Massachusetts Senator and failed Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry, writing on Daily Kos:
There’s something that doesn’t sit right with me when, on the day Osama Bin Laden resurfaced in a disturbing audio tape, cable television ends up in a game of name calling as a war protester is compared to Osama Bin Laden.
That’s reason to be outraged – but even more outrageous is the fact that in a flurry of sound bites what was lost was a real discussion of the fact that more than four years after the devastating attacks of 9/11, more than four years after George Bush boasted we wanted Osama “dead or alive,” more than a year after Osama Bin Laden showed his hateful face in yet another video, this barbarian is still very much alive and boasting of additional attacks against the United States.
Right. Because had George W simply strapped on the chaps, cowboyed up, and put a slug in bin Laden’s belly as promised, al Qaeda would have dried up and blown away, a Democrat would be sitting snug in the White House figuring out ways to make smoking illegal, and the world could get back to the important business of having elites in smartly-tailored suits pretending that the biggest problems we face are greenhouse gases that actually create a naturally-insulating canopy that aids agriculture, and that “frankenfoods” that could conceivably end world hunger are “unnatural” and therefore are worthy of the kind of violent, university-chic protests generally reserved for the slaughtering of seal pups and whales by native cultures. But instead, we get this inconvenient global terror nonsense.
Or, looked at from another perspective, what is truly astonishing about this bit of strained outrage Kerry is so desperately trying to muster is that, more that a year after the Senator’s presidential defeat, he still fancies himself capable enough a speaker to pull off rhetorical dodges that are not only obviously insincere and unconvincing to the majority of Americans (and I include intellectually honest Democrats—even those who support Kerry’s Machiaveillian attempts to shift the debate’s focus), but that he actually seems inveterately incapable of recognizing that what he is really managing to do is highlight his party’s transparent attempts to distract from the substantive point— in this case, that Usama bin Laden, in his recent audio tape release, has put together a propaganda piece that, as others have pointed out, is replete with the anti-war talking points the progressive left has spent years now fine-tuninng and market testing. In fact, the only truly remarkable thing about the text of bin Laden’s speech was not the message itself—we’ve been hearing it for years now, from Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan or Sean Penn or Nancy Pelosi—but rather that these talking points, having been translated into Arabic and then back into English, have managed to hold up so perfectly. No small feat, that—and a testament to the rigor of the crafting of the agitprop. Let’s see the geeks at Babelfish pull that shit off.
Still, having said all this, Kerry does have a point when he writes, “something […] doesn’t sit right with me when, on the day Osama Bin Laden resurfaced in a disturbing audio tape, cable television ends up in a game of name calling as a war protester is compared to Osama Bin Laden.” But the point—which I’ve no doubt Kerry misses in his attempts to appear at once thoughtful and outraged—is this: the comparison Matthews makes between bin Laden and a “war protester” is inapt not because of the similarity of the rhetoric involved—after all, bin Laden had already borrowed from Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 “My Pet Goat” material for his 2004 pre-election propaganda video—but rather because to describe Michael Moore as a “war protester” is a bit like describing Eric Rudolph as a “lifestyle guru.” Moore has actively celebrated our enemies’ “achievements”; and he noted publicly that bin Laden hit the wrong city on 911, because the Bush supporters were likely elsewhere, doing ugly imperialist things.
So anti-war protesters (at least the truly conscientious ones) have reason to be outraged over comparisons between their cause and Michael Moore’s—which seems to be destruction and defeat for the sake of a cynical sneer. But what they do not have reason to be outraged about—and the reason their latest public cry of indignation rings so incredibly hollow—is that they simply cannot plausibly argue that bin Laden’s striking of the same rhetorical keys they’ve been pounding on for years now is not at all related to the same rhetorical keys they’ve been pounding on (happily) for years now. Unless they wish to argue that bin Laden and the anti-war progressive left have come to these conclusions and rhetorical formulations independently — in which case, why is it out of bounds to note that al Qaeda and the liberal left seem to be on the same side in this ideological culture war?
*****
Baronness Alexandra has more. See also, Rightwingnation, Wizbang, Mudville Gazette, Publius, Point Five, Stop the ACLU, Rick Moran, and Basil’s Blog
(h/t Joe at Cold Fury)
Wow. I’ll admit I haven’t been following it carefully, but I gather the Democrats find it troubling that Sam Alito wrote in college for a publication in which others may have expressed racist thoughts.
But it’s cool for their once and possibly future presidential candidate to write on DailyKos, a significant fraction of whose readers seem to hate Bush more than they hate bin Laden. And, if we accept the principle that contributors bear some responsibility for what other contributors write–if only by agreeing to lend their name to an enterprise–then Kerry can fairly be called to account for anything that’s appeared on DailyKos before now.
Just imagine the campaign commercials. Is Karl Rove behind this?
this barbarian is still very much alive
Hey everyone understands why the left is so keen on seing OBL captured or killed. They want somebody ANYBODY to shut him the hell up so they can bash W without OBL mocking and discrediting their BDS.
Every time OBL pipes up they take a big hit in the PR department. No wonder they suspect W is letting him live, as long as the US gets Afghanistan and Iraq. Everytime OBL holes up in a new country, it gives us and excuse to go take it over. What a nightmare for the left!
Now that you mention the idea, here’s Kerry’s own remarks translated by Babelfish into German and back into English:
Is it okay to point out that the Democratic party has embaraced KOS now? Or would that be questioning their patriotism?
Note: I lost the original version of this post, cursed, broke shit, then tried to recreate it from memory while my wife talked to Circuit City, who charged us $214 for an extended computer warranty that apparently covers nothing. At all.
So I’m typing on a keyboard without an actual k (I’ve jerryrigged a rubber stopper) and an m that sticks terribly.
Fuck it. I’m going to buy Funyons.
Sweetness.
Babelfish has made Derek Pell redundant. <â€â€suck on that, Dennis Miller
Stay away from the big computer-markets, dude. Buy from some one local who builds and fixes computers. It costs a little more, but they will fix the damned thing for you, and they don’t b.s. you about warranties and crap.
BTW between KOS, Kerry and OBL I’m thinking Karl Rove is going to have a pretty good November. Which is sort of sad given the way the Repubs spend money. It would be nice to have a party that would give one a nice, cost effective, sane, non-suicidal alternative to “big government conservatism” but right now there isn’t one.
Apparently the Dems have created the ultimate campaign slogan for the Republicans…”You have no other freaking choice.”
Jeff: one word: “Macintosh”.
Oh, by the way, not that I don’t love you, but Alexandra is way hotter than either you or the armadillo.
Even if the pink color makes my eyes bleed.
Damn, Jeff. I didn’t mean to cause you that much trouble.
Did you get all the way through that drivel, though, to the bestest suckup ever?
Koskids: He likes us! He really, really likes us!
The rest of us: Oh my God … I can’t wake up!
TW:used
ya think?
Let’s see … Bush bungled the Katrina response both directly and because he appointed an idiot crony to safeguard the citizenry, his primary campaign advisors is an admitted hi security risk, blew a hole in the deficit that would make any democrat blush, attacked Iraq on a false premise, bungled the capture of Osama bin Laden and later remarked that the man who killed 3000 people on 9 11 isn’t all that important, ordered spying on God only knows how many Americans without a warrant, and argues we should give up our most cherished morals in favor of torture and authoritarian policies because a group of nomadic lunatics got lucky with a few boxcutters once…
The GOP leadership is under investigation, the lobbying scandal is looming, the Culture of Corruption is getting ploughed …
Osama bin Laden and Aymen Zawari, Zarqawari remains in Iraq setting off IEDs and killing US service people, are gloating at us and promising to attack again, terroist attacks are way up over the alst three years, Iraq is a godawful mess and now a training center for Al Qaeda, the US is caught between a fundamentalist Shiite government beholden to Iran and an equally maniacal Sunni minority beholden to Wahhabism … Man it’s an amazing list of failures isn’t it? Is there anything the White House or the GOP Congress can do right besides campaign?
In anycase, yeap, I’d be whining like a little girl about anything else to if I supported that kind of glaring incompetence! Hey look folks, John Kerry is posting on the Daily Kos! And there’s a lady missing in Aruba; quick, hide under your beds!
That’s some mighty deep thinkin’ there, DS.
TW: Keep saying it. Maybe that’ll make it true.
Hey DarkSyde,
Thanks for the in-depth preview of Osama bin Laden’s NEXT video tape. When are you guys going to sue him for plagiarism?
DarkSyde,
You’re the only one changing the subject here. In tossing a boat load of nonsensical, and palpably untrue stuff at the debate hoping to change the subject you missed the main point. Why do your talking points sound exactly like Osama Bin Ladens? Why do his talking points sound exactly like yours? Are you parroting him? Is he parroting you? Do you just agree? What is it? I’m interested to know. And I’m prepared to keep asking until you answer.
As for as Mr. Kerry goes, he can post anywhere he wants. It’s interesting and sort of disturbing that he picked a blog where which basically told Americans murdered in Iraq to screw off. It’s interesting that he chose to post on a blog whose proprietor said he should be shot. It’s interesting that he posted on a blog where forty one percent of the commenters like OBL better than GWB. But it’s his business. I suppose the Constitution allows me to point that out, no?
What a difference a couple years can make: all the way from delinking to diarist.
Money quote:
Number of times “Hitler” occurs in comments on this single post: five. Not that we should criticize that! Just exercising their right to free speech and expressing a dissenting opinion, they are.
I can’t help but think that this development is not good for the Democrats, John Kerry, or America.
And I’m betting that Hillary doesn’t touch DailyKos with a ten-foot pole.
With Dean running the DNC, Kerry posting at Kos, Reid speaking at their convention, Kennedy parroting parody as fact, Durbin on gulags and Bin Laden summarizing all the talking points for them, and on and on…
… I have to stick myself with a pin almost daily to be sure I am awake, cause it’s the stuff that dreams are made of!
She won’t, but come 2008 she won’t be able to make peace with people like DarkSyde either. She’s still a fairly young woman, maybe she doesn’t run in 2008, either.
In the meantime they are some folks running for seats in Congress and in the Senate that are probabaly praying Mr. Kerry will go away.
The fact that Kerry is willing to fracture his party right down its center and leave them high and dry says an awful lot about him, I think. Question: Does he have Teddy’s blessing?
I think DarkSyde’s post really points out the Kos Problem. Aside from the tendentious claims, there are obvious logical problems with his post when you view his arguments in context.
What’s more important, the fact Al Qaeda’s figureheads are still hiding in caves, or that their leadership has been steadily decimated and America has been kept safe for four years?
What’s more important, that there is violence in Iraq and the WMD intel turned out to be wrong, or that Saddam has been removed and 25 million Iraqis have freedom, democracy, and hope for a better future?
What’s more important, the civil rights of Americans who get phone calls from suspected Al Qaeda agents, or knowing what those conversations are?
And amazingly, DarkSyde manages to argue that saying Osama is “not important” is terrible while in the same post arguing 9/11 didn’t require tightening security because it was just “a group of nomadic lunatics getting lucky with a few boxcutters once.”
Here’s an interesting comparison: The position of bin Laden is one of theocratic government, specifically they abhore abortion, evolutionary biology, science in general, due process, Separation of Church and State (In fact they want them to be one and the same), lawful penalties for homosexuality, etc, ad nauseum. Wow! Why is fundamentalist Islamic ideology virtually identical to that of the modern incarnation of the GOP? Why are you guys supporting a party which hopes to bring about the same kind of government Osama bin Laden would like to engender?
DarkSyde,
Again you avoid the questions and spew falsehoods. I’m not going to be side-tracked. Explain to me why your talking points sound exactly like Osamam Bin Laden’s. Why does he cite Michael Moore films in his speeches? Why does he cite the same polls you cite in his tapes? Why do you say exactly the same things he says? Is it becuase you feel he is right? Is it becuase he feels you are right?
Attempting to draw parallels between Bin Laden and George Bush seems sort of ridculous. Bin Laden claims to hate George Bush, but then you seem to despise Mr. Bush as well. Bin Laden seems to believe that Bush is the big problem here, but then you seem to believe that as well. If there’s a prallel to be drawn here…well, I’ll let you explain that. Why are you and Bin Laden on the same wave length DarkSyde?
What’s frightening is that you appear actually to think that comment has some stinging merit, DarkSyde.
BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!
Read this site more often and tell me that I or my readers in any way match your cartoonish depiction of the “modern incarnation of the GOP.” Otherwise, stop wasting our time with your ludicrous analogies and go bother LaShawn Barber.
Whhy would he be troubled over comparing M.Moore to bin Laden? According to the caption to the below linked photo, he is nothing more than an, “…exiled Saudi dissident…”
http://www.michellemalkin.com/mt/oct05-tb.cgi/3656
It’s a simple question guys, why are you so reluctant to answer? You brought up parallels between the parties and bin Laden, not I, right? Didn’t you want to talk about that?
If no, I suggest you look for another topic. In the meantime, for those who are willing to engage in thoughttful discussion, are you at all uncomfortable supporting a party which shares so many similarities with bin Laden and Wahhabism in genenral re social policies? It’s not a trick question, I’m just curious how you reconcile the parallels.
Kerry was hot on that Tora Bora thing during the elections, too. Worked really well for him.
I’m with JPS. I would love to have someone pull up a bunch of quotes from Kos’s website yesterday and ask Kerry if he agrees with those statements ala Kennedy/Alito.
Say, does John Kerry complaining about Chris Matthews have a ‘chilling effect’?
What was that Warren Oates quote from Blue Thunder? Oh, now I remember:
You’re supposed to be stupid, son. Don’t abuse the privilege.
Folks if this is an echo chamber where the idea is to establish a group think mentality with no room for critical thinking, I’ll gracefully bow out and wish you as fellow Americans the best. It’s a free country, you have the right to free expression, it’s your blog and your community and if that’s the idea, then by all means say so and I’ll leave you be.
But, here’s your chance to talk to a front page writer on the Daily Kos about your positions. Note: I’m not a democrat, I’ve never been registered as a democrat, I’ve only voted dem twice in my life out of dozens of elections, and I’m not young. Assuming I am a democrat and proceeding on that basis may lead you to wasted effort, because I think conservatives have a lot of good ideas, and frankly anyone who thinks any single ideology always has the right answer for any problem, sight unseen, is probably not worth bothering with, be they conservative or liberal. I’ll stand up for a policy or an idea if I think it has merit and conversely I’ll criticize one I feel is lacking.
Fact is, you linked us, not the other way around, you mentioned perceived similarities between dems and bin Laden, not the other way around. And some of you seem to be focused on dodging that very issue when the same question is put to your own party, not the other way around. I can understand the distaste of that comparison: But it is nevertheless an empirical fact that the social policies of bin Laden are far more congruent with those of the extreme religious right that anything from any other major political faction. So, how do you reconcile that?
You want answers? First pose a question that bears a resemblance to reality.
Although there are Republicans whose views resemble those you ascribe to the entire party, there are many more who do not share those opinions—and guess what, they’re all welcome in the GOP. And pro-choice Republicans get to speak at the Republican national convention.
The last time a pro-life Democrat wanted to speak at his party’s national convention, he was practically kicked out of the party.
And what do the Deaniacs say about Zell Miller these days, hmmmm?
You lefties claim to be all for diversity, but only as long as everybody thinks like you.
Moore is probably pissed he couldn’t rate better than a Matthew’s plug. OBL is where the real money is.
Please bear in mind that this is a quote from “a front page writer on the Daily Kos.”
Then why does his propoganda sound so much more like yours?
If you would manage to wrest your head from your ass long enough to look around, you would find this is a predominately secular blog with liberal social views, if you want answers from right wing religious fundamentalists, you should go ask them.
I appreciate your response McGehee. Again note, I’m not a democrat, calling me a lefty isn’t going to help you out of anything here.
Third time: How do you reconcile the fact that the social goals of the religoius right bears far more similarity to the religous right’s goals than any other major political faction in America? IOW, does that commonality and your tacit support of it mean you are in fact in league with bin Laden?
My apologies, “bears far more similarity to the bin Laden’s policies” ?
Look, DarkSnyde, I know you think you’re scoring point here, but “face-to-foot” style is not the most effective Kung Fu, no matter what Mr Koulitsas may have told you.
DarkSyde,
It may not be a trick question but it is a specious one. Homosexuality isn’t illegal in the United States. Roe v. Wade has not been overturned. Even if it was, chances are abortion would still be legal in a number of American States including California, New York, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Intelligent Design has not become a settled course in any school district that I know of. And even if it were there is a big difference in teaching ID and beheading apostates. Likewise there is a big differnce in beingn reticent about extending federal tax breaks to “married” homosexuals and stoning them to death.
There is no debate, however, that OBL has reccomended lefty authors when he speaks and has mentioned scenes in Michael Moore films (My Pet Goat) likewise there is no arguing over the fact that his thoughts on a truce almost mirror the position taken by a big chunk of the Democratic party.
So, stop making ridiculous stuff up and answer the question, why is the left and OBL in fuego?
B Moe again, insults are not an answer, they’re in fact a bit infantile and inadequete and also suggetsive of an ideological vacuum.
Let me repeat the question in case you somehow missed it: it is an empirical fact that the social policies of bin Laden are far more congruent with those of the extreme religious right that anything from any other major political faction. So, how do you reconcile that?
And why is everyone so reluctant to answer a simple question on the very topic you brought up?
DS, your argument is absurd on its face. It’s very much akin to saying that Hitler was a vegetarian and therefore vegetarians are Nazis. Bin Laden is against abortion. So are many Republicans. Bin Laden is in favor of killing infidels. Republicans are not. If Bin Laden were attempting to advance his beliefs at the ballot box, there might be some basis for comparison, but he is not. To assert that there is based on some superficial points of comparison is absurd.
What cannot be denied is the fact that Bin Laden is adopting leftist rhetoric as his own. I think everyone here is capable of drawing the correct conclusions about why he might want to do that. (Note that I did NOT say that he has a leftist agenda. Only that he is perfectly willing to attempt to use the left to further his own ends. “Useful idiots” is a relevant term here.
Wimp Lo: I am bleeding, making me the winner!
Geez, DarkSyde, “asked and answered.” Move on – isn’t that one of the goals of your organization?
Ahh but again you dodged the actual question Cor, although I apopreciate you did reposnd and did so with courtesy. My question is how do you reconcile the fact that bin Laden’s social policies and those of fundamentalist Islam are similar to those of the religoius right in many respects? I didn’t ask anything about legality, I asked how you feel about that specific parallel?
Farmer I agree 100 percent, sharing commonalities whether by fluke or simple common sense doesn’t make two individuals or parties on the same ‘side’. Kudos to you!
You seem like a thoughtful person, why do you suppose then it’s so popular to equate Michael Moore with bin Laden and draw the inference directky or otherwise that that makes Moore, and any dem or any critic of Bush, on the same ‘side’ as bin Laden? I mean, your logic does apply to everyone, right?
It is popular to equate Moore with Bin Laden because anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that Moore is serving Bin Laden’s ends. Because Bin Laden has parroted Moore’s work. Because Moore has referred to terrorists in Iraq as “minutemen”. Because Moore was upset by the attack on the WTC not because Americans were killed, but because leftists were killed.
Because it’s obvious to anyone who isn’t consumed with hatred for the President that Moore isn’t anti-war, he just wants us to lose.
Is anyone else reminded of the Dark Knight in the Holy Grail?
It’s just a flesh wound, why won’t you answer me?
DS, where in the Republican platform does it call for executing people for being gay?
Show us that, and we may take you a little more seriously.
Huh?
Farmer,
I don’t hate the President, again, assumptions I’m some kind of imaginary democratic boogy man simply aren’t going to help you. I’ve actually met Bush a few times, spoken with him a bit. I think as politicians go he comes off as a genuinely warm person, and he has a pretty damn good sense of humor BTW, soemthing you don’t hear much about. I do think he got some terrible advice on some critical issues though. I don’t hate Jimmy Carter either, nor do I think Carter was dishonest or stupid. He was not however a very good President.
Here’s the deal. I can provide lengthy transcripts of bin Laden’s spew. It’s full of religious barking*at*the*moon* bat*shit crazy stuff. He tends to couch things in religous terms, make comparisons between evil (them) and good (Him), freedom (Him) and tyranny (Them), naturally he’s always the guy who is good and for freedom and all that crap.
He argues for political and military action based on religous motives, he sometimes also justifies his position using secular reaosning, but by and large it’s mostly religious, E.G. he wishes to eliminate any separation of church and state, he belongs to a global reliogius movement which rejects science, especially evolutionary biology and in some cases geology and physics, this same sect belongs to an even wider mainstream religion which endorses prohibitions against abortion, stem cell research, So I guess I’m not clear on what ‘leftist rhetoric that’s identical to bin Laden’ is you’re prattling on about here. Most of what bin Laden says and most of what the entire Islamic fundamentlaist movement espouses is eerily similar to what Pat Robertson says every day on air. And I’m still curious for an honest answer as to how you guys reconcile that fact.
I agree that doesn’t make Pat Robertson on bin Laden’s ‘side’ BTW, but if Robertson is in the clear, then, LOL, there’s no one on the ‘left’ that is even in the ballpark, because bin Laden’s philosophy is by any sane rationale far more congruent with the rhetoric of the religious right.
So if we can agree that sharing that commonalities with bin Laden (We both use the bathroom for exmaple although in his case it’s probably a hole in the side of a mountain cave) doesn’t make one a terrorist ally or against the US, then I won’t ever catch a single one of you implying otherwise again right? This shtread then will never see any of that nonsense from anyone who agrees?
And in fact you will devoutly eviscerate anyone who does try to do that, as I’ve done to all of you this fine evening when you broght up that that line of reaosning here, correct?
DarkSyde you mistake courtesy for sympathy. You argued that it was an empircal fact that policies of Bin Laden are congruent with the extreme religous right. Yet you haven’t shown any evidence of it. I haven’t heard even one American minster claim that homsexuals should be stoned to death. Have you? Who? I haven’t seen one American minister claim that women should drape themselve in Hajib. And even if they had, you haven’t pointed to the stoning homosexuals to death plank in the Republican platform or shown GWB’s support for it. Nor have you pointed out the legislation that would drape American women in the Hijab.
In short you have stated something as emprical fact that isn’t then hidden in a very cowardly fashion from the issue of the post (Why do leftists and Islamists agree on foriegn policy matters? And why do Islamists appreciate leftist idealogues so?)
You say you are not young. I do not doubt you, but I cannot help but notice that in your case, age has not brought wisdom. Again I ask why are leftist tlaking points and Islamist talking points identical?
I was thinking more along the lines of Blazing Saddles: “That was as an authentic display of genuine frontier gibberish as I have heard in a long time.”
Hey, DarkSyde,
Since your question is so devastating none of us group-thinkers can answer it, let me turn it on its head:
If, as you imply, the goals of Islamist terrorists are basically identical to those of the religious-right-dominated GOP, then why does a plurality of DailyKos’ respondents on a recent poll hate Bush more than bin Laden? I mean, if I grant your premise, I could understand having no preference, but this position makes no sense.
Not, mind you, that I think this is a good question. It’s merely a specious sophism to answer yours.
I have no problem with stupidity. What gets on my nerves is stupidity that proudly mistakes itself for cleverness.
“easy”, as in: It’s too easy to be fun. Like hooking a dead fish.
Again, DS your point is laughably inane. You equte doubting the efficacy of evolution (I don’t BTW) with out right murder, and pure facism. Then you say becuase a certain group of people somewhere doubt evoltion that they are the equvalent of the man who murdered three thousand Americans.
At the same time you ignore the fact that Osama Bin Laden referenced the My pet Goat scene from Farenhiet 911. You ignore the fact that his prscription for a truce…the US out of the Middle East and the UN in is the exact same as the democratic party’s. And you ignore the fact that he reccomends books that the left refer to quite regularly as a basis for their thinking.
Your use of logic is breath-takingly bad.
Which leads me to another question. You’re a journalist aren’t you?
I’d be happy, Corvan, if he just defined exactly what he means by “religious right.” At one point, it seems DarkSyde uses the term as shorthand for religious fundamentalists; at others, DarkSyde applies it to followers of Pat Robertson, and I suppose, by extension, therefore to evangelicals and/or dispensationalists. Clearly, DarkSyde envisions this “religious right” as being very monolithic in its character and implies that somehow it and Bin Laden’s brand of Islam are somehow fueled from a common ideological source.
All of which leads me to suspect that DarkSyde doesn’t know, or hasn’t met, many of his fellow Americans that he so willy-nilly lumps together in this category.
Corvan if you seriously doubt bin Laden’s religious conservative inclinations, there’s not much I’m willing to do for you but egg you on for amusement. I’m not your homework tutor. If you can’t keep up or perform google searches, I’ll not intervene in your self immolation. Although I do have some advice for you: Next time, think of the implications before you merrily jump on the “They’re like bin Laden bandwagon’. I realize it feels bad to be similar to religious terrorists, but this is the topic you brought up my friend. You have no one to blame but yourself ;0
Folks it appears to me you’re unable to abide by your own logic when it applies to you, then you’ve destroyed your own rationale without any effort on my part and to a degree I wouldn’t have thought possible by purely self inflicted wounds. And me all by my lonesome, not bad eh?
And I’m of course obliged to point out that in fact the parallels between the religious right and bin Laden are better documented, with references, by a considerable margin, than the parallels between bin Laden and any other political ideology in this nation.
A word of advice form someone who is a bit tired of the us or them mentality: This likely isn’t a game you can win, the documentation is immense. It’s probably too late in fact, but I’d strongly advise not pursuing it further. I assure you, I’m not the only one planning to bring it up, and it won’t be on a blog comment section if and when it does become a matter for public discourse: It will be on Primate Time cable news. There are some among my peers who claim it’s been intentionally laid out as a national trap to snare the right for this very purpose. We’ll see if they’re correct in the coming weeks.
And with that ominous warning, and without having addressed or answered a single question posed him, DarkSyde retreats into the night – with Danny Elfman theme music blaring in the background, maybe?
You have offered not one shred of proof that OBL and the American Religous right have anything in commn. Not one. Lord, now Im having to defend the religous right…not my forte.
Instead you’ve refused to expalin why Bin Laden’s policies so closely mirrors those of the American left. Look I’m not claiming that the left and the Islamists are one and the same. I’m just interested to know why Bin Laden’s proposals abosolutely jibe with the left’s. A question no one seems willing to answer. And if I’m such a cranky fool for having noticed it what is Chris Matthews? He noticed to.
You on the other hadn seem to be arguing that the “Religous right” whoever that maybe are birds of a feather wiht OBL. Yet you don’t produce one example of it. YOu don’t show one poloicy statement. You don’t point to one peice of legislation or one proposal. I can only draw one conclusion from all this. You went to the Columbia School of Journalism.
Sorry DS, I’ve changed my mind. You’re not a journalist. Not even a journalist could be this silly. I’m not sure that even Howard Dean could be this silly.
Goldstein, are you posting as DarkSyde just to get a laugh?
The taliban made it illegal for women to work or go to school. They were forced to wear burquas, and could be legally beaten even if they were seen through the windows of their home to not be wearing one. Their hands and feet could be amputated if they were seen wearing finger nail varnish. Women could get a public stoning for being seen in public with a man unrelated to them.
Men could be arrested for not having beards that were long enough, and the entire Pakistan football team were made to kneel on the ground and have their hair chopped so their foreheads would cleanly touch the ground when they prayed. Men would be beaten for not showing up for prayer time.
The UN-developed football stadium was turned into a public execution ground, where people were killed by relatives of their victims after some sort of show ‘trial’.
Osama Bin Laden wishes to bring this kind of rule to the entire region and recreate the caliphate.
You terribly demean the victims of the Taliban by equating the right wing of this country’s political system with Bin Laden and his ilk.
“Here’s an interesting comparison: Why is fundamentalist Islamic ideology virtually identical to that of the modern incarnation of the GOP?”
Radical fundamentalist Islamic ideology exorts their followers to kill infidels. Last Sunday in church, I don’t recall the preacher telling us to do that. Nor do I remember any other Preacher/Priest/Rabbi in 46 years of my life ever telling anyone to do that either, whether I sat in Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian or Methodist congregations. Don’t recall ever hearing it when visiting Greek Orthodox churches or Jewish Synagogues either. Nor do I remember anyone ever telling me to overthrow my government or fly planes into building. You apparently need to get out more. You know, do a little research.
Fundamentalist Christians may be out to change things using the POLITICAL process, but not via trying to destroy the US or Israel. See…that’s the difference.
One other thing. Liberals are fond of saying that fundamentalist Christians are trying to enact a Christian State, but this also isn’t quite true now is it? What most of them are REALLY trying to do is change CERTAIN things back to the way they were when our grandparents and parents were in charge. You know, the “Greatest Generation”? Back before we Baby-boomers screwed things up so badly. When you could pray in public schools without being sued or ridiculed, have Nativity scenes in town parks, single parenting was considered bad, as was taking a gun to school, abortions were pretty much non-existant and rare, and homosexuality was seen for nothing more than a life-style choice vice an inevitability of birth. You may disagree with these positions, that’s fine. I don’t totaally agree with them all myself. But don’t pretend that most “fundies” are trying to do anything more that remake certain aspects of the country into what they ONCE WERE, vice trying to enact some kind of new-fangled fantasy “Jesus-land”. Because if you think that, then you just don’t have the memory a few of us older folks do.
Who’s buying these books? Right wing Christian evangelicals? Or people more likely to be Michael Moore fans?
I did like the “Primate Time cable news” line. Was that aimed principally at CNN, or all cable news outlets generally?
Sorry—was off eating dinner and enjoying some football commentary.
Just stopping in to highlight this bit of predictable rhetorical maneuvering: when all else fails, declare yourself bemused, and claim victory. Sayeth DarkSyde:
This disingenuous faux bluster is, of course, a sign of desperation—and the folks here who have pointed out repeatedly DarkSyde’s errors in logic—from a definition of religious extremism so expansive that it covers anything that has ever brushed against the taint of GOP, to the studied avoidance of the direct rhetorical parallels between progressive left rhetoric and arguments made by bin Laden (which, as my post posits, means either they agree in substance, or they agree in strategy; unsurprisingly, DarkSyde, who finds his sophistry clever, avoids that inconvenient point of substance).
Similarly—and most strikingly, if you ask me, because it betrays a kernel mindset of the left—the underlying truism to DS’s arguments are that to be anti-abortion, or anti-gay marriage, etc., marks you as de facto GOP; that is, those Democrats showing fidelity to scripture are, like blacks who vote Republican, inauthentic, and can be excluded from the equation as anomalous. Otherwise, whatever is the justification to assume that it is in only the religious right whose religiosity puts them in some sort of strained parallel with jihadists?
Is there no religious left? Do they somehow not count toward supporting bin Ladenism in the same way as the fundies on the right? Etc.
Of course, the whole argument is based on a faulty analogy and simplistic, shallow, guilt-by-implied (and forced) association, etc—but my point is, even on that level it betrays itself as devoted to a fascist idea of what beliefs are proper and what aren’t, and who gets to control those beliefs as a way of claiming a cosmetic separation from bin Laden.
It’s laughable, all of it. And it’s not worth wasting any more time on.
I just didn’t want DarkSyde going away from here without an object lesson in how his own silly bit of entrapment—based on the most broadly stroked “comparisons”—came back to bite him in his ass like Teddy Kennedy sinking his teeth into the tight pink fleshy bum of a Hooter’s girl he’s just bought for a $100 tip and the promise he’d get her in touch with a modeling agency.
People, think before you post. Didn’t you get the warning? If you don’t stop now, a no-shit Kos Diarist will take the unprecedented step of publicly comparing the Religious Right to Wahhabists! And then what perfect fools we shall all look.
If this were true, shouldn’t your hate for them be equal to your hate for the current administration?
That’d be a quagmire, for ya. having to support Bush because he’s winning against aq.
But it is nevertheless an empirical fact that the social policies of bin Laden are far more congruent with those of the extreme religious right that anything from any other major political faction.
Who supports banning religion in public life, especially in the public square? And who also supports programs of outreach, in public schools no less, to Islam, as anti-religo-racism pap, usually in the same breath? And who allies themselves with CAIR?
The extreme political left includes actual supporters of Wahabbism, Hamas, and other terror groups, and the anti-theist zealots that make Pat Robertson seem sane. That’s empirical fact.
Go fish.
That won’t stop them.
What you have to realize is that every Lefty is truly an Army of One.
I’ve tested that myself at some of the big LA rallies. They’ll be marching along with the ANSWERs, and the Spartacist League, and the Kerry Kids, and MoveOn… but if you pick one out of the crowd, they won’t admit they have anything at all to do with any of the others… even the ones carrying the same signs: “Oh, they don’t speak for me.” Ask if they worried about how folks out in the world might react to their message: “I can’t speak for them. I can’t help how they take what I say.”
Each and every one of them, all alone in the crowd. I can’t imagine what goes through their heads (beyond, as with Kerry, that loud, persistent, self-satisfied hum)…
I’m really having a hard time seeing any commonality between conservative Christians or Jews and those who would kill me for wearing a tank top–much less shorts on a hot summer day.
But you seem happy and carefree in the little world you’ve made for yourself, so how can that be bad? Enjoy it. After all, it’s empirical. And documented. And stuff.
Finally, DarkSyde, this:
Who cares if you are a Democrat? Democrats are not the problem- I’m married to one. How you vote is of little interest, it is specifically the rhetoric of the Daily Kos(saks?) that is pertinent in this discussion. The views of THAT group that you’ve associated with (and become a leader of) that people are questioning. Being ‘not a democrat’ in the middle of a extreme left activist group means diddly if you still embrace the group.
LOL I can’t help laughing at this little “Republican = Taliban” game DarkSyde wants to play. Is this kind of childish tactic the best DailyKos can offer? And then they claim to want serious debate.
I guess since he’s a leftist, our logical comeback is to pretend Democrats want to implement Stalin’s policies. That’ll show him! Yaah! We’re geniuses!
And I’m of course obliged to point out that in fact the parallels between the religious right and bin Laden are better documented, with references, by a considerable margin, than the parallels between bin Laden and any other political ideology in this nation.
Good Lord, he’s actually serious about this.
The guy must be in second grade or something.
I guess Hitler is next.
– You can always tell when something has severly pissed in the KosKids cornflakes, when the crushendo of screed babble goes up to an 8 on the Richter scale, and comrade trolls spend this much time posting the “alternate views” talking point list instead of touching on a single area that could possibly coincide with anything (suddenly) “evil OBL” spoke too in his tape. Anyone else notice a sudden veer off into talking point set “B”…..
– Yeh its got them vibrating hard alright. ‘Ole Usama is really fucking up the program. Here they work so hard to get him his own “clear” phone line and he up and does this. Damn ingrate….
– And of course in keeping with all the other smooth moves the moveon twits have managed in the past 6 years, they choose that bastion of straight talk and common sense thinking, LurchKerry no less, to point at all the reasons that its actually very obvious that OBL is in fact enjoying their support. Keep up the good work John boy. Oh and about that form 180?…
– Is bringing their failed pravaracation champion back into the picture the first sign of the left undercutting the Teflon Lady?
– Hell maybe there is such a thing as Rovian waves after all….
TW: Maybe the moonies are about to find out if you break through to China when you dig a hole deep enough…..
Simple.
That’s a lie, and you are a liar. They aren’t. The only place a similarity exists is in your diseased mind. You have created a huge bogeyman of finest straw, and spend so much time tilting against it that you have no energy remaining for anything that might actually do you any good. The only way the terms and policies of the religious right can be equated with Osama’s are from the point of view of a militant fundamentalist atheism as far divorced from any hint of rationality as any madrassah.
That kooks exist is undeniable. The Right in general believes in free speech—that everyone should be allowed input to the process. That doesn’t mean the input will be taken as good advice, let alone prescriptive. And even kooks make useful points once in a while; suppressing them loses that and gains nothing.
But I don’t even need google to name four prominent Democrats, acknowledged (even celebrated) leaders of the party, whose vociferous public pronouncements are as nearly identical to those of bin Laden as can be managed given the differences between Arabic and English. If you want to find the same from “my side” you will have to work for it, and will come up with marginal players whom few know and fewer pay close attention to. Howard Dean, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy are not marginal players. And yeah, there are fundie websites with some horrifying shit. Tell me, what’s their Technorati rank? Where do they fit in Bear’s ecosystem?—I thought so.
So tell us—why are John Kerry and Osama bin Ladin on the same wavelength? You’re going to have to answer that question at length this summer. You might as well start now.
Regards,
Ric
Count this lefty(libertarian) as confused about the outrage
is that they simply cannot plausibly argue that bin Laden’s striking of the same rhetorical keys they’ve been pounding on for years now is not at all related to the same rhetorical keys they’ve been pounding on (happily) for years now.
Of course Bin Laden borrows rhetoric from the domestic political opposition of Bush. Why wouldn’t he? I don’t think he likes GWBush very much.(Opposition does not imply BDS btw, though I’ll agree that OBL suffers from BDS.) Translators who are familiar with the domestic political rhetoric account for the preciseness of the similarities, IMO, though as Darksyde points out most of OBLs statements are religous stuff that doesn’t translate very well at all to English.
As far as Boris’s
Every time OBL pipes up they take a big hit in the PR department.
It is remarkable isn’t it that the Bush43 adminstration takes no political hits from these OBL tapes 4+ years after the WTC (& other 9/11) attacks. Neither do they seem to help his approval ratings though. From rasmussen (polls spread over previous 3 days, OBL tape thursday 19th iirc.)
Bush Job Approval
Approve Disapprove
Today 45 54
Jan 20 45 54
Jan 19 46 53
Jan 18 45 54
Jan 17 44 54
Jan 16 44 55
Jan 15 45 53
Jan 14 44 54
Jan 13 44 54
Jan 12 43 55
Jan 11 44 55
Jan 10 45 54
[geeks only] Paul Zrimsek, “babelfish invariants” are normally found by translating english->french->english until either an invariant (or cycle) is found or the phrase explodes (try repeating “pizza pie” or just “pie” a few times). True babelfish invariants are usually pretty strange utterances.
An old law: “Good news for Bush, trolls will be out in force.”
Bin Laden is not referencing evangelical Christian screeds against homosexuality/abortion/social conservative item of choice in his various screeds, nor is he using typically evangelical Christian rhetoric in his speeches. At no time has he ever suggested to a Western audience that it familiarize itself with the collected works of Pat Robertson–because bin Laden simply did not learn social conservatism from Christian sources; he learned it from Muslim religious laws and the interpretation thereof.
If you could plausibly suggest that the religious right in America had so manipulated the media narrative about social conservative issues that Bin Laden’s ‘gays should be stoned to death’ arguments could now be presented as the opinions of a perfectly reasonable man; if social conservatives in the U.S. had somehow created an atmosphere in which this kind of ‘opinion’ was considered as within the bounds of rational discourse, then you would have a point. But because this is not the case, Bin Laden has never attempted to appeal to the West as a champion of ‘family values’ (Don’t send your gay son Charlie to religious sexual re-education camp–just crush him with a stone wall! Problem solved!).
He has, however, made use of the language of cultural relativism, so-called ‘anti-racism’, and Western cultural guilt over the legacy of colonialism. Because he knows that this kind of argument is one to which the average educated Western listerner is intensely and fundamentally susceptible. He clearly does not think that he can get the same pull from portraying himself as the man who will save your children (except for Cindy who was stoned as a harlot for wearing lipstick) from the evils of late-night Cinemax and 6th grade science class. Because even Bin Laden knows that there is a gigantic goddamn difference between murdering sinners and pestering them with irritating pamphlets and waving Bibles at them.
Does it strike anyone else as odd that the Western left doesn’t see the difference?
I didn’t come here to asnswer questions folks. I came here to test out how good you guys could answer them when the tables were turned on you. And despite a few abortive attempts, you failed miserably, you absolutely suck on the defensive, which tells me this is a pretty dang good tactic to use and one we never would have thought of had you not demo’ed it for us.
Now we know: It’s a real weak spot and it should be, your own party is eerily the best match for bin Laden in our nation. So again, thanks for the traffic the data, and the perspective
– I can just see the NYT header one of these fine mornings. ( As soon as the monthly checks from Moore and Soros clear and they can buy some newsprint paper and ink )….
– Jhon Kerry will put it all to rest by saying:
….”Uh.. Theres no reason to think that similarities of position…..I mean clearly you can’t align the agenda of a murdering terrorist like Usama, in the Manner of Ginghus Khan, with the voices of loyal Americans…Trust me theres nothing to see here, just move along now”……
TW: Someday the left will come to understand theres a difference between being mis-informed and being willfully ignorant… but then again maybe not….
Yeah, DarkSyde – everyone’s buying it. You betcha, buddy. That’s the ticket. You can recount your victory later to your wife – Morgan Fairchild!
Didn’t John Kerry get endorsed by Kim Jung Il, the beloved leader of prosperous, peaceful North Korea?
Come to think of it, didn’t Bin Laden also put out his own advisory against Bush?
Odd. Oh well, guess I’ll stick to the defense…
God, no! Not the briar patch~-anything but that, you–you fiend! You monster!
DarkSyde,
You’re just sad now.
Bill, Osama latched onto the my Pet Goat Thing because he thought it sounded reasonable. The same way he seems to think the America out UN in thing is reasonable. Just so happens the left thinks that’s reasonable to. I’m just trying to figure out why those things are reasonable to both OBL and KOS. It couldn’t be that they agree could it?
Y’know, DarkSyde, I suspect that you may be just a trifle surprised.
For instance: I know people in John Murtha’s congressional district, and enjoy visiting there. Suppose I make an ad, using nothing but direct and verifiable quotes alternating between bin Laden and Murtha, and play it on TV in Johnstown. Absolutely fair: direct, 100% quotes taken in context. How do you suppose that would go over? I don’t even have to guess.
More than half of all Americans go to church, and most of those are familiar with the arguments of the religious right. Some agree, some don’t (and there are more in the latter group than in the former), but they all know that there is, at least, a teensy weensy moral difference between opposing gay marriage and stoning homosexuals to death weekly on TV. That being the case, they realize at the outset that you’re a liar, and can be depended upon to generalize: if you’re a liar, then the folk you champion are likely to be liars, too.
And before you hit the “play” button on the next smarmy misrepresentation, pause and think a moment. What’s Moulitsa’s track record? Gotten any candidates elected?
Regards,
Ric
Ah, how sweet. Sithchylde declares victory and runs away.
Hint: “Not answering questions the way I want you to.” does not equal “You didn’t answer my questions!”
– Just for the hell of it, lets take stock and revue UBL and the Democratic lefts positions.
– Liberals think babies are a nettlesome bother, giving rise to all that insipid responsibility and such. Aborting (translation “Legalized womb murder”) is justified at the slightest impulse.
– Usama thinks that killing women and children is just a part of the overall call to Jihad. Check
– Liberals Hate Bush, because he keeps acting too protect the country, and want to find ways to hobble him, leaving the US open for further attacks, and possible additional deaths of innocent Americans.
– Usama Hates Bush and wants to kill Americans any way he can. Check
– Liberals hate Christian/Jadao values, and seek to eliminate them from our society.
– Usama hates the Chritians and Jews, and wants to makeover the world as Muslim extremists. Check
– There is that one pesky thing about beating woman with a tire iron when they dishonor you by learning to read that Usama needs to work on. But then I’m sure Code Pink will be able to reconsole that in some “nuanced revisionist way” using the boys will be boys angle.
– Yeh. Overall I’d say you’re running pretty much on the same page with UBL lefties. Hell, looks like he’d fit right in with the Dem leadership. Probably be good drinking buddies with Kennedrunk and Dean in no time.
TW: Being a Liberal these days is somewhat akin to living on the edge of an active volcano…..
It’s not, otherwise Osama would appeal to its adherents rather than to the Moorites.
My favorite part was being told that answering the question rationally was actually a dodge–the important thing was, ‘how does it make you feel‘ (cue Bob Dylan song)?
. . .I mean, the fucking fuck? Are we interviewing for a position on the Supreme Court?
What concocted narrative of self-doubt would you like to hear? How about ‘I stayed up all night praying about it with my religious advisors?’–or are you the wrong focus group for that? Perhaps–’I voted for Bush before I voted against him’! Would you like to know how we feel as voters and citizens or maybe ‘as a father’? Would it be too baroque to suggest that, after pulling the lever for Bush, I immediately doffed my shirt and walked all the 20 mile way home through town while flogging myself with a length of chain?
TW: I’m merely asking.
please please please, I beg of you DarkSyde –
Regarding the last post you wrote- imagine for a moment Jeff Goldstein posting that word for word on Daily Kos, about ‘your side’. How do you think it would be received? Demo’ing? Providing Data? Developing Tactics? Would you not laugh your freakin’ ass off?
DarkSyde, you are in serious denial. It’s coming through as projection. Thus far, all you’ve done is ask some questions, reject the answers, declare “victory”, piss on the carpet, and then stamp out the door slapping your buttocks in contempt of us stoooooopid RWDBs. All of it posturing to cover up your stupid premise that OBL and the America religious right are philosophical bed fellows.
Sad. And you could have been an entertaining troll. What a waste.
‘Fess up, dude—OBL drinks from the same pitcher of Kool Aid that you, Kos, Kerry, Murtha, et al, scramble for every day. I just after to wonder: just who chooses the flavor?
TW: OBL and the Western left are a couple.
I’m actually starting to feel sorry for this DarkSyde guy.
OK, buddy, let me give a serious answer to your silly question.
Yes, there are superficial similarities to the Christian Republican right-wing and Osama bin Laden, just as there are superficial similarities between the philosophies of Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kimn Jong Il, etc. and the Left in America. But in both cases, there are also huge differences in philosophy, mostly in that the American versions of both almost universally believe in freedom, democracy, and not deliberately mass murdering people.
Now, if you remember, the “table” you “turned” was the fact that Osama is repeating tendentious, oft-discredited Leftist talking points in order to attack Bush. Pointing out that similarity is not the same, however, as claiming Republican = Taliban. We’re decrying your tactics, not your philosophy.
The fact Al Qaeda is gleefully recycling some of those attacks should make you think about how dishonest you’ve been in your partisan zealotry. Not that you will.
The amazing thing to me is this. All the left needs to do to put this thing to rest is say. That OBL is a lying bastard. He’s using our rhetoric dishonesly in hopes of strengthening his own position. But it won’t work. We will work doggedly to defeat him. If we come to power he will be doomed as surely as the sun rises. But not one of them will say it. Instead they accuse American’s who attend church of being part and parcel of the Taliban. God, are they really that politcally inept, or do they truly believe that Americans are the enemy and jihadis aren’t?
Do they really agree wiht Michael Moore? Do they really think Harry Belafonte is right?
I’m with Jeff. This self-important huckster is really not worth our time.
Gah, sorry, technically should have called ye Mr. Goldstein as a term of respect.
everybody together now:
You just can’t make this shit up.
So help me, I missed the whole part about “here’s your chance to talk to a front page writer on the Daily Kos,” otherwise I would have responded in such a way that I can assure you he would have been go in two or three comments, tops.
Let me do it now:
DarkSyde—why on earth would I care that you are a front page writer on Daily Kos? The important part of this dynamic, after all, is that you have an opportunity to make your case to me, who is, from what I can divine from the exchanges here, in every single respect your superior.
Christ, man. You should sit at my feet with a fucking notebook and take down what I say—at least, until it’s time for you to fetch me my afternoon libation or some such.
A “front page writer for the Daily Kos,” you say? This is protein wisdom, brother. We’ve fucked guys like you in prison.
As I’ve read through comment-by-comment where this thread devolved into The Chronicles of DarkSyde, I am increasingly amused by the tone of the proceedings.
DS came here to find a champion and return with trophies. He arrived with his best Kos talking points, and started flailing around, beating them against trees and stones. The people of the land came to him and said, “what’s with the racket, are you some sort of lunatic?”—and he rode back off, frustrated, claiming that this land was inhabited only by rabble since no knight responded to his challenge.
What kind of mindset requires such champions? What sort of group considers everyone who disagrees to be an outsider? What sort of mentality dismisses “common” meanings in order to engage in “debate” after redefining every term?
I’m thinking that “self-appointed elitist” is a good working definition.
But, hey—I’m just part of the rabble…what do my opinions matter?
…and my comment collapses next to Jeff’s.
“I’m as good a man as you and probably better” is, indeed, the traditional response from a citizen when some yoyo comes by to put on airs.
The situation is just, just, so…….European.
– A lot of Europeans are remorseful that they ever bought into the Socialism bullshit. But once those fuckers get you into a welfare way of thinking you’re toast. Don’t see it happening here anytime soon. Most Americans don’t see any virtue in gaming the other guy to carry your water.
– “Communism can never hope to flourish in a freedom loving country” – R. Reagan
[Loud Jarring Chord]
DarkSyde: NOBODY expects a front page writer from the Daily Kos! Our chief weapon is suprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to Chomsky…. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again. (Exit and exeunt)
– RS – Paraphrasing FDR:
“They have nothing to fear but the fear of their own talking points themselves”
– Damn Jeff… I missed that part too. If I’d known we were honored by the presense of such a journalistic imminence, I would have fired up the Goodyear Blimp Dildo….
*Reads Jeff’s post.*
Yep, you definitely deserve a respectful “Mr. Goldstein” rather than merely “Jeff,” Mr. Goldstein.
This is a good laugh. From – you guessed it- Mr. Front Page celebrity man (we’re on the front page!!):
You’re forgetting, Jeff, that “pain don’t hurt.”
I wasn’t very clear on that…that’s from the Front Page diary he wrote about us at Daily Kos.