Be nice. They give space to Steve Benen, and Benen owns.

Ummmm…. I guess, after the exhausting couple of years leading up to the election, I am tired of everyone bashing everyone else who doesn’t think exactly like them. Bashing wingnuts not fun anymore? Not enough sport in it? Let’s bash those who think they are liberals but aren’t, really.

Bzzt. Wrong, dude! I’m not bashing; I’m responding to a bash.

O.K, I’ll take your word for it.

I totally agree that Benen pwns, and that first quote is Benen – and taken out of context. Consider the very next graf of that 1-2-9 post:

That Roger Clegg is “disturbed” by notable liberals with Obama’s ear on key issues of domestic policy is predictable and inconsequential. That notable liberals have Obama’s ear on key issues of domestic policy strikes me as more interesting.

Is politics and by extension, administering and legislating, now to be defined by those you don’t offend? If it pisses the right AND left off, it must be good for America?

Hm, lemme see…the Interstate Highway network: that was an environmental nightmare, laying petroleum based asphalt across millions of square miles of natural resources, AND it was a “GOVERNMENT SPENDING BOONDOGGLE”.

It would never get done today.

Can we get past this?

Really, can you not see it? Maybe it’s not as obvious to others, but to me, Benen appears to say that there is a “balance”-providing utility in the idiotic Washington Post story, and admires it for that function: it cancels out the legitimate complaints by leftwingers that Obama has hired, so far, a bunch of fucking Villagers.

…which is very typically Washington Monthly, to assume that the left and right are equally pernicious, to fret and worry over the left having ‘too much’ say in governance. Kevin Drum could have written Benen’s post — which is, um, central to my point that WM writers are basically identical jackasses.

Okay, on sober second thought, I’ll eat the bag of dicks for poor reading comprehension. I still think Benen is a definite change from K-Drum, and that he’s not a mealy mouthed conservative wannabe “centrist” – but that paragraph I quoted above ain’t exactly that different than the consistent brand of wishy-washy opinion is like a breath of fresh swamp gas so totally unlike the other vapors wafting from the sewer ditch of Villager consensus

On second thought, Hilzoy is different and isn’t included in my condemnation. OTOH, she did take Tacitus and Moe Lane seriously at one time, and to this day takes that smug asshelmet Sebastian Holsclaw seriously — and that guy is just the rich man’s version of Tacitus.

C’mon, man, at least give me credit for sarcasm.

Benen accepts Roger Clegg’s description of notable liberals; seems silly to accept a right-wing freak-out as evidence of anything because the right-wing strategy now is to freak out all the time.

I think Steve Benen’s valuable too, but with the perspective recognized: HTML is correct to read between the lines.

Here’s what I would propose, the Realignment Party. This party would seek to break down the division between Left and Right…

I’ve got a better idea for a Realignment Party: beat the shit out of the Republicans and move the Overton Window about a mile to the left.

That would be Realignment I could believe in.

.

These people don’t have the standing to wipe the sh*t off of Robert Scheer’s shoes.

It’s a textbook “middle ground” fallacy, which for some reason our “liberal media” never seems to fail to embrace.

HTML- there is no UC Santa Clara. You mean Ewokville over in Santa Cruz, gabless.

I like Steve Benen, but I think he’s not as perceptive as he could be, or it doesn’t come across. He needs to read more Howler and less Politico.

to fret and worry over the left having ‘too much’ say in governance

For fuck’s sake, dude. Benen has been a loyal progressive soldier, but we’re dishing out dishonorable discharge papers because he said there may be method in Obama’s madness? He’s a replaceable jackass now?

I agree with your take on Drum. His orange county roots often show through.
But Benen and Hilzoy are better IMO.
Also I don’t think criticism based on “they are bright boys” is substantive. Unless you’re a republican, of course.

While I totally agree that Drum, Easterbrook and several others at times seem almost embarrassed to be liberals, I don’t see Benen being that way.

No, he’s not rabidly progressive, and does occassionally come off a bit too DNClike-centrist for my tastes. But overall the guy is a great, level-headed and intelligent voice and has long been one of my favorites.

But maybe that’s just me …

Thank you for highlighting X. Gilchrist’s post, which is my favorite line in recent history, “recent” being a relative term.

Additionally, I don’t think Benen is as much a militant centrist as he is a solid Obama supporter. He’s gave Obama the benefit of the doubt often during the campaign on issues such as FISA, faith-based programs, etc.

Now, whether or not you view one as worse than the other is your call.

Back at his old digs when Benen was serving up the Jukebox McCain list, he got some pretty sharp jabs in, but it’s starting to look like HTML is bang on about WM eating brainzzzz. Here’s some shorters [plus my comments] for the current list of Benen posts up on WM right now:
Ann Coulter is a stupid clown but the real problem is the jackasses that give her air time. [Um, sure the idiots who book Coulter are reprehensible shits – but “I don’t blame Coulter entirely for her insane antics” – No. Just No. Coulter is a vile putrid pus-filled boil on humanity’s backside. Just because it’s profitable doesn’t mean it’s something that can be hand waved away.]
Republicans don’t understand new technology. [Sure, Steve – but do we really need another “how can Republicans turn things around” article?]
Republicans really need to turn things around. [Like I was sayin’]
Barry O sure does lurve him some bipartisanshipitude. [Ah, the real Steve Benen shows his head. You see, this is the stuff that we’re used to seeing from Benen:]

But the approach is not only a leap of faith — trusting the character of angry far-right Republicans who see merit in Hoover’s economic policies — it also comes with considerable risk. For the last 15 years or so, Democratic efforts to work with Republicans in good faith have been routinely punished.

Obama’s instincts have a strong track record, but any discussion premised on the notion that congressional Republicans are credible negotiators who take policy seriously is inherently suspect. Indeed, even yesterday, Obama’s efforts notwithstanding, GOP leaders, despite having very little leverage, complained the incoming administration wants to spend too much and cut taxes too little.

I hope Obama knows what he’s doing. It’s only the global economy on the line.

[Well, everything except that last line anyways. So, that’s what 1 good piece to 3 less-than-good ones?]

Shoot, WP ate my last link. Or I forgot to put it in. Anyways, I blame Jeremiah Wright.

PP: Hanx, man. I dunno wtf I was thinking, there.

Ann Coulter is a stupid clown but the real problem is the jackasses that give her air time. [Um, sure the idiots who book Coulter are reprehensible shits – but “I don’t blame Coulter entirely for her insane antics” – No. Just No. Coulter is a vile putrid pus-filled boil on humanity’s backside. Just because it’s profitable doesn’t mean it’s something that can be hand waved away.]

So…Benen saying that the lazy assholes who keep booking Coulter on their shows share in her vile success somehow makes him Soft on Coulter?

Era of Good Feelings II, this.

Benen’s move to WM has been like a really pretty, smart girl marrying the rich old miser. No one can understand it, the miser doesn’t appreciate it and after living in the broken down hovel for a while, the girl starts to lose her sparkle.

Seriously, that website belongs in a museum.

So…Benen saying that the lazy assholes who keep booking Coulter on their shows share in her vile success somehow makes him Soft on Coulter?
Um, no. I think the following lines make him soft on Coulter:

I may be in the minority on this, but I don’t blame Coulter entirely for her insane antics. She’s a circus clown, and she can’t get paid if no one’s paying attention. Coulter has a very strong incentive to be as deliberately idiotic and hateful as possible — her career depends on it.

I may be in the minority on this, but I don’t blame Coulter entirely for her insane antics. She’s a circus clown, and she can’t get paid if no one’s paying attention. Coulter has a very strong incentive to be as deliberately idiotic and hateful as possible — her career depends on it.

“She’s a circus clown.” True.
“She can’t get paid if no one’s paying attention.” True.
“Coulter has a very strong incentive to be as deliberately idiotic and hateful as possible.” True.
“Her career depends on it.” True.

But yes, there are these vile words:
“I don’t blame Coulter entirely for her insane antics.”

Know what? Coulter is a rotten, pathetic individual, but I agree with him here. I understand the cause of mammon, sure. I’m no saint. Plenty of people willing to say reprehensible things for a buck, myself probably included. So yeah, fuck Coulter, but look at the system first. Two snakes growing out of one snake’s neck and all.

Can I just get the fucking Cliff’s Notes Version of this abortion of a post?

I dont, ya know, come here to actually read shit and think.

You know, Georgie-Poo could be seen as a victim of the neo-con cabal that’s swindled him into office. After all, he only does what he does to appease the guys that ran his campaign funding organizations…

Sure it’s important to call out the network hypocrites for booking the witch – but that in no way lessens Coulter’s culpability.

Can I just get the fucking Cliff’s Notes Version of this abortion of a post?

Cliffs Notes version: Steve Benen called conservative activists’ opinions predictable and irrelevant, and Mencken decided this meant Benen thought these opinions were useful and valid.

Okay, did a bit more reading.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016309.php
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016308.php

Benen may not reek of patchouli, but I think his lefty bona fides are still valid. YMMV.

Also, his daily round-ups indicate that he clearly does more research and puts more work into his posts than K-Drum has ever done.

Steve Benen called conservative activists’ opinions predictable and irrelevant, and Mencken decided this meant Benen thought these opinions were useful and valid.

That’s a misread I think: it’s not that they’re valid, it’s that Benen thinks they’re a useful measure of something that could be measured from a progressive perspective instead.

I may be in the minority on this, but I don’t blame Coulter entirely for her insane antics. She’s a circus clown, and she can’t get paid if no one’s paying attention. Coulter has a very strong incentive to be as deliberately idiotic and hateful as possible — her career depends on it.

She’s The Truth, only successful at it.

Oh god do I miss Steve Gilliard.

aimai

That’s a misread I think: it’s not that they’re valid, it’s that Benen thinks they’re a useful measure of something that could be measured from a progressive perspective instead.

It’s pretty plain from the surrounding paragraphs that by “offering a counterweight” to the liberal criticisms, Benen means that the article highlights the underreported fact that, besides the appointments which have drawn progressive ire, there are also some liberals who are entering or advising the administration under the radar. This is, after all, what Benen actually wrote. I had no idea Roberta Achtenberg was advising Obama, so yeah, that was one useful tidbit I got from the article.

Oh god do I miss Steve Gilliard.

Me too. I’d love to have read his coverage of the election.

Cockburn is off base putting James Fallows in that list of d-bags. Fallows certainly isn’t a hard lefty, but he is an intellectually rigorous and extremely talented writer.

Howdy-hoo-rah, loony libs! It’s me, the Cool Coach, once again reminding you that there’s only two days to go before SPREADMAGEDDON in Manic Miami, as us Super Strike Forcers take down the forces of evil in Oklahoma, with our eyes then turned to you loony libs! Badoodle-doo-yeah! You better believe that the victory we’ll enjoy in Dolphins Stadium will only be the tip of the awesome iceberg…soon, Super Sarah, the Power Palin, and Boss Bobby Jindal will shoulder our SPREAD and beat you loony libs and your precious Obummer in 2012! Check it, before you wreck it, silly Sadlys!

Ding dong dilly! You just got served a SPREAD of TRUTH, and another one’s coming for Bumblin Bob Stoopids! Urban out.

How’d I do? 😉

This is, after all, what Benen actually wrote.

He also wrote the paragraph that HTML actually highlighted, which is silly. Let’s quote it again just for fun:

I don’t think the piece is completely without merit. The Post doesn’t mention it, but the noteworthy aspect of concerns on the right about the liberals on Obama’s team is that it offers a counter-weight to the opposite criticisms the transition office has heard fairly often — that Obama has snubbed the left and failed to offer progressives any positions of significance.

“The noteworthy aspect of concerns on the right” is, uh, what again? You can look at the thing or look at the funhouse mirror of the thing.

How’d I do? 😉

I liked it.

You can look at the thing or look at the funhouse mirror of the thing.

Actually, the graf kinda sucks.

Dear Mr Mencken,

You said:

Really, can you not see it? Maybe it’s not as obvious to others, but to me, Benen appears to say that there is a “balance”-providing utility in the idiotic Washington Post story, and admires it for that function: it cancels out the legitimate complaints by leftwingers that Obama has hired, so far, a bunch of fucking Villagers.

I guess I can’t see it. To me, Mr Benen seems to be highlighting the indirect point that the Post story makes, that “notable liberals have Obama’s ear on key issues of domestic policy”. Unless your disagreement with this is his characterization of Obama’s appointees as “notable liberals” because they’re “fucking Villagers”. If that’s your point, you seem to be hiding it well.

Benen isn’t entirely bright.

He’s moving forward under the assumption that Republicans want to work with him, are willing to compromise, and stand ready to put national interests in the midst of a crisis ahead of partisan concerns. When Obama talked during the campaign about a “new” kind of politics, premised on the notion that people can be brought together with a sense of common purpose, he apparently meant it.

But the approach is not only a leap of faith — trusting the character of angry far-right Republicans who see merit in Hoover’s economic policies — it also comes with considerable risk

Like Obama plans to work with diehard small-government conservatives instead of his fellow Wall-Street-backed elite.

Twit.

And let’s not forget who replaced the “embarrassling lefty” Scheer at the LA Times: one Doughy Pantload. No doubt a more persuasive writer, and this is central to my point.

How’d I do? 😉

*wiping tear*

Why, it almost makes me nostalgic.

I am looking forward to the SPREADMAGEDDON.

Benen is trying to say look, since there is predictable and irrelevant criticism of Obama from the Right, it counterbalances criticism from the left. Which means he’s creating a false equivalence and undermining his point about the righty criticism being pointless. Which means he’s internalized all that BS about “both sides” and “equal.” He’s saying because Righty criticism exists it essentially cancels that on the Left. This is not a very bright argument. This is what I read between the lines.

Benen is trying to say look, since there is predictable and irrelevant criticism of Obama from the Right, it counterbalances criticism from the left. Which means he’s creating a false equivalence and undermining his point about the righty criticism being pointless. Which means he’s internalized all that BS about “both sides” and “equal.” He’s saying because Righty criticism exists it essentially cancels that on the Left. This is not a very bright argument. This is what I read between the lines.

Or, Shorter Steve Benen:

When people on the left and right hate something, that means it must be good.

Which is a crummy point for reasons mentioned already.

But I like Benen and find him useful to the cause and so, really, I’ll get my knickers in a twist over something else. Do you realize that K-Lo is paid to write the things she writes? I mean, just…

his stable of acolytes — …Mickey Kaus… — all carry the Peters mark,

What’s wrong with you people today?

Stable. Kaus. Peters.

All that’s missing is Poop.

POOP!!!!

ROFL!!!!!!

Benen is trying to say look, since there is predictable and irrelevant criticism of Obama from the Right, it counterbalances criticism from the left.

No, Benen is saying that there are more actual liberals and progressives being invited into the Obama administration than all the complaints in liberal and progressive circles might lead you to believe, and one of the signs is that conservatives are objecting to some of them. It’s not a “false balance” story, it’s an “underreported story” story.

I’m resolving to spend less time on blogs this upcoming year, and that’s probably a good way to counteract my Irritability Gene.

We’re getting crushed out there! By Wonkette!!!1!

To the canoes!

Well, he’s making the point inartfully, Flp. Of course there are some good people in there. You don’t go from fucking crazy to normal and not get good people. I wonder, though, has Obama been criticised for the majority of his picks, or for the fact that oh never mind. I realize we all have criticism fatigue.

Whistle while you work
Annie poo Keulter Thistle too
Your the Same as annie
When you whistle thistle way

Sorry, but I’m not seeing it. There’s a world of difference between Kevin Drum and Steve Benen, which is why I followed Drum to Mother Jones and stopped reading Benen for the second time (having given up on him at Carpetbagger Report.) Kevin’s probably is he gets a little old-man contrarianism in him when he starts talking about people on the left who get really, really angry about something. Having read his positions on any number of progressive issues, it is impossible for me to see how anyone can regard him as a “centrist” just because now and again he’s dismissive of other lefty bloggers or lefty opinion in general.

And also, Washington Monthly is where I have read highly thought-provoking articles by people like Spencer Ackerman (who as far as I know is not a centrist) like his article “The Bitter End” on why soldiers feel the way they do about the Democratic Party.

Anyway, you’re just off base here. I’m seeing your evidence, but it’s not making your case.

The Washington Monthly sucks ass. Soon I am sure they will return to their dreary neo-liberal tune of the 1990s. I hope a legion of welfare queens and gay marines overrun their offices.

Thanks for helping correcting the “excesses of 1960s liberalism”! Now go fuck yourselves, assholes.

What is the Washington Monthly?

Is it some kind of electronic daily newsreel?

one of the signs is that conservatives are objecting to some of them

If that is what he’s saying, it’s still silly, because conservatives will object to them no matter how illiberal or unprogressive they really are, and because objections from right-wingers about how “ultra-liberal” mainstream picks are is no real counterweight for actual liberals pointing out they are, by and large, mainstream picks.

HTML, I think you’ve taken Benen out of context and attributing some of Kevin Drum’s attitudes in past posts to him. I take Benen’s point (one of them) to be that many conservatives will never appeased, and it’s silly to try. That’s directly contrary to the civility-over-substance approach. I also don’t think that most liberal criticism of Obama has been overblown, but I’m not convinced Benen’s saying that either.

As for Hilzoy, well, she can speak for herself, but she’s a philosophy professor and the ObWi crew and community generally go for a pretty polite but very substantive style. They’re more polite and patient than I’m inclined to be, especially with people arguing in bad faith, but I’d also say they’re more mature than I am. 😉 Anyway, they got game, so I think that’s really just a style choice.

All that said, I agree it’s naive and dangerous to pretend that the problem in Washington is that people haven’t been nice enough to the obstructionist zealots of movement conservatives and adopted their disastrous policies.

While you parse Benen’s intent v. content and the vast possibilities that lie within (tepid? lukewarm? smart? half-right?) I think the really important issue here is that HTML finds this cherry-picked post from last week completely intolerable and outrageous!

Pinko: I dunno, here’s the supposedly offending statement —

I don’t think the piece is completely without merit. The Post doesn’t mention it, but the noteworthy aspect of concerns on the right about the liberals on Obama’s team is that it offers a counter-weight to the opposite criticisms the transition office has heard fairly often — that Obama has snubbed the left and failed to offer progressives any positions of significance.

IMHO Benen’s emphasis is on the merits of the piece, not of the conservative argument itself. OK, he uses the term “counterweight” but I don’t read it as On The One Hand-ism this time: complaints on the left about (too many) Obama appointees’ conservatism _aren’t necessarily wrong_ here, and complaints on the right about (some) appointees’ liberalism _aren’t necessarily right_. Benen wants to use the dog-bites-man story of conservatives complaining about Democratic liberalism as a jumping-off-point for observing that there are (possibly) more liberals getting seats at the Obama table than has been noticed.

So it’s not that the “concerns on the right” are valid, but that what the piece presents as “concerns on the right” reveals the presence of actual liberals on the Obama team, which — sadly — is in itself noteworthy. The real story is not the complaints, but the people around whom the complaints have been raised, and I don’t think Benen finds any fault with them; in fact, he seems to be cheered by the prospect of their presence.

HTML- there is no UC Santa Clara.

HTML, don’t believe this guy. There is a UC Santa Clara. It’s just more widely known as Stanford.

conservatives will object to them no matter how illiberal or unprogressive they really are

Benen’s point is that the ones being objected to by name in the piece are genuinely liberal and progressive, which is why the Post story yielded more information about the ideological positioning of the Obama administration than its otherwise unpromising “Republicans carp that Democratic administration has too many Democrats” premise would lead you to believe.

I’ll go along with many of the comments already made, that Benen isn’t anywhere near as bad as Drum.

Interesting, though, that Drum now works for Mother Jones, innit?

I suppose the number of times I’ve begun a sentence with variants of “Benen’s point is” shows that Benen’s point was not crystalline, but I really don’t see what’s particularly objectionable about it. The primary season was exhausting enough with all of the refusal to give each other in liberal/Democratic circles the benefit of the doubt, and I’m really not looking forward to four or eight more years of “You used to be cool, man” fight-picking and one-upmanship.

“Democratic Senators Bar Black Man From Entry”

Wheeeeeeeee!!!!

… Cockburn and Silverstein’s Washington Babylon…

I thought everyone forgot about that book. Brilliant book. They really should do a new edition, adding about 1000 pages for the Bush years and going with a much larger format.

The problem with the old edition was, well, Larry “Telephone Pole” Pressler sued the publisher for printing, well, his middle name and, eventually, the book was pulped. For a while you couldn’t find a copy anywhere. After a year or so they started showing up second hand. It’s a cool reference book, kinda a blog ahead of blogs.

Wow! 51% of Amurkinz are racist?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-06-poll-burris_N.htm?csp=34

That 51% includes some Democrats, right?

The primary season was exhausting enough with all of the refusal to give each other in liberal/Democratic circles the benefit of the doubt, and I’m really not looking forward to four or eight more years of “You used to be cool, man” fight-picking and one-upmanship.

Flip, you can’t be new to HTML’s oeuvre can you? One man’s understandable exhaustion is another man’s challenge to redefine the word exhausting.

The point is that most of our “best” pundits are too ambitious to question authority and too unimaginative to fight the status quo. What’s the point of all these liberals who are afraid of being called socialists and don’t care about the rights of those out of power? Where are the women in this little world, and don’t bother with Amy Goodman, she’s on her knees, praying.

“Democratic Senators Bar Black Man From Entry”

Wheeeeeeeee!!!!

See, this proves Democrats are racist, because they’re barring (Are they really? Who knows yet?) a black guy. Yet if they seat him, it will be racist to do so, because he’s a black guy, which was the only reason he was appointed. (Blagojevich being the person who appointed Burris & raised the “only black man in the Senate” idea notwithstanding.)

Moran.

Here is how it will go down next week. First, the results from Virginia and North Carolina will come in, and they’ll be declared for McCain. You’ll be disappointed, but “no big deal, change can’t come overnight” will be your comment. Florida will go red, and a little nervousness will creep in. The usual suspects will fall into the usual categories. As the night drags on, Ohio, Colorado, and (much to your horror) Pennsylvania will be too close to call.

My advice at this point to you will be to go to bed. You will wake up to a McCain presidency and the Great Liberal Freakout will be on.

Bookmark this, liberals, as this is exactly how it is going to go down. You will be wonder how the hell I was able to call this.

You can leave now.

Ignoring the issue won’t make it go away.

Your party just denied a black man, lawfully appointed by his state’s governor, entry into the United States Senate.

Shades of George Wallace, no?

Your party just denied a black man, lawfully appointed by his state’s governor, entry into the United States Senate.

The, um, Illinois Secretary of State, by law, has to endorse the nomination.

He did not, so the Senate did not.

Next?

Let’s be honest, weaklings. Any one NOT calling for the violent overthrow of the United Snakes & all other governments, & the placing of all who DON’T wear corrective lenses (i. e., non-intellectuals) in re-education camps is a fascist appeaser of the power structure. And will get (mostly, as Susan of TX notes) his (& hers) soon enough.

Ignoring the issue won’t make it go away.

That’s right, so try reading some of the reaction to your stupid statement. You apparently don’t understand that Mr. Burris’s ethnicity has nothing to do w/ his being (possibly) barred by the Senate. It’s the gov. under indictment who appointed him that is the problem. But I suppose it would be “racist” to mention him, because he’s white.

P, S.: When I find out where you live, it’s not going to be pretty. And I’m not just referring to the ugliness of the trailer park where you reside.

Could we get someone else commenting between my comments? I’m starting to feel that it’s obvious I’ve nothing better to do.

Hey (Not an actor because actor212 doesn’t show up on IMDb!!1) 212!!11!!!11111 The Illinois SecState is probably a Democrat too!! Gotcha!! Ha ha.

Insincerely,
El Mentiroso

See comment @2253.

Waiting…

Just me here again…

BOOP

You’re welcome.

Benen is trying to say look, since there is predictable and irrelevant criticism of Obama from the Right, it counterbalances criticism from the left. Which means he’s creating a false equivalence and undermining his point about the righty criticism being pointless. Which means he’s internalized all that BS about “both sides” and “equal.”

Yes, yes, emphatically yes.

But this amounts to a bad faith attack on your part, PP. I know this because Jay B. has a long history of telling me so. But then I’m also a whiner, so there you go.

This is, after all, what Benen actually wrote.

Yah!w Me stuuped. Not unnnerstand Benen right,, cus ME haf dain brammage. Sorri.

Here is how it will go down next week. First, the results from Virginia and North Carolina will come in, and they’ll be declared for McCain. You’ll be disappointed, but “no big deal, change can’t come overnight” will be your comment. Florida will go red, and a little nervousness will creep in. The usual suspects will fall into the usual categories. As the night drags on, Ohio, Colorado, and (much to your horror) Pennsylvania will be too close to call.

My advice at this point to you will be to go to bed. You will wake up to a McCain presidency and the Great Liberal Freakout will be on.

Bookmark this, liberals, as this is exactly how it is going to go down. You will be wonder how the hell I was able to call this.

Shades of why you shouldn’t be allowed away from the Kiddie Table, no?

Yah!w Me stuuped. Not unnnerstand Benen right,, cus ME haf dain brammage. Sorri.

Hey! I get it now!

Benen posts approximately 1 gazillion words a day, and HTML has plucked one paragraph out and decided to parse it, compare it to years of Drum’s blogging, and then tag Benen as a dread foul centrist.

Yawn.

I like reading Benen, and I believe he has just about no power in the media-political complex. So, yeah, let’s jump all over him.

M. Bouffant said,

January 6, 2009 at 22:57

*snort*

Great. Now I need a new keyboard AND another cup of Ovaltine…

I like reading Benen, and I believe he has just about no power in the media-political complex. So, yeah, let’s jump all over him.

We learned from the Michelle Malkin School of Weblogging.

Shorter Internet as an inversion of an old Cure song: “Why Can’t You Be Me?”

Yah!w Me stuuped. Not unnnerstand Benen right,, cus ME haf dain brammage. Sorri.

Well, no, not really. I read Benen and he’s no Kevin Drum, but then again I think he most of the time falls into the “states the obvious” camp and I just don’t find that mandatory reading. In other words, he’s also no hilzoy, who’s the blogger I go to the site looking for. There’s either some dumb false equivalency drawn here or just some poor writing that failed to adequately convey Benen’s meaning, but overall, I wouldn’t classify him as a tool.

There’s a great cut on an Albert Brooks album (the theme of which was that he wanted airplay on every kind of radio station that was on-air in the ’70s) in which the cut intended for Middle of the Road (MoR) stations (for you kids, they played crap like Mantovani & other washed-out E-Z Listening goop) consists of the head of the AAA warning people not to stay in the middle of the road, the cars will run over you.

This applies to politics as well.

So, yeah, let’s jump all over him.

Sounds like the make-up sexing will be crowded.

Has no one yet developed a a spit-take proof keyboard? The world is waiting.

Or at least Saran Wrap™ condoms for the keyboards?

But then I’m also a whiner, so there you go.

What do you call someone who takes pride in being disappointed and/or outraged as soon as possible? Apart from “Mrs. Prager.”

Hitler.

Oh, SNAP!

You know Amanda Marcotte’s self-aware shtick about the “Insufferable Music Snob”? Just about all of my favorite blogs have gone over into “Insufferable Politics Snob” mode. Everyone’s a sell-out, everyone’s impure, and only losers and poseurs like _them_, and it was obvious from the start how much they sucked. That’s why I’ve been trying to back away.

Cockburn and Silverstein’s Washington Babylon:

Oh, yeah, Cockburn. That guy hates everything too.

Splitter.

Damn, folks sure is touchy round here the past week or so. Clif got all upset with me just a bit back on the assumption that I was slamming him for a grammar error which I hadn’t even seen when I made a comment in response to someone else who had called it out as a pet peeve.

And now we got Hitler here. Sheesh.

This thread need to be taken outside and aired out. Who cares what about who?

Not me.

An I noticed in talking about which pundit is st00pider, no one is taking notice to the fact that FUCKING WONKETTE IS BEATING US!!!1!

Washington Monthly is where I have read highly thought-provoking articles by people like Spencer Ackerman (who as far as I know is not a centrist) like his article “The Bitter End” on why soldiers feel the way they do about the Democratic Party.

I’ve read thought-provoking pieces in The New Republic by Spencer Ackerman and Rick Perlstein, just to name two. Doesn’t mean the magazine is not total journalistic diarrhea, cuz it is.

Hey, it’s fucking simple. I’d think you simpletons could figure it out.

I’m right, you’re wrong, & if you aren’t killed for your non-thought that lead you to disagree w/ me, you should at a minimum be sterilized & forbidden to spread your foul non-ideas to young people.

Got it now?

I’m rubber and you’re glue.

Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.

I’m right, you’re wrong, & if you aren’t killed for your non-thought that lead you to disagree w/ me, you should at a minimum be sterilized & forbidden to spread your foul non-ideas to young people.

Exactly. Though to get a better appoximation of my style you should have added scatlogical adjectives and some reference to death camps.

I’m here for the argument!

Just about all of my favorite blogs have gone over into “Insufferable Politics Snob” mode.

The tone has certainly changed. My guess is that Obama’s victory has made plain that non-wingnuts don’t need to be “underground” anymore. In 2001/2002 or so, I was taking great comfort in sites like DU and Bartcop and MWO because there was so little unabashed not-Republican-triumphalism to be found anywhere, if you know what I mean. More lefty blogs have shown up, the netroots have become a noticeable political force (though it remains to be seen how significant) and it’s gotten feeling less and less like being an outlaw to be a liberal.

There’s a new zeitgeist just getting started, I reckon.

That guy hates everything too.

Or, as noted socialist Warren Harding put it aptly at the dawn of a post-war, kleptocratic era, “don’t knock, boost!”

Happy happy joy joy Happy Happy [HAPPY] joy joy [HAPPY] Happy Happy joy joy joy

What do you call someone who takes pride in being disappointed and/or outraged as soon as possible? Apart from “Mrs. Prager.”

Wait. Mrs Dennis, or Mrs MRS Dennis Prager?

Hello, boys and girls, this is your old pal Stinky Wizzleteats. This is a
song about a whale-no! This is a song about being happy.

Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Hmm. Interesting if true. Read the whole thing.

I’m here for the argument!

No you’re not.

It’s post-election depression. There was the 18-month-long obsession with the campaigns, then the excruciating three-month horse race, then the exhilarating WIN!! and now we’re just kinda killing time until the inauguration, waiting for the Bush Crime Syndicate to finish packing and get the fuck outa town already. But then we’ll have to start playing defense, not offense, and that’s just not as much fun.

That’s how I explain my current high irritability level. That and the fact that it’s been pouring rain for about three weeks straight around here. Now all of you damn know-nothing kids, get the fuck off my flooded sodden lawn.

Mr. Mencken, I wasn’t being “funny” there or mocking you. Those really are my beliefs. If I weren’t so old, lazy & generally wretched that I can’t do much to further my goals I’d be a little scared of myself, if you must know. Also, there just isn’t enough time left for me to personally interview all six/seven billion of you to determine who lives & who dies. (Couldn’t really outsource that gig.)

I’ve never read much of the crap from any of the WM fools mentioned, but they all sound like fucking chickenshit careerist a-holes. Why get a big deal gig where you can share your clever ideas w/ an eager audience if your ideas are warmed over bullshit leftovers? Could any of those fucks even imagine real, radical & useful change, let alone offer it to the “marketplace of ideas?”

No, so fuck ’em!

appoximation

Nor do I think your style is “poxy.”

There’s not enough abuse of public intellectual, folks! Would Jonah Goldberg dare show his face if he was pelted with copies of his book at every opportunity? Would Megan McArdle skyscrape her way across DC if she was knocked on the noggin with Atlas Shrugged every time she showed her face?

I think not.

we’ll have to start playing defense, not offense, and that’s just not as much fun.

Maybe not, but defense wins championships, as the old spurts cliche goes.

HTML- there is no UC Santa Clara.

HTML, don’t believe this guy. There is a UC Santa Clara. It’s just more widely known as Stanford.

Except that Stanford is in San Mateo county, the closest to UC Santa Clara is San Jose State, the oldest of California’s public schools–it actually founded what was to later become UCLA–but, has ‘state’ in the name so UC is only an approximation.

As for Washington Monthly, more of the ‘first against the wall’. Just read Daily Howler for a while to get a sense of the ‘New Democrats’ with their lips planted firmly on the ass of the Village. I guess it that people seem to believe the hype that Obama is a leftist, because being under the arm of Liberman shows really shows your DFH cred. But, as HTML correctly notes they do occasionally let some light slip through.

OK gaderson, I haven’t lived on the Peninsula since the (early) ’60s, you may be right as to counties. I was pretty damn sure that Palo Alto’s in S. C. County, & assumed Stanford was as well.

Research? Wuzzat?

The Howler has proven his thesis by presented it clearly and lucidly. The mainstream media had it out for Gore, believed everything Republicans said and the “liberal” pundits sat on their cocks because they knew enough to shut up.

Still, the fact remains that what got Bob’s goat was the treatment of Gore (and to a lesser extent the Clintons then Kerry and even farther down the line, Dean and Dukakis. ). And as a result I’d like to point out that “New Democrats” were exactly who Somerby defended against idiotic attacks. Precisely the kind of people who HTML will spend a future million words or so decrying as rank sellouts. And folks you’d put up against the wall.

we’ll have to start playing defense, not offense, and that’s just not as much fun.

OK – this is pretty much what I was trying to say, but much clearer. Thanks.

Palo Alto is in Santa Clara County. Mission College and Santa Clara University are both in the city of Santa Clara, which is also in Santa Clara County. San Jose is the county seat of Santa Clara County.

The Ewoks are from far northern California, up around Crescent City, along the border with Oregon. They do not live in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Know your redwood forests!

I totally agree that Drum, Easterbrook and several others at times seem almost embarrassed to be liberals

Drum might have been a milquetoast on some issues, but he has been more consistently good on things like unionization and general wages/poverty issues than a lot of the more yuppified (cough, trust fund scumbag) bloggers of his ilk.

Also, what FlipYrWhig said: there an awful lot of leftier-than-thou going on right now, and it’s all a bit silly.

and the “liberal” pundits sat on their cocks because they knew enough to shut up.

Sorry, you’re not making your point very clearly here — or even lucidly, for that matter!

Knew enough about what? Did they shut up because they thought the wingnut attacks were (mostly) true, and so were reticent out of a desire to see truth triumph over error, or because they were too chickenshit to stand up for even crappy liberals (much less decent ones)?

Surely they could have acknowledged that New Democrats were crappy and at the same time bashed the wingnuts for their lies.

No, wait, I’m sorry. Of course you must mean that simply because wingnuts attack somebody, it’s proof that somebody is virtuous on his own merits. And, naturally, the Overton Window game (and its effect) that wingnuts are playing when making their attacks on the center (who falsely market themselves as “Left” and therefore play into the game) is something you’re content to ignore — or, more precisely, you’re content to attack other people (at a calculatedly importune time, like, say, those who are qualified to go to the DNC, and when they travel there on their own dime and have a really tough time there even outside of the convention authorities’ snubs [like say, they first learn about a fetus they had a part in making was miscarried]) for *not* ignoring.

I’ve been wanting to say this for a long, long time, Jay: Go fuck yourself sideways, jackass.

And sorry to everyone else that I overshared, but I’ve had enough of Jay’s bullshit.

Also, what FlipYrWhig said: there an awful lot of leftier-than-thou going on right now, and it’s all a bit silly.

I can’t see that “right now” is different from whatever time period you’re thinking of. There are a bunch of different folks who post and comment here, and obviously some are likely leftier-than-thou as a matter of probability.

What? Mind writing without hyperventilating, or do you simply prefer the paranoid style?

You have gossamer-thin skin, but then most frauds scream the loudest when poked. Sure, you can spend 1,000 words ripping into Steve Benen because of Kevin Drum and a paragraph that may or may not be read as a complete sellout of socialism, but someone…Oh, wait, I see what this is about:

or, more precisely, you’re content to attack other people (at a calculatedly importune time, like, say, those who are qualified to go to the DNC, and when they travel there on their own dime and have a really tough time there even outside of the convention authorities’ snubs [like say, they first learn about a fetus they had a part in making was miscarried]) for *not* ignoring.

It’s laughable gibberish, but I think I get it: If you attack someone, it’s always appropriate because it’s righteous and just, but if someone finds the Gonzo schtick of a windy, hotheaded, intellectual bully and with not much to say (but a lot of ways to say it), tiresome, it’s hurting poor lil HTML’s feelsies to point it out because it came at a sensitive time for him.

Hilarious.

I reject this lefter-than-thou label, in favor of “more enlightened than thou.”

Are you guys going to start wrestling now? The man at the door said there was nude wrestling here.

You have gossamer-thin skin, but then most frauds scream the loudest when poked.

Really? Like when you called me a racist for saying Obama wasn’t all that Ezra Klein and like-minded idiots said he was? If I have thin skin, then surely even that is better than being thin-skinned for other people, especially careerist politicians and, well, the careerist pundits you keep defending.

Sure, you can spend 1,000 words ripping into Steve Benen because of Kevin Drum and a paragraph that may or may not be read as a complete sellout of socialism, but someone

Would it help to say that what you take as being totally against Steve Benen, even most clinical morons can see is an attack on the publication he writes for and the mindset behind (and about) it? As for the 1,000 words, surely you give me too much credit: my “long-windedness” is comprised of a lot of (damning) quotations of Kevin Drum. And just to be sure it gets through the density: you’re defending Kevin Drum by calling me long-winded. As some genius once put it, ‘It is too funny forever!!”

It’s laughable gibberish, but I think I get it

Pointing out your pompous redundancy stung, didn’t it?

if someone finds the Gonzo schtick of a windy, hotheaded, intellectual bully and with not much to say (but a lot of ways to say it), tiresome, it’s hurting poor lil HTML’s feelsies to point it out because it came at a sensitive time for him.

Nooo, it’s because, as everyone else in the thread pointed out (because I was largely unable to comment at the time), you were being a fucking dick. Saying I suck is one thing (that, I suppose, you expect me to thank you for); saying I deserve to be told that I have belated credentials, then being told they were for Josh Marshall when I got to the tent is not something to wish even on a wingnut. And that is not to mention being dicked over on the merits to begin with.

PS – the “not much to say” is precious. I bet I’ve blogged about more topics within political history than many of your precious careerist jackasses.

My butt hurts.

Question:

Is it wrong to get butthurt when one is disgusted by another’s constant butthurtings? Cuz I think that’s where I’m at. After all, the offending butthurted can go be butthurt somewhere else, amirite?

I’m not talking about you, of course, butthurt D.N. Nation.

I’ve been wanting to say this for a long, long time, Jay: Go fuck yourself sideways, jackass.

I guess sideways is the operative term here, since less than five months ago you told him to “fuck off.” In the post.

Like when you called me a racist for saying Obama wasn’t all that Ezra Klein and like-minded idiots said he was?

I’ve never called you a racist, you asshole. An asshole, sure. But since I don’t think it’s necessarily racist to oppose Obama from the left — as opposed to grindingly stupid — I’m pretty sure I just called you an asshole. That said, if it matters, I don’t think of you as a racist. Just a big douchebag who simply can’t take criticism of even the mildest sort.

Would it help to say that what you take as being totally against Steve Benen, even most clinical morons can see is an attack on the publication he writes for and the mindset behind (and about) it?

Congrats then, HTML. You’ve managed to crack the code: Washington Monthly isn’t left-wing! Does Amy Sullivan know this? What other brave truths are you going to expose next? I bet it’ll have something to do with the Overton Window!

Saying I suck is one thing (that, I suppose, you expect me to thank you for); saying I deserve to be told that I have belated credentials What? I said what now? How shameful — “you deserve belated credentials!”. Possibly the worst thing I ever said, to anyone. I probably wrung my hands and laughed after typing it.

then being told they were for Josh Marshall when I got to the tent is not something to wish even on a wingnut. Oh, Jesus. It’s sad, really. Look, I get it, you hate them. They do something I’m not quite sure isn’t worse than genocide. And, natch, it has something to do with Josh Marshall. And somehow, Gav got you in as Josh Marshall.

Look, dude, all I remember is that you thought it was the Lulz to punk Atrios and Kevin Drum and then write about it and I thought that for all your bluster about their eeeeeevvvilllll selloutness the best you could do — the best — was say you were some z-list right wing lunatic. I thought it was pathetic and lame — and was called an asshole for that. The rest of that shit you hallucinated.

I bet I’ve blogged about more topics within political history than many of your precious careerist jackasses.

My eyes will stop rolling soon. I promise. There. OK, I retract my earlier statement and offer this instead: Then, like Easterbrook, you’re a polymath on a multitude of topics you’re sure to be wrong about.

I beg to differ- hippie surfer ewoks most definitely live in the forests of the Santa Cruz mountains. Not to be confused with the Imorez mountains, where Nazis mine Uranium.

Anyhow, Steve is likable, but like lots of people has a little bit o’ the old beltway in him. He made a lazy point that possible clues on his mindset. I would also guess that the rest of his writing between the lines betrays a similar mindset, but without so much of the complete obtuseness of Drum, who I still read.

HTML could have made his point in a more kumbaya way, but there you go. It’s the message not the medium.

Ugh. I just got done reading a post by Publius at ObWi going on about how he, good old liberal that he is, is just getting around to seeing that class matters, that unions are necessary, and that “the Left” has something to do with economics and the distribution of wealth.

At this point, I’m so disgusted with Sensible Liberalism that HTML isn’t far enough left for me.

Three words: Circular Firing Squad.

OMG you are the stupidest person this side of the Pantload.

I’ve never called you a racist, you asshole.

You have me there! To be precise, you agreed when someone else did. But you’re right that you did call me an asshole, too.

I don’t think it’s necessarily racist to oppose Obama from the left — as opposed to grindingly stupid

Now we’re beginning to get somewhere. Only an idiot would see muted approval, or even ambivalence to Obama, or opposition to embarrassingly adhesive posts praising him to the skies, as “opposition” to the man or his candidacy.

Congrats then, HTML. You’ve managed to crack the code: Washington Monthly isn’t left-wing! Does Amy Sullivan know this? What other brave truths are you going to expose next? I bet it’ll have something to do with the Overton Window!

If it’s such a banal point, why do you deny it? Oh, I get it — it is true, but I should never say so. Got it.

Look, dude, all I remember is that you thought it was the Lulz to punk Atrios and Kevin Drum and then write about it and I thought that for all your bluster about their eeeeeevvvilllll selloutness the best you could do — the best — was say you were some z-list right wing lunatic. I thought it was pathetic and lame — and was called an asshole for that. The rest of that shit you hallucinated.

Have you had a recent brain injury? I’ve never punked Kevin Drum. I’ve never even seen Kevin Drum. I got into the fucking tent for an hour on two consecutive days, and only because of Jane and Spencer and Pach lending me their passes when they briefly left the tent to do other things. I could barely blog because I had no fucking internet outside my brief time inside the tent, and why I had no internet had to do with the subject I overshared while ago, where I stayed and why. Christ, everyone else could read between the lines at the clusterfuck disaster Gavin was describing — everyone, apparently, but you. And I didn’t get in as Josh Marshall; I was denied at the door because I wasn’t Josh Marshall, after being told that ‘everything was a mistake and sure, we have those credentials for you after all’. All that way to get in for a grand total of two fucking hours. But hey, it’s like laughing at the Griswald Family when they got to Cali and found Walley World closed, amirite? Get yer yuk yuks out, because ZOMG he won’t shut up about Overton Window! And besides, according to you, I shouldn’t have gone in the first place, see, cuz I bitched about the DNCC’s selection criteria and retarded communication practices, so I ultimately got what I deserved for believing (and saying) that the DNC, the DNCC, the candidate, and several of the candidate’s superfans were LESS THAN PERFECT!!! Just deserts and all that!

My eyes will stop rolling soon. I promise. There. OK, I retract my earlier statement and offer this instead: Then, like Easterbrook, you’re a polymath on a multitude of topics you’re sure to be wrong about.

But wait! I thought I was just an asshole making tired points! Everyone knows the Washington Monthly is centrist, as are its pundits! No, wait! It and they are not, and I am wrong! Except Easterbrook, apparently, because I can be insulted through him. You play an excellent ‘heads I win, tails you lose.’ But that only goes without saying, since you’re a dishonest sack of shit.

See, here’s the problem with the Circular Firing Squad argument: center-left types and watery liberals can attack those to their left all day and night (indeed, they are encouraged to do so) and not once does anyone accuse them of sabotaging the progressive effort (except folks like HTML, who are served up a steaming ration of shit for it), while a leftist who fails to fall in line behind the designated centrist leader of the moment ( a certain Mr. O comes to mind) are excoriated for their destructiveness.

WTF?

If a commentator is douchebag enough to reiterate right-wing talking points, to concede ground, to fail to push back the Overton Window, to support policies that are harmful to the poor and the working class–even to fail to recognize that there is such a thing as the working class–that commentator deserves to be called out. HTML is performing a public service here, and it’s one that could profitably be done elsewhere. In case you haven’t noticed, the public at large is more in synch with the Left on the issues (environmental protection, economic regulation, national health, and so on) that with the cetnrist commentators, but we are repeatedly assured that the public is “center-right”.

Enough. Time to call out those who know better. Time to call out those who spend their time writing crap that makes excuses for the worst in our system.

Do I sound angry? Well, taking care of uninisured (or underinsured) poor kids in the inner city might just do that to you.

Thanks, Doc, for noting who’s been throwing the first punch here. I guess what’s most annoying about threads like this for me, aside a final overload of Jay’s personal jackassery, is the critics’ mistaking of who the real aggressor is.

I get blamed for bashing centrists, but if centrists didn’t first bash the left either directly or through false equivalence with the right or by falsely advertising their position, I’d never bother.

Well, we know that at least one thing has gone right in the political scribblery sphere – K-Lo DE-FUCKING-NIED press credentials for the Inauguration.

K-Lo DE-FUCKING-NIED press credentials for the Inauguration.

Does she work for some kind of news outlet?

Benen overposts, Hilzoy overwrites, the comment threads are dull and WM’s layout and format stinks but I go there anyway. I think of it as a news site.

Steve was relentless in putting the boots to McCain/Palin. Isn’t that a good thing? Does anyone expect the USA to ever elect a leftist president? Centrists just need to be pointed in the right direction.

That just happened, you know. Don’t fuck it up by pulling at loose strands.

Two words: health care.

Think of ‘layout and format’ as one word.

Maybe K-lo can go on a crash diet & hide in Rick Warren’s fat ass at the Inaug.

I’ve never understood this attitude that people who are “liberal” should get a free pass when they say dumb things.

Circular firing squad my ass. Sadly No! Is only armed with pop guns. I don’t think HTML Mencken is going to be the catalyst that destroys the liberal blog-o-sphere because he accused Kevin Drum of being a doofus. An argument can be made that we should vote for the lesser of two evils in an election. I can’t for the life of me imagine why we should ignore stupidity because it comes from somebody who usually agrees with us.

The whole thing sort of reminds me of how people like Ann Coulter always complain that fear of being called a racist keeps them from expressing themselves. Kevin Drum and Steve Benen are going to keep doing what they do no matter what HTML Mencken says about them.

And besides that, the idea that we should evaluate an argument for ad hominem reasons is grotesque. The fact that Benen votes Democrat and cares for sick puppies doesn’t mean he’s immune from writing a dumb article.

And Benen’s article is pretty fucking dumb. The central idea of his post is this:

If Roger Clegg thinks somebody is extremely liberal, then they probably are.

Roger Clegg is a known idiot who writes posts for NRO about how much Martin Luther King Jr. would’ve hated affirmitive action. Yes, Benen says Clegg’s distress is irrelevant, but Clegg’s classification of Achtenberg and Lee as uber-liberals is the only piece of evidence Benen brings to the table.

If you’re like me, and you aren’t familiar with the records of Achtenberg and Lee, then you come away from Benen’s article with no reason to think they are other then that Clegg says they are. Also, and this is key, the Washington Post article doesn’t explain why they are liberals either.

If people read that article and say, “Hey, Obama really does have lots of liberals on his side!” then all that’s done is reinforce the idea that Republican complaints about “liberals” are actually connected to reality in some fashion.

That’s not a good thing at all.

Benen’s post is as silly as Mencken’s quote makes it sound, and the fact that Benen’s loveable and otherwise smart doesn’t suddenly transform a bad argument into a good one.

Does she work for some kind of news outlet?

No, but for some reason she asked for press credentials, and it’s very funny that she didn’t get them.

Oh, I forgot to mention:

That Ezra Klein quote is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever read, and I’m still trying to come to terms with the fact that the dumbest fucking thing didn’t come from Jonah Goldberg.

Thanks for upsetting my whole world view, HTML.

Christopher (shortering Benen): If Roger Clegg thinks somebody is extremely liberal, then they probably are.

I thought his point was that the Post glommed onto obvious weak-ass Clegg bullshit in order to show that Obama’s getting criticism from both sides and that they could have found a better way to say that. He was quite dismissive of Clegg.

He obviously doesn’t think much of Clegg, but still “the noteworthy aspect of concerns on the right about the liberals on Obama’s team is that it offers a counter-weight to the opposite criticisms”. If we imagine he’s talking in general about the right wing instead of specifically about Clegg so what? It’s the right-wing plan to freak out over anyone with a D after their name; it’s not some sort of equivalent to good-faith criticism.

That many hours later and we’re still back to the beginning? IMHO Benen’s point was that a Post story that at first glance seemed as stupid as you/we all seem to think it was — conservatives object to presence of liberals — was actually more interesting than that _because_ not enough people in the media and the para-media like the blogs have been paying attention to the _presence_ of liberals, because they’ve been more interested in alleging their absence. So, under the surface of a routine story was a slightly more interesting story ABOUT LIBERALS, which is what made the story not “completely without merit.” Those are the damning words that produced this whole tirade about the nefariousness of Washington Monthly, sensible centrists, and sell-outs. Steve Benen shouldn’t have said a Post story was not completely without merit, because it was, because they always are, and if you don’t see it you’re not paying attention, and that’s why the world is the way it is, unless we all have the courage to stand athwart history and challenge the system and stop being quietists and appeasers in our… sarcastic blog comments, I guess.

Being aggravated at Steve Benen for this is like being outraged at Dunkin’ Donuts for Rachel Ray’s Scarf of Jihad.

FlipYrWing: Have you actually read that Post article? It is, in fact, as without merit as a story can be. It’s a story that says absolutely nothing about the policies of the “liberals” it complains about.

The only evidence offered that they’re ultra-liberal is that people like Jesse Helms and Roger Clegg have accused them of being ultra-liberal.

It says nothing about their records, except that Lee supports affirmative action and another guy sort of scared mining companies until they found out Obama was appointing a more moderate guy to Secretary of the Interior. I’m serious, that’s the entire discussion of their policy advice.

There is no “interesting story” below the surface; the entire substance of the article is that Roger Clegg doesn’t like certain Obama advisors, advisors the article says may not even be offered “key jobs”. Using that as actual evidence that Obama is hiring a good crop of liberals is, I’m sorry, fucking stupid.

I can imagine some alternate universe where what Benen says is true, and the article talks about actual members of Obama’s cabinet and actually explains their policies, but we don’t live in that world.

It’s a fucking useless article that doesn’t counterbalance shit.

It’s an almost completely fucking useless article that Steve Benen thought was more interesting than it intended to be… because it highlighted the presence of liberals in the Obama administration. Thus, there was an article about liberals in the Obama administration, and we haven’t seen very many of those. Hence, “not entirely without merit” — the underlying facts, at least, even if the story as written is by-the-numbers sucktacular.

I can imagine some alternate universe where what Benen says is true, and the article talks about actual members of Obama’s cabinet and actually explains their policies

Well, then the article would have genuine merit, rather than being “not entirely without merit.” It’s kind of key to Benen’s premise that the article suck but be revealing almost in spite of itself. No one is writing articles about Obama’s Liberals. Here’s one in the Post that tries. It has a stupid frame-story and a bad execution, all of which Benen acknowledges.

Benen’s damning with faint praise, or praising with faint damn, doesn’t mean that Benen thinks the conservative complaints showcased in the article had any merit, and it doesn’t mean that Benen thinks the Obama administration is doing a good job because they’ve drawn criticism from both sides.

Personally, I like knowing that liberals are being welcomed onto Team Obama. If the Post feels like it has to address that topic by asking conservatives to complain and then transcribing their whining, it says something about the Post, but it doesn’t say anything about Steve Benen, who I’m sure is at least as bemused by the sorry state of periodical journalism as any of us.

What henry lewis said at 6:40.

also:
K-Lo DE-FUCKING-NIED press credentials for the Inauguration.

Well, that tent is only so big.

Benen’s damning with faint praise, or praising with faint damn, doesn’t mean that Benen thinks the conservative complaints showcased in the article had any merit, and it doesn’t mean that Benen thinks the Obama administration is doing a good job because they’ve drawn criticism from both sides.

I figger he should have written that instead of something different. In any case I have always liked your writing so please take this as a good faith disagreement and not as my usual Stalinist banishment of all who oppose me.

Not that I don’t still think I’m right about Benen’s intent, mind you… 😛

But I was getting into a Fibonacci-esque pattern of escalating irritation yesterday, and, on further reflection, this particular item was never really worth my angst in the first place — and I would add that it wasn’t worth HTML/Retardo’s either.

I do get fatigued by the rush to declare comrades running-dogs, and that’s something that’s been building up in me lately, and this dust-up was just the trigger.

I shouldn’t have popped back up after an absence and then egged on a fight over something minor. Deep breath, OK now, back at it, cya…

I discovered tonight that I’m a centrist. Who knew but me.

This thread is worthless.

Hey that Rosa Brooks is good. That’s a good article.