Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

"Mark Levin to Chris Christie: You’re dead wrong. Get serious and take a position!"

From Right Scoop:

I actually heard Levin say this last night and it struck me as precisely the way we need to respond to any Republican who we see trying to triangulate: either you hold conservative principles or you don’t, and it’s time for you to decide. Because we’re done voting for you simply because you have an R in front of your name.

Christie has done some very good things, of course. Still, he — and any politician — needs to be reminded by his ostensible ideological base that he is a representative of their interests, not some elite philosopher king who stands above the rabble and thralls them with wisdom and benevolence.

Dismissing serious concerns over a Ground Zero mosque as so much political posturing is itself the worst kind of political posturing — and in this case, such posturing is, well, retarded.

185 Replies to “"Mark Levin to Chris Christie: You’re dead wrong. Get serious and take a position!"”

  1. happyfeet says:

    amen brother

  2. sdferr says:

    . . . and print.

    That said: hasn’t Christie got a large Mozzlem population to pander to? I think he does, and was doing.

  3. JD says:

    Politicians are politicians. Even the ones that seem good are still politicians, which makes them, well … politicians.

  4. Jeff G. says:

    That’s no longer a good enough excuse, JD.

    Least ways, not for me.

  5. Spiny Norman says:

    Gov. Christie’s pro-amnesty position (and half-hearted walk-back) make me MORE than a little nervous, but it is pretty typical of a Northeasterner who has no clue about what damage illegal immigration has done to the job market, the violent crime rates, and the State budgets in the Southwest.

  6. JD says:

    I wasn’t offering it as an excuse, more as an observation. Politicians, in my eyes, are significantly lower than the MFM and lawyers in the ranking of People Who Should Not Be Trusted.

  7. AJB says:

    Arizona’s crime rate has been decreasing and the southerwestern border cities have lower crime rates than many Northern cities.

    Just FYI

  8. Jeff G. says:

    Arizona’s crime rate has been decreasing and the southerwestern border cities have lower crime rates than many Northern cities.

    Just FYI

    Illegals make the trains run on time.

  9. JD says:

    Is southerwestern a new direction?

  10. Jeff G. says:

    What AJB doesn’t understand is that he’s actually arguing FOR Arizona’s law.

  11. Spiny Norman says:

    Well, where I live in inland California, over the past decade, there has been a massive influx of immigrants – I can’t say they’re all illegals, but since very few of them speak English, I think we can make some assumptions – and the violent crime rate has gone from practically zero to something rivaling Los Angeles County.

  12. happyfeet says:

    the noxiousness of the victory mosque is not just that it would stand as an enduring emblem of American fecklessness and dishonour it’s a huge propaganda coup if it can be framed as a first amendment issue – which is what the cocksucker president lent the weight of his office to achieve – and now Chris Christie with his cowardly equivocations has lent his not inconsiderable weight to this framing as well…

    Sickening.

  13. Darleen says:

    his not inconsiderable weight

    why aren’t you out campaigning for Moonbeam, hf?

  14. Pablo says:

    What’s the operative Constitutional principle here? Has Harry Ried found it?

  15. JD says:

    There is no operative Constitutional principle in play here, Pablo. I have yet to see anyone advocating for Muslims to be denied the right to practice their religion.

  16. happyfeet says:

    for it to be a first amendment issue we would have to posit that Ground Zero is a sacred Islamic site I think

  17. Jeff G. says:

    The point of this post — and I think Levin’s critique, too — is to criticize Christie for making the kinds of “political” moves that wind up giving us “losing less slowly” Republican Administrations.

    I disagree with Reagan on this. I go after Christie here because he’s wrong, and he needs to know he’s wrong. And he needs to know that those of us who he dismisses so condescendingly aren’t in any mood to be talked down to by Republicans any moreso than we are by President Urkel.

  18. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I’m inclined to agree with Darleen on this one. With a Governor Moonbeam, you ensure the integritudinousness of your stauncheneity remains unsullied. The perfect can afford no compromise.

  19. Ric Locke says:

    [Christie’s a politician]
    That’s no longer a good enough excuse, JD.

    It’s lizard politics — if you don’t vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in. Christie’s sort of OK, for a lizard, and maybe a few Christie-analogues might lead to a real person on the ballot some day.

    What I do find more than a little off-putting is that Christie’s bought into the basic leftoid assumption: we have to let them build it or it will offend every Moslem on the planet and ohnoes they’ll h8 us and send more suicide bombers. As the essay by Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid that I linked before, and the one by M. Zuhdi Jasser that JD brought to our attention, demonstrate, this is not at all a universal view among Muslims[*] and may not be a majority opinion.

    If deference to his Moslem constituents is the issue, Christie ought to check what the actual sentiment is before opening his pie-hole — just as the leftoids should. In New Jersey (though perhaps not Detroit) I would offer money I don’t have on the wager that the majority of Muslims agree with either Jasser or al-Rashid, or are practicing the Islamic sacrament whose name I can’t remember at the moment, where Moslems smile and lie to their oppressors, and hide and watch for the downfall of the infidels. None of those groups is likely to be overjoyed by Cordoba House, or by support for it.

    Regards,
    Ric
    [*]See what I did there? You gotta be subtle.

  20. JD says:

    “I go after Christie here because he’s wrong, and he needs to know he’s wrong. And he needs to know that those of us who he dismisses so condescendingly aren’t in any mood to be talked down to by Republicans any moreso than we are by President Urkel.”

    Well said. Well said, indeed.

  21. bh says:

    So, when Jeff argued that a statist like McCain is merely loosing less slowly and said he’d prefer clearer choices put before the electorate, what did you guys make of it?

  22. bh says:

    Geez, losing more slowly, that should have been.

  23. JD says:

    McCain still sucks.

  24. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – I don’t personally give jack shit what any politician has to say about the Cordoba Trojan horse house.

    – As far as I’m concerned it’s an issue that should be decided by the people who lost loved one’s or friends on 9/11, and aside from freely voicing an opinion, everyone else in this mess can only react emotionally or ideologically. That’s fine, but not terribly important.

    – As to the political reactions of various players, I’m with JD on this. I think, per usual, a lot of public figures got caught off guard in misjudging the vaporous shitstorm that has eruped from the reopening of this lingering wound to America’s psyche, and spoke before they should have. Bumbblefuck’s inept comments leading the way.

    – The Lefturds, already reeling from the onslaught of bungled policy, fiscal over reach, and continuing unresolved issues in every direction, are struggling to put a happy face on this latest turd bombshell, at a time when their fortunes are falling faster than your typical 401K, so expecting them, or any politician to make any sense is a sure prescription to a frustrating summer.

    – November is looming like the mother of all tsunami’s for the Dems, and by extension the death throes for the Progressives.

    – Instead of feeding the Progg trolls with counters to their ridiculous revisionist feel good nonsense, just enjoy pulling their wings and bask in the sweet revenge. We paid a hell of a price and now we should collect.

    – feets, you tend to undercut your own message. For months you’ve been campaigning about “staying on message and not getting pulled off and distracted”, which is exactly what you’re doing with Christy.

    – I don’t care what the fuck he thinks or doesn’t think about Cordoba house. I care about what he does and say’s about fiscal responsibility in government.

    – Letting the Left immerse you in their tangled web of ideological double-speak and agitprop hogwash is how we got here in the first place. This is a critical time to change the political landscape, and not get sucked back into that time wasting maw.

  25. bh says:

    And in that other thread, when ‘feets started up on Christie, that’s when Darleen broke out the “Keep supporting Governor Moonbeam” nonsense.

    Now, in this thread, where Jeff is criticizing Christie along the same lines, we get the same noise.

    You hate ‘feets, Darleen. We get it. We really, really get it.

  26. sdferr says:

    I tranked my lesion bh and that hasn’t help’d, damnit.

  27. happyfeet says:

    Mr. Hunter it was Christie what decided to add his voice a lot unhelpfully to the discussion of our cocksucker president’s victory mosque – it’s far far more distracty that he did it wrong than had he done it right

  28. JD says:

    If you criticize Politician A you support Politician B !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  29. bh says:

    Why aren’t you out campaigning for the teacher’s unions in New Jersey, Jeff?

    /Darleen off

  30. Ernst Schreiber says:

    it’s far far more distracty that he did it wrong than had he done it right

    THIRD BASE!

  31. cranky-d says:

    At some time in the past, I would have been with those who’ll give Christie a pass on this, but not now. The smart thing to do, probably, is to stay out of it, if you want to be a politician. However, if you are going to state a position consistent with classical liberal views (and you are opposed to the proposed building) then you would say, as many have said here, that they have a right to build it where they want to, but they shouldn’t exercise that right in this instance.

    I don’t think meeting dismissal with criticism is a bad thing. We should criticize all politicians, especially those who we mostly agree with. To do anything else is to become the progressive left, whose leaders are infallible (until it’s time to tear them down and replace them with another leader, of course).

  32. sdferr says:

    Good on ya cranky-d, well put.

  33. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – I’m not saying “don’t criticize”, I’m saying keep your eye on the donut and not the hole.

    – Politicians love to misdirect. It’s a tried and true tool of politicians everywhere. This Cordoba shitstorm isn’t going to make things ny worse than they already are for the Dems and the Left. They’re already sucking fumes with no fuel left in the political tank. But what it does do is provide cover for the moment for all the massive fuckups by this administration.

    – We need to stay on point and hold everyone we vote for to real Moderate/Liberal/Conservative values in fact, not in theory.

  34. Jeff G. says:

    I’m not criticizing Christie to sink him (who really listens to me anyway?). I’m criticizing him because he’s wrong. And now he knows why I believe that.

    What he then does with that knowledge is on him.

  35. Jeff G. says:

    But what it does do is provide cover for the moment for all the massive fuckups by this administration.

    Not really. I mean, I can blog about those, too.

  36. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – Jeff, you’re absolutely correct in your assessments, not just in this instance, but in most of the things you’ve written over the years. That’s not the point. The point is making maximum effective use of this upcoming chance we’ve been given to set things as right as we can.

  37. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Correcting and encouraging our political leadership is a good thing. My concern is that we don’t unneccessarily start making examples Pour l’encouragement des autres. Meaning, one ought to be able to disagree with Christie’s position without going all Madame Defarge on his ass. Jeff I think strikes the right tone. Meanwhile you can’t understand happyfeet because of the constant klik-klaking of the knitting needles.

  38. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – Personally, looking behind the stage curtain at the mess the Left has wrought, and not seeing any clear path to recovery, I’m not even sure we can set things right. I doubt we’ll ever manage to get back to the luxury’s of the last few decades, no matter what we do.

    – But that’s probably just the pessimist in me speaking.

  39. sdferr says:

    hf said in another thread “he’s a good governor of New Jersey but any talk of his cowardly appeaser ass taking on a larger role is no longer appropriate” and this seems to me a decent assessment of Christie’s failure to think through what the United States being at war with the Islamists means in the context of the victory mosque controversy.

    It could be as simple as that Christie just isn’t used to thinking on national security matters, nor how to place those matters in an appropriate hierarchy of interests. On the one hand, we needn’t assume that he can’t learn, but, that in all probability, he does have a great deal to learn before he should be entrusted with the conduct of our national security.

  40. happyfeet says:

    there’s been a lot of talk about putting this cowardly fat-ass on a national ticket, Ernst… that sort of talk needs to stop… he’s not a leader… he’s an appeaser and he’s a coward what is timorously unable to unequivocally condemn the ramrodding of a victory mosque up the ass of America.

  41. happyfeet says:

    oh. I should have refreshed.

  42. happyfeet says:

    I think I might just mosey lunchwards

  43. cranky-d says:

    Christie is thinking like a governor, which might be appropriate in some circumstances. He isn’t thinking like a national leader.

  44. cranky-d says:

    sdferr already said what I said. Oh well.

  45. Ernst Schreiber says:

    there’s been a lot of talk about putting this cowardly fat-ass on a national ticket, Ernst… that sort of talk needs to stop… he’s not a leader… he’s an appeaser and he’s a coward what is timorously unable to unequivocally condemn the ramrodding of a victory mosque up the ass of America.

    Fine. Let’s Guillotine him for excessive pragmatism indicative of counter-revolutionary thought and be done with it. Can’t have anyone thinking we’re cowards and fat-asses and appeasers because he spoke before thinking through sufficiently, can we?

  46. bh says:

    I made that same point myself, Ernst.

    However, I’m able to, rather easily, make out of a few of those points he’s making and “You support Governor Moonbeam!11!” just isn’t a valid retort. In that other thread, when people were saying that ‘feets and Darleen should just give it a fucking rest already? Count me in that group.

  47. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – Again, what I’m focused on is Christies fiscal blueprint, which if adapted by the other 56 states, wheever practicable, would be a huge step back toward financial stability. Get things back to a healthy private sector, and trade balanced international policy, and America would be in a far better position to fight all the other fights that come along.

    – As things stand, Bumbblefuck has cut our independent legs out from under us.

  48. I Callahan says:

    Happyfeet,

    Christie was spineless on one issue. And I agree with you on principle.

    But how does that make him completely unelectable? You sure have high standards for elected officials. Who would you put up for the 2012 race?

  49. Pablo says:

    The point of this post — and I think Levin’s critique, too — is to criticize Christie for making the kinds of “political” moves that wind up giving us “losing less slowly” Republican Administrations.

    Christie is heading a Republican administration that is working a jackhammer on the foundations of the progressive nanny state. He’s not losing more slowly, he’s knocking the fucking building over, unabashedly. This is not his problem. It is not his job. And while I think we all, Christie included*, share the same sentiment about the 9/11 Debris Field Mosque, I see no point whatsoever in chucking tar babies at the fat man while he’s busy sorting out his trainwreck.

    *

    Given my last position, that I was the first U.S attorney post 9/11 in New Jersey. I understand acutely the pain and sorrow and upset of the family members who lost loved ones that day. At the hands of radical Muslim extremist. And their sensitivities and concerns have to be taken into account. Just because it’s nearly nine years later, those sensitivities cannot and should not be ignored.

    One, that we have to acknowledge, respect and give some measure of deference to the feelings of the family members who lost there loved ones there that day.

    Sure, Christie could give us this, or this, or this, but what’s the upside of that?

    Leave it to the Democrats and LEAVE CHRIS CHRISTIE ALONE!! Mr. Levin, he ain’t running for President. He’s grabbing New Jersey by the ankles and shaking the shit out of it. Conservatives ought to be supportive instead of trying to interrupt the enemy while he’s making a mistake.

    Addendum: I’m annoyed by the framing here. Near as I can tell, all of this stems from a Politico piece on a Christie presser. It’s being framed as though Christie got up that morning and decided it would be a good day to opine on the subject. Politico doesn’t offer the question Christie was asked, nor do they identify the questioner, but I’ll bet 10-1 that there was a question and he answered it honestly, as is his wont. Me, I kind of like a Chief Executive who recognizes what is in his purview and what isn’t. I wish we had one in the White House.

  50. Jeff G. says:

    Again, what I’m focused on is Christies fiscal blueprint, which if adapted by the other 56 states, wheever practicable, would be a huge step back toward financial stability. Get things back to a healthy private sector, and trade balanced international policy, and America would be in a far better position to fight all the other fights that come along.

    — unless it called someone retarded, or griped about Islamist triumphalism.

    At that point America can just go fuck itself.

  51. sdferr says:

    What is the upside to national unity of effort in warfighting? Winning it, maybe.

  52. Pablo says:

    – Again, what I’m focused on is Christies fiscal blueprint, which if adapted by the other 56 states, wheever practicable, would be a huge step back toward financial stability.

    That’s what he’s focused on too, BBH. But we wouldn’t want to miss a chance to get our outrage on, would we? CRUCIFY HIM!

  53. Slartibartfast says:

    I thought Levin was smarter than this, actually. See, Levin’s basically insisting that Christie toe some imaginary line defined by principle, without actually saying what that principle is.

    It IS a fucking political football match, in addition to other stuff. You can’t look at the political arena and say that this hasn’t been hijacked by people who otherwise could not (and should not) give a flying fuck about the issues.

    What’s the federal government supposed to do about this “mosque”? That, I think, is a relevant question. If there’s nothing FOR the federal government to do about it, then Christie is dead nuts right on point.

    That it isn’t a mosque at all, and that calling it a mosque actually kicks off the first quarter of the political football match, doesn’t seem to bother Levin’s sense of irony much.

    Lastly, I don’t care so much that Christie toe some conservative line as I do that he acts at least occasionally in accordance with conservative (as opposed to religious right) principles, and does what he think is right instead of playing off the fucking politics of any given situation. Can you tell I am well and truly tired of political battles fought just to win dominance for the party of R or D?

  54. Jeff G. says:

    Christie is heading a Republican administration that is working a jackhammer on the foundations of the progressive nanny state. He’s not losing more slowly, he’s knocking the fucking building over, unabashedly

    For which many here have praised him.

    In this instance, he is receiving deserved criticism from many of those same people. Win some, lose some.

    Doesn’t change what he’s done in NJ. Just points to a kind of thinking I dislike — and a kind of tone that politicians shouldn’t presume to take if they wish to appeal to me.

    YMMV.

  55. Pablo says:

    What is the upside to national unity of effort in warfighting? Winning it, maybe.

    If we need NJ National Guard troops, we should call him. I suspect he’ll do the right thing. Or do you want to use him as ballast somewhere?

  56. Slartibartfast says:

    Oh, and about the retardation thing? I think he’s got a certain point, there.

  57. Jeff G. says:

    But we wouldn’t want to miss a chance to get our outrage on, would we? CRUCIFY HIM!

    Because that’s what any criticism is.

    Mustn’t criticize precious. Mustn’t. Mustn’t.

  58. sdferr says:

    I’d merely prefer he not lend any weight to the propagandistic efforts of the enemy, that’s all. Same goes for the asshole Obama. It isn’t rocket science.

  59. Pablo says:

    In this instance, he is receiving deserved criticism from many of those same people.

    For what, again? What conservative principle is he violating, exactly? And how?

  60. Jeff G. says:

    Oh, and about the retardation thing? I think he’s got a certain point, there.

    That’s just fucking retarded.

    See, Levin’s basically insisting that Christie toe some imaginary line defined by principle, without actually saying what that principle is.

    The “principle” is this: don’t pretend those who actually care about the issue are beneath you. Say nothing or say something. Affecting moral superiority ain’t the answer, and it grates.

    Valid criticism, if you ask me. But just in case, BRING ME THE CROWN OF THORNS!

  61. Pablo says:

    Because that’s what any criticism is.

    Maybe it just sounds that way when Levin does it.

  62. Slartibartfast says:

    All of that aside, and reading the rest of the thread, I don’t think that any of what Christie has done immunizes him in any way from criticism of things that he may do that people disagree with. And I don’t think it is, either, grounds to refrain from disagreeing with him.

    I’m not sure what Christie did in particular that got Levin’s ire up, but the notion that controversy over an Islamic cultural center is being used as a political football is hardly a revolutionary one. Anyone with a few active brain cells can see that is absolutely the case.

    As is just about everything else that people can find grounds of disagreement.

  63. bh says:

    He’s not losing more slowly, he’s knocking the fucking building over, unabashedly.

    If that stems from my question about how people felt about Jeff’s stance on McCain, Pablo, I really wasn’t knocking Christie with it.

    That was simply a retort to that “You support Governor Moonbeam” talk.

  64. sdferr says:

    “It IS a fucking political football match…”

    Who was that war theorist that claimed that “”War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means,”? What the hell did he know?

  65. Slartibartfast says:

    That’s just fucking retarded.

    What? Forbidding state laws to use a term that has no legal or medical meaning?

    That sounds more like good judgement to me.

  66. Slartibartfast says:

    What the hell did he know?

    That sounds as if you’re violently in agreement with me, sdferr.

  67. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – Jeff, I’d be all in for lining the bastards up against the nearest wall. We don’t do that in a civilized country.

    – If we don’t concentrate, and be reasonably successful in doing it, on regaining fiscal stability, nothing else is going to matter.

  68. JD says:

    Is there some edict that we can only criticize him if he acts contra some conservative principle? How about if he is just wrong?

  69. Ernst Schreiber says:

    “You support Governor Moonbeam!11!” just isn’t a valid retort.

    I read it as a tweak more than a retort, myself.

  70. sdferr says:

    Could be that’s because you’ve got your head in a place where hearing is tough Slart.

  71. happyfeet says:

    this is more than an oopsy

    after the cocksucker president imbued the victory mosque issue with first amendmentyness it ceased to be a matter of playing politics and became a very dangerous propaganda campaign launched by our cocksucker president against our own little country on behalf of rabid Islamists

    Not building the mosque would now be a potent recruiting tool… that’s what the framing our cocksucker president established has accomplished and it’s a framing what fat boy has lent support to.

  72. bh says:

    No, she’s laid it out quite clearly on numerous occasions, Ernst.

  73. Jeff G. says:

    For what, again? What conservative principle is he violating, exactly? And how?

    Suggesting that a view on the mosque issue is “political” — wherein “political” is used to mean “opportunistic” — is to me no different than dismissing someone’s view on, say, affirmative action, as “racist.”

    It’s an easy dodge that is designed to dismiss the question while assuming the moral high ground.

  74. Pablo says:

    The principle is not to pretend those who actually care about the issue are beneath you. Say nothing or say something.

    OK, a couple of things. First, Christie is not just a politician. He’s a Chief Executive of a sovereign (I know, don’t laugh.) state and as such has to be a bit more circumspect than those of us who aren’t. Failure to breathe fire over the issue doesn’t bother me, mainly because he did make clear, twice, that the opinion of the opposition should be given deference in the matter. Which is a nicer way of saying that it really isn’t a good place for a mosque. Second is the fact that he did make that clear. He is not a supporter. Lastly, what more was he supposed to have said that would return him to Levin’s good graces? And would there be any particular upside to Chris Christie having said it? If so, what?

  75. Jeff G. says:

    What? Forbidding state laws to use a term that has no legal or medical meaning?

    No. It is erecting a monument to the very political correctness you yourselves have wrought — and as such, is the equivalent of giving yourself a medal for humility.

  76. JD says:

    So everyone except for him is using this as a political opportunity?

  77. Pablo says:

    Oh, fourth, Christie in no way pretends that those who care about the issue are beneath him, particularly the family members. Quite the opposite, in fact, twice. Fifth, this is not an issue for the government to sort out would be the operative conservative principle, I think.

  78. Jeff G. says:

    Failure to breathe fire over the issue doesn’t bother me,

    Nor me. Condescending remarks, however, do.

    Lastly, what more was he supposed to have said that would return him to Levin’s good graces?

    It’s a local issue.

  79. Pablo says:

    So everyone except for him is using this as a political opportunity?

    He was asked a question, answered it briefly and then went to “I’m not getting into it.” Twice. Do you get the impression that he wants to engage on this rather than focus on his job?

  80. mojo says:

    Please.

    It’s special

  81. Jeff G. says:

    Of course, a willingness to criticize those on “our side” has not exactly been a boon to my career.

    Malkin, who’s been to my house, won’t even return my emails these days. True story.

  82. Rick says:

    Comment by Pablo on 8/17 @ 12:46 pm

    Word. Also, I cut folks lots of slack on a great many issues precisely because I don’t expect even sitting governors to have firm opinions on every damn thing. Obama could have kept his pie-hole shut, but obviously, he does truckle to the Mohammedans.

    Cordially…

  83. Pablo says:

    Suggesting that a view on the mosque issue is “political” — wherein “political” is used to mean “opportunistic” — is to me no different than dismissing someone’s view on, say, affirmative action, as “racist.”

    He didn’t say that. He said that politicians, like Obama, are engaging the issue for political purposes. You’re putting a much broader brush in his hand and what he said doesn’t support it. I don’t think you can reasonably infer that intent from any of what he said.

  84. Pablo says:

    Obama could have kept his pie-hole shut, but obviously, he does truckle to the Mohammedans.

    I’ll bet he wishes he had, along with many, many of his minions. This is not going well for them.

  85. Ernst Schreiber says:

    No, she’s laid it out quite clearly on numerous occasions, Ernst.

    I know she has, bh. And it’s never struck me as more than an admonition to start recognizing that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Obviously, I’m the only one who reads it that way, so I’ll let it go now. You’re welcome (he said w/ a smile).

    I feel like looking back through the comments on the Mitch Daniels dust-up. It seems to me we’ve all become culture warriors here, but that some culture warriors are preferable to others. Maybe that’s just the vagaries of that merry prankster, memory.

  86. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – Well, yes, but then Malkin has her own fishes to fry, pun intended.

    – I do not know how smart Christie is, I know very little about him. But I would imagine about now, the Dems and Left in NJ would do anything to try to destroy him politically, and I would believe he’s the first to be aware of this.

    – Maybe he meant what he said. He just refused to stick his political arms in the Cordoba wood chipper in accordance with the wishes of his enemies. Don’t know.

    – But on Jeff’s other note concerning the condescending aspect he deserves thrashing.

  87. Pablo says:

    Malkin, who’s been to my house, won’t even return my emails these days. True story.

    Aren’t y’all almost neighbors these days? Weird.

  88. Pablo says:

    I feel like looking back through the comments on the Mitch Daniels dust-up. It seems to me we’ve all become culture warriors here, but that some culture warriors are preferable to others.

    Some are fervent, some reluctant, but we’re all in the shit.

  89. sdferr says:

    Calls for unity seem appropriate when a nation is at war, but the unity would only naturally be unity of effort against the enemy. Bleating about painting all Muslims with one brush isn’t a useful call to unity though, particularly in an environment in which no such thing is taking place. Waffling on a question of enemy propaganda wouldn’t seem to be terribly unifying. Setting up triumphs to mass-murder, on the other hand, wouldn’t seem to be a conservative principle on its face, would it?

  90. B Moe says:

    He didn’t say that. He said that politicians, like Obama, are engaging the issue for political purposes.

    It is a political issue. Only the dangerously naive think there is anything religious about this.

  91. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Malkin, who’s been to my house, won’t even return my emails these days. True story.

    I’m very sorry to hear that.

  92. Jeff G. says:

    He didn’t say that. He said that politicians, like Obama, are engaging the issue for political purposes. You’re putting a much broader brush in his hand and what he said doesn’t support it.

    There can be principled politicians representing the principled views of their principled constituencies, Pablo.

    Christie turned this into a three-sided thing: the two political sides treating the issue like a political football (and sorry, but that is a fraught phrase, and I took him to mean that the two sides are acting opportunistically); and the third side, his, where he stands, above the fray, where angels and good men stand.

  93. Jeff G. says:

    A “political issue” is not the same as a “political football.”

  94. B Moe says:

    It also seems naive to me to try to argue that moderate, peaceful moslems are behind this mosque. If that were true they would have backed down immediately when it became obvious how upsetting this was to the overwhelming majority of Americans. These are a bunch of radical shit stirrers doing just that.

  95. Jeff G. says:

    Aren’t y’all almost neighbors these days? Weird.

    No more “weird” than that I don’t get linked by most of the drivers of traffic on the right — all of whom I use to have very good relationships with.

    Part of it is because I’m an asshole and mercurial. But part of it is because they really are out to get me.

    I suspect a back-door, sub rosa email chain.

  96. sdferr says:

    The deeper they dig in their heels, the clearer their cause B Moe, exactly.

  97. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – I’m not sure it was above or aside.

    – Not knowing him I’d tend to cut him that slack.

    – If he’s truly of that arrogant nature then man the torpedo’s.

  98. Pablo says:

    Calls for unity seem appropriate when a nation is at war, but the unity would only naturally be unity of effort against the enemy.

    Government action or civic opposition? What sort of unity are you after in this instance?

    If there’s something people ought to be screaming about, it’s why we are sending this Feisal Abdul Rauf on middle east fundraising trips with our tax dollars. Chris Christie has not a goddamn thing to do with this.

  99. bh says:

    I hear what you’re saying, Ernst. Just sometimes it sounds like I’m hearing “The perfect is the enemy of the good” in response to “The bad is the bad.”

    I think you’re bang on in regards to the connection with the Daniels incident. Towards the deeper issue of the culture war, I’ll admit, sometimes things seem to be a higher priority (that is, not taking our eyes off the ball) simply because I agree with the popular conservative opinion on the matter. Towards the shallower issue, with both Daniels and Christie, it’s a good idea to weigh them in full and criticize them without going overboard. That was done here at PW in both cases, in my estimation.

  100. Pablo says:

    Christie turned this into a three-sided thing: the two political sides treating the issue like a political football (and sorry, but that is a fraught phrase, and I took him to mean that the two sides are acting opportunistically); and the third side, his, where he stands, above the fray, where angels and good men stand.

    As opposed to doing what, exactly? And to what end?

  101. sdferr says:

    “Government action or civic opposition? What sort of unity are you after in this instance? ”

    Hortatory unity in this instance would be quite sufficient for my purposes. It would be enough to say, then, this victory mosque should not be built, must not be built, if for no other reason than that it aids the Islamist fascists against whom we fight. Public speech, political speech is a way broad thing when it comes to the exchange of ideas and the formations of opinion.

  102. B Moe says:

    Part of it is because I’m an asshole and mercurial.

    I don’t see the mercurial part at all.

  103. Jeff G. says:

    As opposed to doing what, exactly? And to what end?

    As opposed to not acting like a condescending politician — the end being that posts like this, or reactions like Levin’s, probably wouldn’t exist.

  104. Jeff G. says:

    I don’t see the mercurial part at all.

    The asshole-ness sometimes overwhelms the dish. Like mole’.

  105. Pablo says:

    It also seems naive to me to try to argue that moderate, peaceful moslems are behind this mosque. If that were true they would have backed down immediately when it became obvious how upsetting this was to the overwhelming majority of Americans.

    Absolutely. But it’s out of government hands, barring evidence of criminality which seems not to exist. Now it’s up to the market to decide, and me, I’m eyeballing the trade unions, (This is why I love God. He’s hilarious.) and I’m laying in popcorn for when they try to bring a scab outfit into Lower Manhattan. This thing never gets built. Let’s not forget that the people hate this in droves. It’s not going to happen, ever.

  106. Pablo says:

    As opposed to not acting like a condescending politician — the end being that posts like this, or reactions like Levin’s, probably wouldn’t exist.

    Ah, so he should carefully parse every extemporaneous comment so as not to be misconstrued by his detractors!

    Wait, what?

  107. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – I prefer my mole’ to be asshole and mercury free.

  108. Jeff G. says:

    Ah, so he should carefully parse every extemporaneous comment so as not to be misconstrued by his detractors!

    Wait, what?

    No, he needn’t do that. All he need do to avoid being interpreted as condescending by me is, you know, not be condescending.

    I’m easy that way.

  109. sdferr says:

    In Daniel’s defense, need it be said(?), he desired to foreground two prominent issues: 1) the war against the Islamists and 2) the nation’s fiscal condition, size of government, diminishment of liberties. He said aloud no one need abandon their principled stances on cultural matters, but only agree to set them aside for a time in an effort to achieve a unity in compromise that would result in rapid forward movement on the two outstanding issues.

  110. JD says:

    sdferr – That was just silly talk.

  111. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – I’m still of the mind that a whole lot of politicians misread the potential of the Cordoba flux capacitor in a whole lot of wrong-headed ways.

  112. Pablo says:

    It would be enough to say, then, this victory mosque should not be built, must not be built, if for no other reason than that it aids the Islamist fascists against whom we fight.

    And it should be stopped how, exactly? Government action or civic opposition? This is no longer an intellectual exercise, it’s a battle to be engaged. But how? Does it involve the DOD? The NJ National Guard? The First Amendment? I’ve been of a mind that it’s got nothing to do with the last, so it can’t involve the first two, can it?

    If it’s enough to say it, what’s wrong with saying this?

    Given my last position, that I was the first U.S attorney post 9/11 in New Jersey. I understand acutely the pain and sorrow and upset of the family members who lost loved ones that day. At the hands of radical Muslim extremist. And their sensitivities and concerns have to be taken into account. Just because it’s nearly nine years later, those sensitivities cannot and should not be ignored.

    One, that we have to acknowledge, respect and give some measure of deference to the feelings of the family members who lost there loved ones there that day.

    And what else, exactly, should Chris Christie have said? To what end?

  113. bh says:

    Perhaps I’ve been unclear, sdferr. The connection I see is between how people respond to something they don’t like (be it a valid complaint or a misunderstanding) from someone they do like overall. Now I might feel that Daniels was misunderstood and Christie made a mistake but others’ mileage does indeed vary as this thread shows.

    To my mind, the people who don’t lose their shit in either regard are reasonable and the people who now view Daniels or Christie as the anti-Christ are unreasonable.

  114. JD says:

    Had he left off the moral high ground part, Pablo, where everyone else was playing politics but he was above the fray, I doubt anyone would have ever commented on this, other than to nod their heads in agreement.

  115. bh says:

    I mean that in a very simple way: reasonable meaning those who reason and unreasonable meaning those who don’t reason.

  116. JD says:

    I am unreasonable on my good days.

  117. sdferr says:

    One can take “sensitivities and concerns” into account while rhetorically conceding the construction. That would be a bad path to take. One can also say, it should not be built, it must not be built, and conclude just as you do Pablo, that it won’t be built because enough people, both Americans and Muslims abroad become persuaded it ought not be built. Why does your question about “Government action” persist for you? Is there something you don’t understand about the term “hortatory”?

  118. Pablo says:

    All he need do to avoid being interpreted as condescending by me is, you know, not be condescending.

    Would you be so kind as to quote the offending utterance? I assume it’s here somewhere.

  119. Jeff G. says:

    And that’s what I criticized him for, JD. Politicians who pretend that they are above the rabble get my hackles up. And that’s the vibe I got from this particular comment.

    Christie is of course free to answer any way he chooses. And I’m still free to offer my reaction, however “unhelpful” some may find it.

  120. Pablo says:

    Had he left off the moral high ground part, Pablo, where everyone else was playing politics but he was above the fray, I doubt anyone would have ever commented on this, other than to nod their heads in agreement.

    JD, consider the White House’s 4 consecutive days of statements, each…ahem…clarifying the last, while adamantly refusing to take a position on whether it’s a good idea…except for the first one, which said just that. Do you often see a more embarrassing example of political buffoonery? Hell, I’ve got the high ground over that and I curse like a motherfucker.

  121. Pablo says:

    One can take “sensitivities and concerns” into account while rhetorically conceding the construction.

    Do you see that in anything he said? If so, please cite it.

  122. JD says:

    And what offends me the most about all this, is that it’s being used as a political football by both parties.

    And should not be using this as a political football, and I don’t believe that it would be responsible of me to get involved and comment on this any further because it just put me in the same political arena as all of them.

    But beyond that … I am not going to get into it, because I would be guilty of candidly what I think some Republicans are guilty of, and the president is now, the president is guilty of, of playing politics with this issue, and I simply am not going to do it.”

    “Well, that again will be playing politics with the issue. I said what I feel about it, and I don’t believe it is up to me to pontificate on other people about what they should do. I just observe what I observe. And I don’t believe that this issue should be a political football. I just don’t. And I think that both sides of this issue now are using this as a political football.

  123. Jeff G. says:

    Certainly:

    Asked if he’d call upon both parties to stop, he said, “Well, that again will be playing politics with the issue. I said what I feel about it, and I don’t believe it is up to me to pontificate on other people about what they should do. I just observe what I observe. And I don’t believe that this issue should be a political football. I just don’t. And I think that both sides of this issue now are using this as a political football. And I don’t think it brings people together in America, I think it just further drives people apart, and creates divisions, and I think that’s bad for our country. And all people in our country suffer when those kind of things happen.”

    Saying it isn’t up to him to pontificate on other people about what they should do, he goes on to pontificate that “both sides of this issue now are using this as a political football.”

    But not Mr Christie. Because unlike the two sides, he wants to bring the people of America together. Being on one of the two sides drives people apart. And that is unhelpful! It creates divisions, after all — all this disagreement.

    Hell, it’s downright un-American, is what it is! WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

  124. sdferr says:

    Can you cite where Christie says the mosque must not be built Pablo?

  125. happyfeet says:

    if he said what he feels about the issue then he needs to get some more better feelings cause those ones are anemic and cowardly and not a little tarded

  126. JD says:

    Pablo – What leads you to believe that I do not think that every last word uttered by Barcky and his ilk on this subject is purely political, absolutely mendoucheous, and the pinnacle of twatwafflery?

  127. happyfeet says:

    there’s more resolute emoteyness in a foo fighters song

  128. Pablo says:

    Why does your question about “Government action” persist for you? Is there something you don’t understand about the term “hortatory”?

    No, what I don’t understand is the end to which this hortatory unity should aspire, specifically. Also, the extent to which such unity is lacking in Christie’s response. Hence my persistent question.

  129. sdferr says:

    “…the end…?”

    Why, winning the goddamn war, as I said upthread. It is still not rocket science.

  130. Jeff G. says:

    I thought “say something, or say nothing” about summed up what I thought the “to what end” thing is.

    It differs somewhat from Levin, in that I allow for the “say nothing” option. But as you all know, I’m a giver.

  131. Pablo says:

    Can you cite where Christie says the mosque must not be built Pablo?

    Sure. Third time’s the charm, I hear. Let’s try bold italics for the win.

    Given my last position, that I was the first U.S attorney post 9/11 in New Jersey. I understand acutely the pain and sorrow and upset of the family members who lost loved ones that day. At the hands of radical Muslim extremist. And their sensitivities and concerns have to be taken into account. Just because it’s nearly nine years later, those sensitivities cannot and should not be ignored.

    Can you cite where he concedes the construction, sdferr?

  132. sdferr says:

    Sure, the whole speech concedes the construction Pablo, insofar as nowhere does it say the thing must not be built.

  133. Pablo says:

    Why, winning the goddamn war, as I said upthread. It is still not rocket science.

    Now you’re just being silly. What’s the fucking plan, man?

    1. Oratory

    2. ????

    3. Win the war!

  134. sdferr says:

    I don’t think I’m being silly Pablo, I think you are being an ass.

  135. Pablo says:

    General Christie, Ground Zero Warrior Superpowers NOW!!!!

  136. Pablo says:

    I don’t think I’m being silly Pablo, I think you are being an ass.

    Likewise, but at least I explain myself.

  137. sdferr says:

    Is the mosque an attempt to achieve a propagandists victory, or in a weaker construction be used as such by some external to the project itself?

    If so, it’s a simple matter to oppose it. If not, then no presumptive opposition should be necessary.

  138. Pablo says:

    I thought “say something, or say nothing” about summed up what I thought the “to what end” thing is.

    And then? Should he release a statement? Call another presser? Tell it to his bathroom mirror? And what must he say when he does it that differs from what he’s already said? Perhaps “Fuck no, the mosque must go!” would suffice?

  139. happyfeet says:

    fuck no the mosque must go would suffice

  140. JD says:

    Are you just trying to be an ass today? Because it seems like you are hellbent on ignoring the reasonable issues people have taken in an attempt to defend Christie. More power to ya

  141. Jeff G. says:

    And then? Should he release a statement? Call another presser? Tell it to his bathroom mirror? And what must he say when he does it that differs from what he’s already said? Perhaps “Fuck no, the mosque must go!” would suffice?

    Oh, I don’t think he need go through all that.

    Just remember the “say something or say nothing” advice for next time. As I say, I’m a giver.

  142. Pablo says:

    If so, it’s a simple matter to oppose it.

    Then it should be simple to explain how to go about that effectively, and what it has to do with the Governor of New Jersey.

  143. sdferr says:

    I’ve been explaining the thing for over two weeks now.

  144. Pablo says:

    Are you just trying to be an ass today? Because it seems like you are hellbent on ignoring the reasonable issues people have taken in an attempt to defend Christie. More power to ya

    Levin is as reasonable on this issue as he is on Glenn Beck. As for trying to be an ass, I’d just be spewing instead of asking all these pesky, fundamental question if I were trying to do that. But I do love the vague, noncommittal answers from those who want to attack Christie for his lack of specificity.

    The only plan I see working here is make the fat man do better! It fails.

  145. Jeff G. says:

    I know nothing of Levin v. Beck. Help a brother out?

  146. Ric Locke says:

    Guys, guys, every time you miss the point it whips you ’round to face the other way. It’s entertaining for the first few reps, but like all slapstick gets old quick.

    What Christie said about the mosque is perfectly unexceptional and unexceptionable, possibly even worth some weak compliments.

    What he said about the debate was that everybody (but his good self being implied) was using for a “political football”, which whether or not by intent places him on a higher plane, from which he can condescend to the ball-players. It’s actually worse if it was not by intent, because it reveals something nasty about his psychological makeup.

    As I said before, I look on it as a lizard contest, and in that context I rather like Christie as a stepping-stone toward something less scaly. That doesn’t stop me from agreeing with Jeff’s objections, although it does leave me able to sigh and move on™ — he is, after all, a member of the political class, and criticizing a lizard for hissing wastes your time and annoys the lizard.

    Regards,
    Ric

  147. happyfeet says:

    you oppose the mosque by not peddling a cluelessly nonsensical and cowardly dichotomy what wholly obscure the issues involved

    we have to acknowledge, respect and give some measure of deference to the feelings of the family members who lost there loved ones there that day. But it would be wrong to so overreact to that, that we paint Islam with a brush of radical Muslim extremists that just want to kill Americans because we are Americans.

    No one has said they can’t build their delightful victory mosque somewhere else. Harlem can never have too many mosques. But this is not about deference to people whose families got murdered vs. a hate campaign aimed at Islam. That’s no different at all than how the victory mosque assholes would frame the issue, and then they would proceed as doughboy does to talk about bringing people together.

    I think someone should ask fat fuck *why* he thinks they want to build this mosque right there.

  148. JD says:

    None of us discussing this here with you are named Levin, near as I can tell.

  149. Jeff G. says:

    he is, after all, a member of the political class, and criticizing a lizard for hissing wastes your time and annoys the lizard.

    All the more reason to change the Culture of Lizard.

    It’s high time we remembered that though the lizards are the attraction, it is we who put them in the cage and feed them their bugs. Fuck ’em if they can’t take a hiss.

  150. Pablo says:

    I know nothing of Levin v. Beck. Help a brother out?

    Oh, Levin hates Beck. There’s plenty out there. This one is suddenly ironic.

  151. Pablo says:

    None of us discussing this here with you are named Levin, near as I can tell.

    He is up there at the top of the post, though.

  152. Pablo says:

    I’ve gotta run. I’ll be back, of course.

  153. sdferr says:

    “…change the Culture of Lizard.”

    I made a couple of plodding suggestions down that path a couple of days ago and was met with either * not the way to go * or, what seemed disinterest.

  154. Ric Locke says:

    Fuck ‘em if they can’t take a hiss.

    Agreed with no struggle, and in some ways the lizards like Christie are more dangerous than, oh, at least Axelrod — if they make the lizard-system work it makes it hard(er) to change the Culture of Lizard.

    At the same time, remember Rumsfeld’s Rule: you go to politics with the lizards you’ve got. It’s worth reminding them, as forcefully as may be necessary, that scaly and cold-blooded doesn’t describe the People very well, but there is maybe a trifle more profit in bashing the ones who proudly proclaim that the Lizard Culture is all there is.

    Regards,
    Ric

  155. Jeff G. says:

    Mild criticism does not a bashing make.

  156. Big Bang Hunter says:

    -….and Bahbwaa didn’t even show up….Everyone was crushed.

    “I hope you understand why we’re here tonight,” said Obama. “It’s not to take a picture with the president. We’re here to make sure those who took the tough votes are rewarded.”

    – It occurs you could change the last word to “retarded”, without the slightest effect.

  157. sdferr says:

    Whittle gets the hortatory.

  158. Ric Locke says:

    Mild criticism does not a bashing make.

    Nope. I agree with your criticism, too; I just wouldn’t have made it, myself. Different people have different approaches.

    Regards,
    Ric

  159. Jeff G. says:

    Well, remember: I’m a mercurial asshole, heavy on the asshole.

    So you’re probably right not to do anything the way I do it.

  160. Jeff G. says:

    They’ll take the position once it’s been vetted and found safe.

    Which I think explains the vast majority of, say, Pajamas Media.

    Oops! Better add “bitter” to my abundance of asshole-ness.

  161. happyfeet says:

    Snack Snacky didn’t not take a position he did take a position it’s just it was a gay one

  162. bh says:

    Snack Snacky?

  163. happyfeet says:

    sorry that was hurtful

  164. bh says:

    Oh, because he’s fat. Just didn’t know who you meant. My mind was going with snicker snack, like the vorpal blade, for some reason.

  165. happyfeet says:

    yes. because he’s so fat is why I said that.

  166. sdferr says:

    alts? Honk Honky, Thump Thumpy, Clomp Clompy, Plod Ploddy, [Chub Chubby] Cut Cutty, Soft Softy, Blank Blanky, and etc.

  167. bh says:

    I didn’t catch the x xy parallel.

  168. Slartibartfast says:

    Oh, Levin hates Beck.

    That doesn’t necessarily make him a hero. Back when I listened to Hannity, he was on a LOT.

  169. JD says:

    Racist Racisty
    Hatey Hateyey

  170. happyfeet says:

    Beck seems very congenial I think he has a very nice smile and he wrote a book about a sweater

  171. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Jeff writes, “Saying it isn’t up to him to pontificate on other people about what they should do, he goes on to pontificate that “both sides of this issue now are using this as a political football[,]” about this part of Christie’s presser:

    Asked if he’d call upon both parties to stop, he said, “Well, that again will be playing politics with the issue. I said what I feel about it, and I don’t believe it is up to me to pontificate on other people about what they should do. I just observe what I observe. And I don’t believe that this issue should be a political football. I just don’t. And I think that both sides of this issue now are using this as a political football. And I don’t think it brings people together in America, I think it just further drives people apart, and creates divisions, and I think that’s bad for our country. And all people in our country suffer when those kind of things happen.”

    By way of reply, my more charitable reading of what Christie said is that he said he wasn’t going to insert himself into the fray because that would be more political football when what was required is less. The “I’m a uniter not a divider” paraphrase, I hope is an assortment of Orwellian “verbal false limbs” and “meaningless words.” If that’s the case, the condescension is largely unintentional. It’s more like avoidance. None the less, it’s a reminder that “if [progressive] thought corrupts language, [progressive] language can also corrupt thought.”*

    On the other hand, if it’s a politic “I am above playing your lowly brand of identity politics,” then Jeff et. al. are in the right in insisting the Christie “dance with the ones what brung him.”

    In either case, Christie’s earned himself some criticism.

    And if that reads like me trying to stay above the fray, I’m not. When it comes to the seriousness of Christie’s sin, I just haven’t made up my mind yet.

    Except about the lesbian make out scene. I’m all for lesbian make out scenes. Kissing implies making out, doesn’t it Carin?

    *Apologies to the socialist Orwell for corrupting his language. Since he died a premature neo-con, I’m hoping he wouldn’t have minded.

  172. Slartibartfast says:

    It is erecting a monument to the very political correctness you yourselves have wrought — and as such, is the equivalent of giving yourself a medal for humility.

    I’m not sure what this means. Nor am I sure of why removing certain terms that have no useful definition from the law books is a bad thing.

    Imagine traffic laws that make it illegal to drive like an asshole. Not a bad thing, but not really enforceable on an even & reliable basis.

    Then again, I may be giving the guy too much credit, but the article does seem to speak to accuracy rather than correctness.

  173. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – T shirt of the week.

    “Please don’t tell Obama what comes after Trillion”

  174. Jeff G. says:

    I’m not sure what this means. Nor am I sure of why removing certain terms that have no useful definition from the law books is a bad thing.

    I think you do.

  175. sdferr says:

    Asked about his personal opinion by THE WEEKLY STANDARD, given the sensitivities of the people and families who lost loved ones and friends on 9/11, Sestak said he respects their sensitivities but they weren’t the most important consideration. “When I walked out of that Pentagon, 30 people who I knew never walked out of that building. My 9/11 is that Pentagon,” he said with his voice raised. “Am I sensitive to their desires? Sure I am. But I also upheld a Constitution. For 31 years, I lived with men and women of all religions. And you know what? They’re all equal. And I believe that is most important.” In other words, Sestak has taken President Obama’s line on the issue–affirming the right to build it but not saying whether or not it’s right to do so.

    “It is provocative in the extreme to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero,” said a spokesman for Sestak’s GOP Senate race opponent, Pat Toomey. “Islamic leaders should be encouraged to move the mosque elsewhere.”

  176. Slartibartfast says:

    I think you do.

    Oh. Maybe I should explain it to myself. Over a beer, preferably.

  177. Pablo says:

    Oh, Levin hates Beck.

    That doesn’t necessarily make him a hero.

    No, it certainly doesn’t.

  178. Pablo says:

    By way of reply, my more charitable reading of what Christie said is that he said he wasn’t going to insert himself into the fray because that would be more political football when what was required is less. The “I’m a uniter not a divider” paraphrase, I hope is an assortment of Orwellian “verbal false limbs” and “meaningless words.” If that’s the case, the condescension is largely unintentional. It’s more like avoidance.

    That tracks pretty well with my read.

  179. LTC John says:

    Piss on you, Sestak – I don’t care if you were Lord Admiral of the High Seas Fleet or whatever – you miserable, flaccid man, trying to hide behind the dead at the Pentagon when asked a simple question. Another feeble attempt to conflate criticism of a location with trying to stop someone from having their Amendment I rights trampled by the State.

  180. happyfeet says:

    I can think of a Coast Guard admiral what is equally pissworthy

  181. Pablo says:

    I had a problem with Sestak when he was first running, which was that he had a sweet little one with a shiny new malignant brain tumor and he thought that would be a good time to run for Congress. Of course, Curt Weldon caught the shit over that. I know, it’s none of my business, but I’d have a damned hard time ever voting for a cold motherfucker like that. On the upside, Alexandra seems to be doing quite well.

  182. sdferr says:

    More Levin, this time interviewing a Muslim fella name of Zudhi Jasser who’s opposed to the mosque.

  183. cranky-d says:

    In some cases I would jump into the fray, but I’m hammered, and know my limitations.

Comments are closed.