2:06
Olbermann just dropped ANOTHER “Sadly, No.”
It’s becoming a weekly event…
mikey
Righteous Bubba said,
May 23, 2008 at 2:09
So we’re fighting about Tbogg, now?
Is there something more valuable to fight about?
Jennifer said,
May 23, 2008 at 2:09
RE: TBogg:
I don’t agree with what he said, but you know what? Hillary has pissed me off enough several times during this campaign that I’ve said, “if she manages to steal the nomination, I’ll sit it out.”
And then I’ve gotten over it, after I’ve thought about the past 7 years. I could probably survive another 4 years of a Republican presidency, without resorting to ramen, even, but a lot of people won’t. They’re my fellow citizens and I owe it to them to do whatever is necessary within legal bounds to prevent another 4 years of Republican control, even if they are so damn dumb, bigoted, or short-sighted that some of them vote for McCain themselves. Sure, they’re major dumbasses and it’s nice to think they would learn a lesson from voting to fuck themselves…but if they haven’t yet, they’re not going to this time either and a lot of other, innocent, people will suffer for it too. And even though of lot of those innocents who will suffer aren’t my fellow citizens, I don’t hold any particular ill will towards them and have no particular desire to put the country further in debt by going around killing them.
And once I’ve run through that little thought exercise, I stop saying “I’ll sit it out.”
TBogg’s calculus may be similar to my own or it may be totally different. Each of us has our own set of priorities in choosing how to vote that may not make sense to others; it doesn’t make our decisions invalid. Our decisions are completely valid for us based on our own personal values, life experience, etc. We each start from different points so it’s not shocking that we quite often end up in different places. So, while I extremely disagree with him if that’s his final decision (see thought exercise above), it doesn’t invalidate TBogg as a totally rockin’ dude. It just makes him another person with whom I happen to sometimes disagree. Kinda like every other person on the face of the planet.
In short, disagree with TBogg, but don’t harsh on him. Being wrong sometimes doesn’t completely erase everything that’s right about you.
Lesley said,
May 23, 2008 at 2:10
what makes you think Hillary wouldn’t support an invasion of Iran? (She has been ambiguous regarding Iran, and caved when it came to the vote on the invasion of Iraq (when other Dems voted against it). Ironically, that move hasn’t served her in this election campaign and now she’s pulling all kinds of underhanded shit.
Look, a candidate HAS to have integrity going in - especially in this election. If she hasn’t got the courage of her alleged convictions going in, how do you trust her? Promising to have integrity later on doesn’t really cut it.
I think what Bogg is saying (much to my amusement considering his cruxifiction of Nader), is that the last thing the Democrats need is to create a Republican presidency out of a Democrat and if he sincerely believes this is what could happen, then he’s behaving as a “liberal” should. He’s saying he’s not willing to compromise this much. I’m not entirely convinced he is right about her, but I can appreciate his reasons for doubt.
Again, MOOT THOUGH RIGHT? Because Hillary has effectively sabatoged herself. Irony of ironies…
Lesley said,
May 23, 2008 at 2:11
my last response is directed to emmatx btw…
Bettencourt said,
May 23, 2008 at 2:13
“The reality on the ground for us is that we do pretty well for ourselves under a Republican administration”
I’m normally a devoted tbogg reader, but that one line made me double check to make sure I was reading the right blog.
Galactic Dustbin said,
May 23, 2008 at 2:13
So we’re fighting about Tbogg, now?
Hmpf.
Liberals.
The circular firing squad is a fine Democratic rite of summer. As opposed to the GOP rite of summer; lobbyist payed golf weekends with hot and cold running underage boys.
Lesley said,
May 23, 2008 at 2:15
Crucifixion, not cruxifiction blech…too bad there isn’t an edit button
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
May 23, 2008 at 2:21
New fafblog post! (Relatively speaking…it’s new to me.)
FB: If you could say one thing to the average legless Iraqi on the street right now, what would it be?
CLINTON: I’d tell him, you know, we’ve done our part here. We got rid of Saddam, we set up a government, we provided intermittently running electricity and free bandages for your leg-stumps. We gave you your chance. Now you’ve gotta step up.
~
Lesley said,
May 23, 2008 at 2:21
bettencourt, i agree that is a piss poor sentence; particularly for a blogger who has shifted to a new site and newish readers, he needs to be more circumspect. but i trust tbogg didn’t mean it the way it sounds. i’m thinking he meant to say a hillary admin would be about equivalent to what’s happening now. of course, this will also seem an unrealistic and unacceptable position to many.
alls i’m suggesting as a long time reader of tbogg, i don’t believe he’s suddenly fine with republicans.
not even an mba said,
May 23, 2008 at 2:28
Actually, drilling ANWR would increase supply and therefore lower the price of crude oil. Since petroleum’s a commodity, merely announcing plans to drill ANWR will lower the price of crude. So it’s true that prices would drop the next day, just not by very much. Globally refineries are basically going all out at capacity and since we’re at or very close to peak oil, no one’s going to be building extra refining capacity. Thus the supply of gasoline will remain essentially unchanged.
The thing most people don’t want to accept is that right now, the price of gas is almost entirely dependent on the demand. You want cheaper gas, stop driving. That’s right, even if the Saudis had a magical pump more button, the actual effect on gas prices would be pretty darned small.
Bettencourt said,
May 23, 2008 at 2:32
“alls i’m suggesting as a long time reader of tbogg, i don’t believe he’s suddenly fine with republicans”
I’m sure you’re right, but his specific phrasing had that “I got mine, screw everybody else” implication that I more commonly associate with the other side.
mikey said,
May 23, 2008 at 2:33
Frankly, it seems like an AWFUL lot of ink, angst and bits spilled over who TBogg will or won’t vote for in November.
I think maybe he’ll decide, he may or may not tell us, and we’ll all get up in the morning and deal with our little worlds.
It’s one dood and his vote.
Sheesh…
mikey
Lesley said,
May 23, 2008 at 2:38
well, there are a few chuckles to be had considering TBogg’s past extensive ranting and raving against Nader for spoiling one election and possibly interfering with this one. His philosophy to date has been all for one and one for all (and swallow your bile if you have to) and he’s obviously changed his mind. The D behind Hillary’s name isn’t enough to make her worthy in his opinion.
I’m ok with people changing their mind…it’s a democracy *cough hack orange spittle* after all isn’t it?
whateverdude said,
May 23, 2008 at 2:40
I think what Bogg is saying (much to my amusement considering his cruxifiction of Nader), is that the last thing the Democrats need is to create a Republican presidency out of a Democrat and if he sincerely believes this is what could happen, then he’s behaving as a “liberal” should.
Geez. Read the man’s word. Again:
“The reality on the ground for us is that we do pretty well for ourselves under a Republican administration and I would be willing to take my chances with a solidly Democratic congress, but without her.”
I’ve always admired him as a capitalist who happens to be a liberal, and now I find that he feels that he and his family “do pretty well for ourselves under a Republican administration”, which implies that his financial well being pretty much trumps the fucked-up world that’s being passed along to his daughter, Casey. That’s pretty amazing and depressing.
Since 2006, I’ve watched the liberal world turn on it’s head. We worked like mad to elect Dems to Congress and the first bullshit out of Pelosi’s mouth is “Impeachment is off of the table”, followed by Dems struggling to lose vote after vote (with a spanking new idea that majority vote doesn’t rule, ’cause the Repubs would maybe-possibly, threaten a filibuster).
Since then, virtually every liberal website has become a strange, lockstep environment, and Obamaites and Hilliarydroids pointlessly engage in virtually lethal warfare. I’ve been attacked *repeatedly* by “liberals” who’ve been offended by my willingness to vote for whichever Dem gets the nomination, and those attacks have had the most nonsensical rationale, seemingly from some curious psy