One Man's Judas, Another Man's Purged Moderate

|

Nothing but worthless Twitter chatter from NY-23, but watching the Obama partisans on MSNBC bemoan the GOP's supposed surrender to the extreme "teabaggers," those who ran a "moderate" Republican like Dede Scozzafava out of the race in a quest for ideological purity, the Stalinists of Frank Rich's fever dreams, are in the very next breath denouncing Joe Lieberman as a Judas figure, a betrayer of progressivism for obstructing a really horrid health care bill. Lieberman is, of course, now an Independent and those who obsess over his supposed betrayal of liberal causes have every right to boo and hiss from the balcony. But the Scozzafava excommunication is, in most important ways, no different. Like Lieberman, she tows the party line on certain issues (gun control, for instance) but offends members of her party that believe, for instance, that support for bailouts and card check are anathema to conservative principles.

But because of Lieberman's willingness to support Republican candidates in the next election cycle, talk show hosts like Rachel Maddow, who is leading the charge against the supposed purging of moderate Republicans by knuckle-dragging teapartiers, hyperventilated that the Senator from Connecticut supported—get this—the moderate Maine Republican Susan Collins! Bipartisanship (or is it post-partisanship?) is when the other guys come to our side, not the other way around.

And one more comment on Sen. Lieberman: I'm an infrequent consumer of cable talk, though it is rather unnerving that I keep finding myself stuck in front of Maddow's MSNBC show, wondering how this awful hack is so frequently praised as a voice of calm, a reasonable liberal rising above the din of all the other cable freakazoids. But is it always this dishonest? Take this example from Friday's show.

MADDOW: That was in addition to Senator Lieberman campaigning against the Democratic nominee for president, which entailed him saying things like this.

CLIP:

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST:  Is he a Marxist, as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today's "New York Times?"

LIEBERMAN:  Well, you know, I must say that's a good question.

Maddow then says that Lieberman called the president a Marxist. But I remembered this exchange (it was reported by ThinkProgress and…no one else), and Maddow has hacked off part of Napolitano's question and most of Lieberman's answer. Here is the original:

NAPOLITANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today's New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?

LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that's a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he's obviously very smart and he's a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I've learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn't…I'd hesitate to say he's a Marxist, but he's got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.

It is unclear if Lieberman thinks it's the elitism or the Marxism bit (or both) that is the "good question," but he politely states that he would "hesitate to say" that he was a commie. Maddow razors out the full response and Judge Napolitano's full question. Check it out, 3:53 in to this clip:

NEXT: Welcome to Marikafka County, Arizona

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Like Lieberman, she tows the party line on certain issues

    TOES the line.

    Are you trying to kill me?

    1. Like Lieberman, she tows the party line lion on certain issues

      Fixed

      1. towing the party lion is not an easy task.

        1. Yeah, especially for the Democrat since he’s a dead weight now.

          1. It’s probably easier to tow a dead lion than a live one.

            Just sayin’.

    2. Everyone beat me to it. Yeah, Moynihan, for fuck’s sake…

      It’s “tow the lion”. Everyone around here knows that.

  2. Michael Moynihan, of all people says:
    wondering how this awful hack

    Pot, meet kettle, Mr Moynihan.

    1. Does Moynihan’s saying so invalidate Maddow’s hackery?

      1. “I keep finding myself stuck in front of Maddow’s MSNBC show, wondering how this awful hack is so frequently praised as a voice of calm”

        It’s the old staring-at-the-car-crash scenario. Maddow’s show is astonishingly dishonest, even for cable, but I can’t look away. It’s like seeing a two-headed boy.

    2. Would you agree that Moynihan has a big time ego? And that he just oozes professional envy?

      1. Would you agree that Moynihan has a big time ego? And that he just oozes professional envy?

        That’s a good question.

    3. Moynihan’s pot may be black, but Maddow’s kettle is not merely black, but actively sucks the light out of all its surroundings.

      1. I thought we were all for pot?

        1. Not black pot. That’s a sign of roach infestation, which means you have to throw it out or make it into brownies for your enemies.

      2. black?
        sucking?

        Racist.

        Why does the filter keep telling me things are not in English?

        1. Because it’s racist.

          1. and stalinist.

    4. ChicagoTom loves that Obama cock and is happy to pretend Maddow-the-cunt-cow has one too so he can try to slurp that.

  3. great example of spinning a story through editing. I’d like to see one of these once a month, both MSNBC and Fox.

    1. Agreed.

      IIRC, Reason did a blog post on the incident where Fox photoshopped people to make them uglier.

      1. you got the link to that?

  4. I don’t get MSNBC so I don’t know if she’s always dishonest, but she “apparently” walked back her despicable smear of Rush Limbaugh, and here’s a certain Reason contributing editor lying on her show with her nodding right along.

    1. Let me guess, you got the special bare bones cable package to avoid getting Univision?

      PS This reply is almost assuredly an ad hom, but you forgot to add a disclaimer to your post so it does not concede your points or impugn the character of libertarians. Ha!

      1. There is no escaping Telemundo, Tulpa. LoneBoner knows this, but refuses to admit the truth even to himself.

        1. That is a lie. No way does Lonewacko ever miss his Sabato Gigante.

          1. That’s just intelligence gathering. Someone on our side has to keep an eye on the secret messages MeCHa is putting out there for its many palefaced agents along the Orange Line.

            1. Those are some pretty good pendejo jokes

    2. You’ve already lost the war, Lonewako, you’ve already lost.

  5. Maddow might not be such a bad joke if she’d had a smidgen of journalism experience in her resume. She probably has no idea why it’s wrong to misrepresent people as much as she “apparently” does.

  6. Democrats, ya’ll be thinking for yourselves.

  7. and Judge Napilitano’s full question…

    Did you mean: Judge Snoozylitany?

  8. Maddow might not be such a bad joke if she’d had a smidgen of journalism experience in her resume. She probably has no idea why it’s wrong to misrepresent people

    She does show that it doesn’t require any journalistic credentials to lie to us in precisely the way journalists usually do.

  9. In other news. Maddow is proof positive a Phd is just three letters and even the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet can get one given enough time and money.

    1. BS = Bull Shit
      MS = More Shit
      PHD = Piled Higher and Deeper

      1. The added bonus of course, is that her Phd is based in not only political science, but political science and philosophy.

        Useless^2

        1. GOd that talking point always cracks me up. Despite it being relatively new, it seems to be so darn popular. I expect it to pop up heavily in the future, but anyways. I guess you didn’t have a good guidance counselor or high school, but it’s not so much what you study, it’s what you do. More accurately, achievements on your resume. TOo bad it’s easier to just lean on ignorance with a touch of hate like you do. Let me guess, you never went to college. I’ve always noticed that those who didn’t go, are quick to find some excuse to hate/punish those who did. Like you’re doing now.

          1. Yeah no one here went to college. We just can’t stand those educated people. Nice try at trolling though.

            1. way to read, but not read, do you try to apply the lowest common answer to everything?

            2. I’m commenting on the fact that people are talking trash about her degree and saying she’s worthless, while at the same time ignoring the fact that she’s accomplished more and has higher value/earning power than the majority on this board. Like you did

              1. “she’s accomplished more and has higher value/earning power than the majority on this board.”

                So her success invalidate criticism?

                Then you must find Rush Limbaugh immune to critique.

                1. And I hope he never said a word against MBA and President George Bush, who has “achieved” more than he ever will.

                2. Nice try, but i wasn’t commenting on her, but on people knocking her degree. It invalidates the nonsense that her degree is worthless.

          2. America’s got a strong anti-intellectual history. This is why many people found Bush’s good ol’boyism charming, while the rest of the world shrugged.

            1. and how did that turn out again?

              1. Bush has an MBA, and he was President, you fucking little hypocrite. According to your argument, what the fuck are your credentials and achievements to knock him?

                1. I wasn’t knocking him, but if i was to knock him, it would be because of his actions not his degree. Some may mock his academic history, but he’s illustrated one of the beauties of capitalism, the benefit of being knocked down then rising/trying again. In stark contrast, i see many people on this board wanting to perpetual punish people for their mistakes/failures, instead of leaving them alone to let them try again.

            2. Yeah because nepitism and good old boyism only happens here and not in Europe or Asia. Don’t get out much do you? And America has a tremendous anti-intellectual tradition as opposed to Europe. That is why Fascism killed so many people in America and was just a fringe movement in Europe. Right?

              1. wait wait, i was talking about something else, and you just went right out into left field. Read the post, unless you really rather talk about Europe and Asia.

                1. Yeah, thank God we have now a true intellectual in office to escalate wars and ruin the economy.

                  1. I don’t remember mentioning Obama, what does he have to do with this discussion? I know the peeps around here have this current obsession with him, but i don’t share that nor did i vote for him.

              2. By good ol’ boyism I wasn’t referring to achieving success through connections, ala nepotism (although that IS another part of Bush’s claim to fame). Yes, Europe and Asia have plenty of that. I was referring to his anti-intellectualism, I’m-just-a-regular-hick-from-the-sticks shtick that seemed to fly well with a certain, fairly large percentage of the population. As for fascism, well, it was something of a flash in the pan, compared to the deeper roots of anti-intellectualism in America, which goes back to the days of the Puritans. Say what you will about Europe (and personally overall I prefer the U.S. system), but walk around the streets of Paris where classics are hawked in the newsstands for a comparison.

              3. By good ol’ boyism I wasn’t referring to achieving success through connections, ala nepotism (although that IS another part of Bush’s claim to fame). Yes, Europe and Asia have plenty of that. I was referring to his anti-intellectualism, I’m-just-a-regular-hick-from-the-sticks shtick that seemed to fly well with a certain, fairly large percentage of the population. As for fascism, well, it was something of a flash in the pan, compared to the deeper roots of anti-intellectualism in America, which goes back to the days of the Puritans. Say what you will about Europe (and personally overall I prefer the U.S. system), but walk around the streets of Paris where classics are hawked in the newsstands for a comparison.

          3. Or you can look at the aggregate instead of the individual cases. You know. Like most valid models do when assessing a variable across a large sample.

            I’ve noticed that those in school and who have spent a life in academia tend to think they are infinitely smarter than those who are not. I do find it interesting that you are bemoaning the very thing I did, which had a touch of sarcasm, by doing exactly what I did, sans the sarcasm. Lets skip the nuanced ad homs. You’re a fucking retard. Plain and simple. You are so fucking simple you didn’t even realize what you were typing out to chastise me was the very thing you were chastising.

            You’re guessing skills are woefully lacking. My academic penis is rather lengthy and broad.

            …but it’s not so much what you study, it’s what you do. More accurately, achievements on your resume

            Let me guess, you never went to college.

            If the resume carries the most weight why does it matter if I attended college? By your own assertion it is less important than my resume. So shouldn’t you be saying, “Let me guess, you don’t have an awesome resume.”

            Fucking moron^3

            1. This has to be a troll. Typos, missing simple analogies, the evidence is pointing to troll.

              Or fucking moron.

              1. awwwww poor baby, angry much? I’ve noticed a lot of that around here lately.

                1. Why would I be angry? I just think you’re an idiot or a troll. Or both.

                  You sure do try to read a lot into things on a message board. Do you have a magic 8 ball? Or do you call 1-800-Phsycic-Hotline?

            2. Oh look, someone is trying to make up for something. Now what could that be? I hope you don’t talk to your wife with that mouth or velocity.

              1. I have a wife?

                1. My mistake, but with the quick to anger thing, i can see why. I will give you credit though, you do play the aggrieved rather well.

                  1. You are obsessed with anger. Are you projecting? I figured with your awesome powers of deduction you would know I had a wife. But I guess not.

                    So, how about addressing the glaring inconsistencies and general lack of understanding sampling and modeling in your original comment?

                    Or I can just keep calling you a moron. Seems to be working well up to this point.

                    My wife thinks you’re a moron too and she has an awesome resume. Wait, is it resume or degrees that matter?

            3. You don’t make any sense, what aggregate are you refering; all i see is someone spouting off assumptions. With unemployment higher than govt. statistics, it’s easy to blame the victim than looking at problems with the overall economy/job market.

          4. Come back when you’ve earned a useful degree, like in engineering or physics.

            1. I hate to say it, but quantitatively based economics degrees (god I can’t believe I said that) and number heavy business degrees (not a lot of those) should be included in that list. In general those degrees ending in “science.” Does that make me a degree snob?

              I have to go shower now. I feel so dirty for that economics comment.

              1. except, perhaps, those that end in “science” but are preceded by “social”

    2. I’m hearing the same thing about “Nobel Prize Winner”

    3. From the link, it appears she was a Rhodes scholar. But yet, her undergraduate thesis “explored the shift in the perception of AIDS patients from “the other” to “one of us”

    4. I think she was a Rhoades Scholar. Apparently you get one of those by being a favored minority (in her case a lesbian) and spewing out as much leftist bullshit as your profs can take. She is just awful at every level.

      1. link?

      2. As a Rhodes finalist I assure you that complete morons do not just sneak by the committee for a Rhodes scholarship.

        1. Since you were just a finalist, I’d say you might be right, Tony.

          1. Ding! Ding! Ding!

        2. My esteem for that scholarship has just been lowered by a large margin.

    5. MNG has a PhD
      more proof

    6. Of all the smartest kids I went to school with, not one of them ever got a PhD. The people who were really smart didn’t stick around for more than a Bachelor’s, if even that. The one’s that went for the advanced degrees were usually the mediocrities who might have been too smart to be pushing a broom, but obviously weren’t about to be founding the next Microsoft or Google, either.

      The usual candidate for an advanced degree is the mediocrity who isn’t really that smart, but damn!, he sure likes to think so! I call this “The Scarecrow Syndrome”, for obvious reasons.

  10. I don’t watch her show on tv. But every time someone links to one of her clips, I’m stunned. Clearly this is a “my problem” situation.

  11. The far left tried to oust him in the last election and failed. Is it just my imagination, or has Lieberman been playing payback ever since? He has proven he can keep his seat in spite of them. Maybe they should cut their losses and leave him alone.

    1. For some reason CT voters rally around their incumbents (I have no idea why even though I grew up there), and Lamont’s challenge really seemed to piss people off. Lieberman, unfortunately, is pretty damn safe and can do what he wants.

      So yes, I think he’s been getting some payback.

      1. I blame you for Eric Mangini. You had the chance to kill him, but you didn’t do it, you colossal pussy. Fuck you.

        1. You didn’t want to pay my fee, so, you got what you paid for.

      2. I have no idea why even though I grew up there

        So you’re a Seattletard and a Connecticunt? Thats brutal, man. Tough break.

        1. Let me guess: you’re a Masshole?

  12. This DID warrant a MediaMatters reprimand for Miz Maddow, right?

    Right?

  13. She is a dumb bitch.

    1. She He is a dumb bitch.

      There ya’ go.

  14. Who did not realize that the Left’s appeals to bipartisanship only worked one way? It was a tactic to try and neuter the opposition, that’s all it ever was.

    Maddow engages in video Dowdisms? How utterly unsurprising.

  15. Moynihan, does Maddow have to tell you the differences between Truefact and Realfact? You should have learned that in J-school, really.

  16. Republican McDonnell wins the gubernacy in Virginia

    What, no liveblogging on election night? I miss Weigal!

    1. Campbell Brown on CNN has eight–count ’em, eight–pundits lined up right now,
      offering pithy bullshit.

      1. Cambell is about as annoying as it gets. But at least she is pretty hot. So you figure she got her job by screwing the right people. That brings up the question of how the hell someone as ugly and grating as Maddow ever got on TV.

        1. I give Campbell credit for recently calling out Valerie Jarrett on the FOX/MSNBC double standard. She (Brown) had Jarrett backpeddling in an instant.
          Very entertaining.

          1. Good for her.

        2. by scissoring all the right people

      2. Hmm, I’ll stick with the space weapons special on History Channel (?!), thanks.

        1. I agree unless Cambell starts taking her clothes off.

          1. The History Channel rocks. Where else can you see Marines roasting Nazi ass with flamethrowers at Normandy, and a few hours later the forces of Earth destroy an alien forward invasion base on Mars by altering an asteroid’s orbit?

            1. It does rock. And as an army vet, I must point out though, the Marines weren’t at Normandy. They were such media whores in World War I, that Eisenhower and Marshall wouldn’t let them near the place.

              1. fuck normandy. assault a new beach every few weeks like the Marines did.

              2. “And as an army vet…” Oh, this explains why I see your posts around here so much. You’re one of those army welfare queens who has nothing better to do but sit around playing computer games and make bitchy comments about people who don’t live in your echo chamber.

    2. “What, no liveblogging on election night?”

      I wondered that too, but then I realized that for Reasonville, the “wrong” people were expected to win.

      1. I keep forgetting who Reason is supposed to be shilling for.

        1. The Anti-Steeles.

    1. Stupid out the butt much?

      Read that in an earlier thread and liked it a shitload.

  17. That Fox post earlier, and now this. I hardly drop in any more, but it seems this place went robo republican pretty fucking hard. HOw sad

    1. Because pointing out that Maddow is lying and the hypocrisy of the Dems on things is being robo Republican. Much better to ignore all the faults on one side and be a dimwit having a circle jerk with other like minded dimwits.

      1. Much better to ignore all the faults on one side and be a dimwit having a circle jerk with other like minded dimwits

        Sounds like a current Reason post to me, or you.

        I’m not much of an avowed Maddow watcher, but the bit i’ve seen was tolerable. She may be overly snarky, but i’ve never seen her scream or act ballistic. Sorry if you demand media to cater to your dementia.

        1. Who said she screams? She is just annoyingly stupid and lies. You might try reading the post and responding to it sometime.

          1. Knock knock anyone home, i’m not too crazy to want to hear you elaborate on how stupid she may be, but please do tell me all about how petty her lies were.

            1. The lie that you’re running from is so small
              But it’s bigger than the promise,
              The promise of a coming day!

        2. Maddow doesn’t scream, I’ll give her that. Screaming I could tolerate; at least it would mitigate her aura of smugness.

          Now Olbermann’s a screamer.

          1. Isn’t Olbermann a smugging screamer?

        3. i’ve never seen her scream

          I have.

        4. In comparison, She does make Sean Hannity look intelligent,erudite and entertaining.I don’t think anyone else could do that.

        5. In comparison, She does make Sean Hannity look intelligent,erudite and entertaining.I don’t think anyone else could do that.

    2. Nah, it only seems that way since the Democrats went full retard.

      1. lol, that sounds like a dream, not reality. But I’m not the type to crush another person’s hopes.

        1. Well since you have gone full retard with them, it makes sense that you haven’t noticed.

          1. boy, those pre-set defense phrases really help you not look real far into an issue. It’s all about the lunatic, loony, dangerous, crazy, unhinged, retarded left. You sound like a retard with heavy fixation on lefties in the closet.

            1. Unlike the lunatic, dangerous, unhinged, crazy, retarded, right, I suppose.

              Lots of fixations going around these days.

            2. Maddow’s in the closet? Do you think Andrew Sullivan is, too?

      2. Intelligencist!

    3. I thought they’d gone robo-Rand. Every time I look in lately, it’s a new post about her. Silly though to suggest that because they post something from Fox they are pro-Republican.
      They probably looked more Democratic when Bush was at the helm of the nation, because there would naturally be a lot of criticism of the president here from a libertarian perspective, just as they would seem more Republican when a Democrat is in charge.

      1. There’s more than just today’s posts.

        1. Sour grapes much?

        2. ‘more than today’s post.’ Yes, it’s natural that Reason would post things from Fox when there’s a shared criticism of the current administration, just as it was just as natural to post things from left-source when there was a shared criticism of Bush. And of course, when that happened you’d get lots of foaming around here from people who couldn’t stand having any connection to someone who was not a mirror image of themself.

    4. You hardly drop in because you are too busy fantasizing about Obama’s cock in your mouth.

  18. Hey, Weigel is on Rachel Maddow! Wasn’t somebody asking for him?

    1. You tricked me into looking!

      But by the time I hunted through the online guide to find out which channel MSNBC was, he was gone.

      1. For some reason he travelled all the way up to District 23 to cover that story. His reporting was fairly honest and spin-free, in contrast to what usually shows up at Maddow’s door.

        1. …and that’s why he won’t be invited back. Did Maddow push him to report Republican crimes against humanity/democracy/liberality in this race?

          1. Nah, they’re good buddies. He’ll be back.

  19. I am getting more and more confused. This is what I think I am reading …

    (1) Rich, Maddow, Olbermann, et. al. are partisan hacks. [Agreed and it has ever been thus in American media.]

    (2) As those named above are such horribly, partisan hacks no one reads them or watches them and therefore their employers are either failing or suffering horrible ratings. [Maybe, but equally likely that their employers might be worse off without them.]

    (3) Although none but deranged lunatics read or watch them they are nonetheless a grave danger to the Republic. [Both two and three cannot be simultaneously true.]

    I don’t get it.

    1. Who said they were a “grave danger to the Republic”. You are right, they are hacks that preach to the converted. They are far from being a grave danger to anything except GE’s stockholders.

      1. One must know one’s enemies in order to defeat them. I watch bits and pieces of Maddow and Olbermann to see how far a major American corporation is willing to go in allowing its employees to smear and malign private citizens with whom they disagree, politically. MSNBC has become a very low-class outfit.

        1. They’re so low-class I had to scroll past Oxygen, Si TV, G4, Movieplex, and a bunch of other channels specializing in Indonesian epic movies before I found it. I remember when it was on Channel 46.

        2. I took a shit at MSNBC once. It’s been optioned. I’m using the proceeds to purchase a yacht.

    2. It’s not the direct effect of Maddow etc that is dangerous. It’s the memes they create and are picked up by more reputable liberal voices. For instance, the idea that the tea parties were organized by FreedomWorks springs to mind. This was first reported by unwatchable MSNBC shills, and then picked up by sympathizers in more watchable media.

      1. Sympathizers (at PBS, for instance) who don’t the difference between Tea Party and teabagger. I saw Maddow repeat “teabagger” about 10 times in a two-minute outburst last August. She’s childish and unprofessional that way. But evidently her miniscule audience prefers that approach.

        1. Something similar happens on right-wing media as well, but it’s not as noticeable because there aren’t any visible conservatives in the establishment media. Whereas ostensibly objective reporters like Gwen Ifill on the News Hour pick up the “teabagger” epithet within days after it’s coined by Maddow and company.

          1. Wasn’t Ifill the one who hoped Clarence Thomas would die early of heart disease?

  20. Man, i forgot how much fun this place could be, shame it’s going downhill.

    1. shame it’s going downhill.

      Ever since Virginia Postrel (hot!) left.

  21. I miss Weigal.

    1. Other than bang Megan McCardle Weigel did everything that Suderman does. They are pretty much interchangable.

      1. I haven’t seen anyone write a GreaseMonkey script to filter out “Sudarman” posts yet.

        1. Did someone do that to Weigel?

          1. Yeah, I can’t find the link for it right now. It’s probably been taken off of whatever site it was on since DW doesn’t grace us with his presents anymore.

      2. That’s not what I hear.

  22. I’d hesitate to say you’re a lying biased asshole.

    That doesn’t mean I didn’t just say it. The “I’d hesitate to say…” phrase is a way of saying something whilst maintaining plausible deniability about having said it. Anyone involved in politics or reasonably educated about it knows this. It’s like apologizing that anyone was offended by something I did. I’m not actually apologizing for doing what I did, I’m just apologizing that someone was offended. That way the people on my side who don’t think I did anything wrong know that I’m not admitting error. I’m sorry you may have felt bad, but I’m not sorry for the actions I took that made you feel bad.

    Subtle semantics. Rachel Maddow was not the least bit misleading, though it is always best to show an entire quote, I’ll give you that.

    1. Bullshit. If Maddow wasn’t lying, why didn’t she just play the whole clip? Why play just half of it and leave out the key line? She didn’t play it becuase she knows and you, if you were honest know, that saying “I hesitate to say” is not saying “he is”.

      1. Like I said, I’d have preferred she show the entire quote. It’s sloppy, not dishonest.

        1. No, it’s dishonest. Sloppy is forgetting a date, or getting it slightly wrong. Leaving off crucial parts of a quote that dramatically changes the point of the story is dishonesty through journalism 101.

    2. “The “I’d hesitate to say…” phrase is a way of saying something whilst maintaining plausible deniability about having said it.”

      Douche much?

  23. Every single person who works for MSNBC is a teabaggee bitch.

    1. And half the married people.

  24. Looks like Corzine is going down in NJ too. But remember, this wasn’t a referendum on Obama. Olberman screamed me so.

  25. Anybody have a roundup of the election results? I have to go out for a while and can’t dig around to find out.

    Please please please tell me Bloomberg lost.

    1. I can’t believe I use to not hate that guy.

      1. Dude, I voted for him over David Green. Last time I ever voted, for good reason.

    2. Bloomberg lost.

      [not actually true]

      1. Mother fucker. The bastard got his third term. Damn it.

        1. Mayor for life. Get used to it.

  26. Here’s da thing.

    In the glorious 90’s calling Clinton a communist got you deserved smirks. He was a fiscally conservative, moderate governor from a Southern state who even supported a capital gains cut, NAFTA, told a group of business men that raising taxes in ’93 went too far and hurt some businesses, and upheld a moratorium on state taxation on the internet. Except that small matter left up to Hillary, Clinton was only scary to those who wanted to be scared, and oh yeah, he had little control over the law enforcement bureaucracy at the time. Being an incubator for LEO fascism though made him no different from Reagan, and the Bush duo.

    So, Democrats could rightly scoff at claims he was a commie.

    Now, no way. You don’t get the free ticket to ride, because Socialism, Communism, From-each-according-to-his-means-ism is no longer hyperbole.

    You have lost any claims to moderation with TARP, ?berTarp (the president cast the deciding vote on the board on whether to let Chrysler die for fucks sake), Porkulus, cap(tive)trade and what ever you have planned for the medical industry.

    It doesn’t seem to phase you that hundreds of billions of dollars are being thrown at mere notions. The public option is going to lower cost by adding competition to the insurance industry. That is a notion. You don’t throw huge chunks of the public money around to fund notions and still get to claim any sense of moderation.

    You are no longer the moderates, Democrats. We libertarians are.

    1. Look, you have every right to be mad about bailouts–and the fact that responding to a near depression was necessary at all. The bailouts haven’t been as efficiently focused as they could be.

      But the enemy here is not red communism. That kind of talk is ridiculous. It makes you seem like you’re 80 and reliving the cold war. The enemy is corporate power.

      But giving them the keys to the treasury is just part of the problem. The other part is morons who’ve been convinced by the same interests that their real problem is liberals and commies. So not only can’t effective reform be done because of entrenched corporate powers, the very people who should be holding the pitchforks against corporate power are their very own unwitting dupes, just as you always have been.

      1. And if we just elect the right people, corporate power will magically be replaced with benevolent government power. Which nobody would ever be able to influence. Because the right people would be uncorruptible saints.

        1. We’ll never have the right people without the right policies, most importantly banning private funding of elections. Then again, we’ll never get the right policies without the right people.

          1. So, I shouldn’t be able to donate to a candidate? That’s a “private donation”, Tony.

          2. We’ll never have the right people without the right policies, most importantly banning private funding of elections.

            I suppose that leaves us with publicly funded elections. Are you going to fund all comers? No, of course not. That leaves us with the inevitability of a government body holding the purse strings and judging the fund-worthiness of all potential candidates. I’m sure that will end well.

      2. But the enemy here is not red communism. That kind of talk is ridiculous. It makes you seem like you’re 80 and reliving the cold war.

        You sound like you believe Francis Fukuyama was right when he declared the end of history. I feel that is nonsense. History did not come crashing down with the Berlin Wall. Ideas that were in play then are still in play now.

        Strategies may change, as Robert Heilbroner made clear in his essay advising Reds to go Green, for one example, but the battlefield is still there.

        As for what I wrote, read carefully, my immoderate friend, claims of socialism in the current political climate where extremist like Nancy Pelosi reign supreme is no longer hyperbolic.

        To accurately access what is going on you have to include the goals of socialist as one huge factor in the contentions on the political battle field.

        Sure, corporatism is key to what is fucked up in America. However, it comes in two not necessarily competing stripes. One is the tradition of rent seeking from those who benefit from graft, like George W Bush when he was a booster for a publicly financed football stadium in his first foray into politics.

        The other form comes from the progressive who is quite aware of the economic effects of his core policies, who attempts to marginalize those effects by creating cartels of favored interest.

        Now, do you oppose both of these forms, and support the only alternative, the free market?

        1. To accurately access what is going on you have to include the goals of socialist

          Ha! I was wondering where homonyms and slant rhyming words would trip me up today. Frankly, it made me nervous that none were apparent until now.

          FTR, assess 4 access.

      3. So not only can’t effective reform be done because of entrenched corporate powers, the very people who should be holding the pitchforks against corporate power are their very own unwitting dupes, just as you always have been.

        BTW, I have never been any one’s fool, and my obstinate nature in that regard has cost me tons of money over the years that I would still give the finger if proffered. So take that attitude you are more morally based than I am up the pipe and smoke it, buddyboy.

        1. It’s the progressives who are the fools for thinking that if the government regulates corporations more tightly, that the advance of corporatism will be waylaid.

          It will not. It will only bind corporations more closely to the state.

          The current health care bill is a case in point. The state forces insurance companies to take patients with pre-existing conditions. In exchange, the insurance companies get a new captive market. The more-regulated insurance companies become government-micromanaged oligopolies. A few giant corporations end up dominating the market under government-protected and subsidized status.

          I

    2. “You are no longer the moderates, Democrats *and Republicans*. We libertarians are.”
      Fixed that for you. Remember who started the bailouts.

      1. No, no, no. Wasn’t a typo. That was a crucial part of the strategy to relegate Republicans to junior partner status for now until the current crises passes, and we can get on with duty of putting the Republicans up against the wall after they bury the Democrats for us.

  27. Anybody have a roundup of the election results?

    One and done.

  28. At the time of this post, Olbermann is talking about baseball history. I hope he’s done soon.I live for his kisses.

  29. An unexpected graphic from the VA governor’s race, a sea of red counties in a state Obama won:

    http://www.politico.com/election/2009/maps/#/VA

    Hopefully these results will cause enough Blue Dog Democrats in the Senate to reconsider supporting the government takeover of the half of health care not currently directly run by the government.

    Hope you can believe in!

  30. A prophecy of tomorrow’s MSM talking points:

    This wasn’t a referendum on Obama.

    FreedomWorks bused rednecks to polling centers in VA and NJ to inflate the Republican vote totals.

    Ha ha, Palin’s candidate in NY lost!

  31. Most wide-eyed true-believer libertarians and their propagandist gurus (pace Jesse walker) wouldn’t know a Marxist from a pile of iguana shit.

    1. Wearing pictures of actual Marxists on your shirt seems to be a dead giveaway, though.

      1. People who carry around books by Kant don’t necessarily understand Kant. Libertarians who read Ayn Rand have sore lips and don’t necessarily understand her. (Normal people who do puke.)

  32. Edward, I’m working on a neural network right now, and after I finish this one, I’m going to build one to analyze your comments and figure out why you’re such a colossal dipshit.

    1. I’ll give you a hint, Episiarch. From your point of view, I didn’t swallow the Kool-Aid. Think infidel, you fucking little altar boy.

      1. I can see you snarling and squirming in your Depends as you type, Edward. You should really have yourself checked to see if you have the Rage virus. There may be a more nefarious reason that mommy won’t let you out of the basement.

        1. Dominus vobiscum.

          1. Huffing glue again, I see. Did you eat the cat food and the beer too?

  33. Doug Hoffman concedes.

    How…embarrassing. What a backfire.

    Conservatives have the brains of reptiles. The philosophy really attracts the most unimaginative, rigid thinking individuals. They never learn. It’s like throwing a bunch of shit at a wall, and hoping that some of it sticks.

    Regardless of small victories here, and there by Conservatives, society keeps becoming more, and more socially liberal with each generation. The cats out of the bag. Conservatism is a losing battle. The only chance is to moderate.

    This is what happens when you get greedy.

    1. Yes, it is SOOOO embarrassing for a third-party candidate to get over 45% of the votes, and prevent the winning candidate from getting a plurality, with the swing votes coming from the 5-6% of the electorate that were too stupid to realize that they were voting for someone who had dropped out of the race.

      This is totally going to discourage other third-party candidates from running against near-clones from the two flavors of the Government Party.

      Totally.

      /sarcasm

      1. S/B “getting a majority”, not “getting a plurality”. Preview!

    2. Yes, and right-wing libertarians have the brains of amoebas.

  34. Also, allow me cackle at the idea of Libertarians being moderates.

    No one’s buying that bullshit. You speak the language of brain-dead teabaggers.

    Your focus is on taxes. You’ll sell out socially liberal policies for a fucking tax break. Your only value to the world is being nice targets for practice, and damn is it easy. It’s like running up the score in a blowout.

    More importantly, it’s what happens when you don’t have the ability to address nuance. You are made vulnerable by the rigid nature of your ideology.

    1. Where did all the insights come from? This idiotic blog is mnostly an echo chamber. Finally, other sentient beings join the fray to say the truth–right-wing libertarianism is the cesspool of American politics.

    2. Nope, we libertarians are the New Center.

      You statist will have to get use to it. You just overshot your wad over the last ten months and it will take at least a generation to get back to Clinton Country, you fools.

      If you are ever curious what the moderate, and politically objective since it coming from the center and not the wing tips, approach to any policy going forward is, from this point on, you can just ask me, and if I give enough of a shit on that given day, I might actually fill you in.

    3. You sound like a fucking socialist retard.

  35. Edward, stop talking to yourself. It’s way too Norman Bates-ish.

  36. Go fuck yourself, Episiarch. The act will be wittier than anything you can say.

  37. But I’m having so much fun fucking with you, Eddie.

    1. Fnatasies about fucking with me are on a par with your fantasies about Libertopia, asswipe. Enjoy.

      1. Oh, I am, Eddie. It livens up my neural network research. Say, are you so angry because being a massive choad is painful? That would explain a lot.

  38. Morris, I used to frequent his site for around 7 years, and my mind was open. I soon learned that Libertarianism is a rigid ideology for socially retarded IT guys, and sociopathic lawyers/money geeks.

    You wouldn’t believe how many of them have attempted to argue that the free market should have been allowed to end slavery. I shit you not.

    It’s even infiltrated the online skeptical communities, and other dilettante communities that favor simplistic rubrics for cranky old white men.

    I learned that since Libertarians have no interest in arguing in good faith the only reasonable option is to mock them, in hopes that any vulnerable bystanders might get the picture.

    This site has always been characterized by rampant negativity, irrationality, and an overall sense of cruelty. I don’t know how these twats get through their day, if they even have a day to get through.

    I imagine that many of them are unemployed, and using their time to to pick on others as a scapegoat for their frustrations. It’s a perfect human analog for a Baboon society.

    Since many of them have unjustified egos, and are not used to contradiction, they don’t handle slurs very well. Their lack of self-confidence immediately becomes evident.

    Also, expect them to constantly tell you that you are an intellectual nit-wit, and that you are probably the same person under a different screen-name.

    Other than that, have fun with them.

    1. Insanity seems less fun now.

  39. “This is totally going to discourage other third-party candidates from running against near-clones from the two flavors of the Government Party.”

    Oh, of course, Ron “The Race Baiter” Paul for president! Whatever lessens the blow sweetheart.

    It’s not shocking that with such massive Democratic control that certain elections will see Republicans gain. It’s standard American politics. However, the most important race, in terms of assessing the mood, was in N.Y. Conservatives got a Democrat elected for the first time in over a century! That’s an outstanding backfire. It’s comical.

    It also sends the message that people who look like pedophiles need not apply.

    Republicans may have not have too much to be sad about, but it’s a clear message that third party extremists like Conservatives/Libertarians are not relevant. Even if they gain temporarily, the world is not shifting that way overall.

    What matter is how the Democrats have immediately gained. But, you guys are used to losing, so of course you’ll rationalize it. Rationalizing defeat, and being irrelevant is what Libertarians do best.

    This script was being recited during the Presidential campaign, and look how that turned out. Get a clue. You’re bluffers.

    1. “Markets Are Magical”…one class act!

    2. What the fuck do “race baiting” and Ron Paul have to do with each other?

      My God, the stupidity never ends with these people.

  40. “Oh, I am, Eddie. It livens up my neural network research. Say, are you so angry because being a massive choad is painful? That would explain a lot.”

    Obviously, witty retorts are not your specialty.

  41. You posting under two handles isn’t fooling anyone, Eddie, and frankly, it’s creepy. But seeing as that’s what you’re reduced to…enjoy.

  42. Wait, now we’re three different people?

    Look, don’t worry about fake screen-names. Your delusion doesn’t work on us.

    Take your beating like a real geek.

  43. Nah, Violence is Magical is a different guy than Eddie. The righting style is different.

    I don’t recall Eddie stringing together more than 4 sentences ever. The State is Magical, on the other hand, managed it several times in this thread.

    But, otherwise… boy are they alike. The claims to be done with this site. The utopian belief that the right guys point guns at people and threaten them the right way that society will be magically improved, the weird hatreds…

    I think what we are seeing here is two soul-mates discovering each other.

    It’s actually kind of sweet.

    1. Crap! Writing style. Fucking homonyms!

      1. How about wrighting style for another? 😉

  44. I’m totally straight….but that Madow is a handsome man….

  45. Michael C. Moynihan – Where did this little partisan whore come from? Let’s dispense with the moral equivalency and the un-“reason”-able reasoning, shall we? Is there a way to purge Moynihan from my browser?

  46. Ray Butlers – Where did this little partisan whore come from? Let’s dispense with the moral equivalency and the un-“reason”-able reasoning, shall we? Is there a way to purge Butlers from my browser?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.