About some people in the blogosphere is that they are consistent. Like, for example, The Editors (whose name is public but I will not use since the victim card is such a choice weapon for lunatics), who even when it seems I agree with him, he remains a total and unequivocable asshole.
Not sure what I did to earn this latest personal salvo from the Editors (maybe he is on vacation or in between jobs and has too much time on his hands), but remember who you are dealing with the next time you run around gleefully quoting the Editors- nothing more than a small-minded punk with a mean streak a mile wide and a few cute cat pictures.
BTW- thanks for the traffic. Maybe I can earn a wanker of the day award and really please my masters at PJ Media.
Andrew
Well, a childhood mauling by Barbara Streisand does seem to be the most plausible reason for voting for Bush twice. That, or a fair amount of General Stupidity.
John Cole
You are about enough of a jackass that I might consider voting for him a third time just to piss twerps like you off.
Punchy
The mind boggles…
You…trash…the Republicans…and a liberal web site…trashes you…for trashing Republicans…should I now start driving on the left side of the road, since everything else seems so backassward?
And this:
At least he gave you an “A”. He could have been a REAL asshole and gave you a B+ instead. So at least you have that going for ya.
Pooh
Is Richard Bottoms “The Editors?”
norbizness
But I thought we were blaming a Democratic Underground commenter in 2002 if you didn’t actively vote against authoritarian Republican candidates in the next election.
ImJohnGalt
Wait, you mean the Poorman isn’t funny like Goldstein is?
I’m going to have to recalibrate. Damn! I thought I had it down. Granted, the Poorman Editors didn’t tell you they wanted to cockslap you, but
John, you’ve been made part of a narrative over there – don’t sweat it. I don’t think it’s fair, and the “reliably insane” thing has me more than puzzled. I can only assume it’s because they care that they called you out. It’s not like it’s been a bunch of slow newsdays over there. I’m betting, however, that you’re one of the few self-identified “former” Republicans that actually called the stupidity what it was from the start, and they needed one of those to fill the blank in their story.
Just put up a video of Rockwell’s “Somebody’s Watching Me” and perhaps they’ll retreat to their border.
DJA
You are about enough of a jackass that I might consider voting for him a third time just to piss twerps like you off.
Thanks for confirming exactly what we all suspected — that for you, the politics of personal pique trump actual politics every time.
David
I would like to apologize for that post, on behalf of liberals, human beings, and, hell, mammals and bipeds in general. I’d say more but I’m still boggling at the underlying “logic.”
Rob
OK I have no idea what he was talking about. Why the heck did he go off on you when you agreed with him. He could have waited a week for you to disagree with something, and then attacked.
Nutcutter
Another opportunity to say, your loyal fans can show their appreciation by clicking on the “donate” buttons to the right. That’s what I do, and I urge all BJers to do the same. Support your favorite blog.
That goes for you too, Darrell.
norbizness
Show your PJM card for 15% off expired waffles at Denny’s.
dagon
actually cole,
i’m not familiar at all with this ‘editor’ guy but he seems to be posing some interesting if not valid ideas about what exactly fuels your political hamster wheel.
you’re catching on but the point is that you’re only NOW catching on. and as long you continue to appear to be just as easily distracted by things like the next cindy sheehan appearance as the zombies in george romero’s land of the dead were by ‘sky flowers’ while the human invaders mowed them down, you’re going to continue to get some heat.
the zombies wised up…they decided they’d had enough and fought back. maybe you will too. but simply acknowledging the situation is not enough; particularly in your case and that i think is the point.
peace
Andrew
Zombies are a good analogy.
The question is, what do the undead/Republicans want? Surely not “BRAAAAINNNSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!”
capelza
dagon…I have to defend JC (apart from his Cindy Sheehan fixation…). I started coming here A YEAR AGO because John was a interestng voice for reason on the right side. Shrill even, in the best way.
Jesus Christ…you call him basically a marching moron for the right (some of you do..) and yet demand he become a marching moron for the left..nothing else will do.
Yeah, that was random… whatever.
Jack Roy
Yeah, that really beats me. The best reason I can come up with is his on-going spat with you led to perhaps the Editors’ single best tangent (about singing “enormous, mendacious, disembodied anus” to the tune of Kokomo) and he didn’t want to give up the storyline.
Seriously, I like reading both of you and think you’re both pretty sensible—I have no idea what’s behind this. Quite mysterious.
Perry Como
Hrm. Time to troll The Editors?
It amazes me that they choose to attack Mr. Cole on a post that he obviously agrees with The Editors’ position. A better use of blogospheric wankery would be to attack him on a position that is Republican and Mr. Cole is defending (rare these days).
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war?
dagon
capeiza
“Jesus Christ…you call him basically a marching moron for the right (some of you do..) and yet demand he become a marching moron for the left..nothing else will do.”
–that’s not what i’m saying at all but do you want to have an argument that he hasn’t been a marching moron (your words) for the right in the past?
and this aint a right v. left thing for me. i don’t roll that way. what these clowns are up to transcends partisanship and i happen to think that it’s a big enough deal that ALL citizens should be pissed off enough to march on washington with pitchforks and torches.
like i said, cole’s coming around…but don’t expect me to give him or anyone else a complete pass for finally getting to where most rational people were 5 years ago.
peace
DougJ
“Reliably insane”? That’s certainly how would I describe John. Occassionally insane, maybe, but aren’t we all?
DougJ
Meant to say “that’s certainly not how I would describe John”.
VidaLoca
but in the context of blogsylvania, exactly what does “fought back” mean? It’s all words. Now, words make a difference. But “The Editors” isn’t bringing the harshness because John was affirming some idiotic position/tactic of the right wing. Nor is it because John was doing some kind of centrist “on the one hand/but on the other hand” equivocation either. As I read it John was calling them on their shit — and “The Editors” is unhappy because he used the word “seems” rather than “are”.
So TE are now abitrating who’s “fighting back” hard enough?
Hell with that. Down that road lies sectarianism and infighting that won’t do a damn bit of good to anyone but the people who seem/are/whatever to be screwing us so royally.
SeesThroughIt
Good call–and I still don’t understand the logic that says, “You may intensely dislike the current batch of Republicans, but unless you move as far to the left as possible, you’re just a GOP shill!” Makes no damn sense to me. John’s got buyer’s remorse about Bush, and as he surveys the scene, he doesn’t see much that he likes regardless of party. Makes perfect sense to me, but this concept that he must completely switch sides and become a hardcore liberal seems pretty stupid.
Steve
Judging by the comments on that post, it seems John has driven up the other guy’s traffic, rather than the reverse.
I don’t think The Editors wrote anything different than what some of some of the commentors reliably serve up to John here. You regulars know how it works – no flame directed at Republicans is harsh enough, John never quite works off the entire penance he earned by voting for Bush. “You got us into this mess,” the commentariat says, “you own it!”
It’s a little perplexing to this mere mortal, mind you, but I’m surprised John isn’t more used to it at this point. Republicans are happy to accept an ex-Democrat, but the Democrats never quite lose their suspicion of an ex-Republican.
DougJ
I can hardly tell John’s posts from Tim F’s anymore. I can’t even bring myself to bait him because there’s so little I find objectionable in his posts.
mrmobi
John, aside from your Cindy Sheehan fixation, I think you are as normal as the next guy, with the possible exception of Gruppenführer Darrell. He’s extra normal.
I also started coming here about a year ago, largely because visiting some liberal blogs feels pretty self-congratulatory and ingrown. Your principled stand on torture and your support of science over dogma is what continues to draw me here. I completely don’t get the editors outrage at you for basically agreeing with their position.
I think it’s something in the water, or the End Times.
Perry Como
Just using the comments section as a measure, Scrutator has more traffic than they do. I guess their bout with Atrios and the worst video thing made them decide they needed more viewers.
Steve
I actually think The Editors is one of the more hilarious guys in the blogosphere, when he’s on point, but he got married and posts so infrequently now that the site is pretty pointless. On the rare occasions when he does post a winner you can always count on Atrios or someone to link to it anyhow.
I don’t know how funny this post is but it remains one of my favorites for some unknown reason.
Justin Slotman
The Editors pretty much admitted he was hoping John would explode on him. Sadly, John does not feel like pro wrestling today.
Ryan S.
Unfortunatly this is what happens when someone tries to walk the moderate line. You end up getting it from both sides, for no good reason. Because they are both blinded by their own prejustices, and in terms of this particular case, your ‘Johnny come lately status’ (bad pun I know).
The Other Steve
Ohwell, it’s always easy to make an argument for “I told you so.”
I guess I don’t read the poorman site much, so i don’t really care. Just like I don’t care about Cockslap goldstein.
Kimmitt
I like this site, but the Editors’ post is very much in the spirit of how I feel. On the one hand, hey, thanks for coming on board. Breakroom’s behind the pillar, and we go out on Thursdays for beers. On the other hand, Jeebus you must really dislike people like me to have taken so long to catch on — and what’s with being on the payroll anyways?
It’s the ambiguity that keeps me coming back to the site. Ambiguity is fun.
dagon
what kimmitt said
peace
dagon
T.O.S.
truthfully? it’s not easy at all. i’ve had to suffer through so much double-speak, up is down denial of tangible reality over the last few years that i feared for my sanity.
keeping with the sci-fi movie theme, the lone man running crazed through the streets at the end of ‘invasion of the body snatchers’ comes close to describing how i felt and still do feel; particularly when people still seem much more inclined to obsess about men kissing and star jones’ future than they are to have an honest discussion on the state of our nation.
there’s nothing easy about it.
peace
les
Distinguish: reliably v. constant.
Punchy
Done.
Par R
While I’m not familiar with “the editors” blog, I think that I read somewhere that the proprietor is an ex-lover of Andrew Sullivan. If true, that might explain the bi-polar kind of reaction you’ve described….another twit that can’t maintain a consistent train of thought much longer than a week.
capelza
You just had to that didn’t you? :P
radish
Yeah John, this is clearly a solemn and deliberate insult and laughing it off would just be wrong. See, the Editors has obviously been driven insane with jealousy cause of your commenters’ your amazing ability to crank out mordantly cynical humour all the time. He doesn’t know how they you do it, day in and day out, with only the occasional break, pouring the sweet syrup of humour over what would otherwise be remains heartbreaking tragedy, and yet remaining cool, reserved and (sometimes even) tasteful. Riding at dumb-teenager-in-a-stolen-vette speed along that razor’s edge between old-timer insight and juvenile stupidity.
Plus that kitten thing, imagine how embarassing it must be to be known mostly for your devastating pootie pictures…
Seriously, you do know that you have a pretty predictable fuse, right? ;-)
Tim F.
So this tweety guy is trolling. That’s the word for it, right? I’m new to these internets.
radish
sigh…
Steve
There’s another important point to be made on the merits.
Well, if you believe that’s how all politics works, then you might as well believe that the Democratic Party is in the firm control of Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink, which obviously isn’t close to being true.
If you want to argue that the Republican Party is beholden to an extremist agenda, you have to actually look at their actions and see if they fit what the “150 screaming nutbags” want them to do. Terri Schiavo. Jerry Falwell getting consulted on Supreme Court nominations. A Supreme Court nominee getting WITHDRAWN because James Dobson isn’t convinced she’s conservative enough. That’s the framework of a pretty good case. Not some kind of blanket statement that politicians always do whatever the loudest activists want them to, cause that’s not actually true.
It’s worth noting, by the way, the respects in which the Republicans haven’t actually gone along with the extremist base. You may see angry rhetoric from Tony Snow concerning the New York Times, after all, but you haven’t seen an actual criminal prosecution like the extremists want. I could give more examples. The fact is that, at least in theory, this party could get a lot loopier.
Perry Como
fwiw, trolling the “left” is just as easy as trolling the “right”.
Steve
Am I missing your point, Tim, or are you getting The Editors confused with Sifu Tweety, his co-blogger? That would be astoundingly ironic.
Pooh
There’s a certain symmetrical perfection to that, I feel.
tzs
…must have been a slow news day….
Could be worse–considering what the dead-tree-media considers “normal” coverage at present, I’m dreading to see what they pull out for Silly Season 2006.
Yeah, it’s ALL election, ALL the time.
OK–here’s my slogan, then:
Bring back Metternich!
Punchy
It’s all about the tubes, man. The tubes
Pooh
Sadly, not:
This story is terrible enough – being subjected to the inevitable round of “Muslim = Bad” (or worse) from certain quarters is going to make following it unbearable
Perry Como
Steve Says:
Just look at I-support-government-controlled-press-Darrell. You know, Bush’s base.
Punchy Says:
THE TUBES!
Oh how I hate politicians.
Krista
I think John just relishes being cranky. He voted for a complete douche, regrets it, and now has various people either rubbing his nose in it like he’s an incontinent puppy, or alternatively, telling him that he hasn’t changed his entire political worldview enough to suit them. No wonder he occasionally gets mulish.
SeesThroughIt
People who still do support Bush honestly believe this. Really.
Steve
I’m not sure what the point is of having a blog if you can’t get a little irascible with people. Not everyone can be Kevin Drum.
ImJohnGalt
I’m betting that Massengill’s would like to distance themselves from that metaphor, Krista.
Whenever I see someone write “Sadly, Not” in a thread, I half expect to see the Braditors or Gavin M show up in the thread to say something irreverent or something in Estonian (to do both would be the exacta). I guess they don’t have the time that Goldstein does to google every variant of their name and to then respond at super-speed with a cock-slappingly funny rejoinder. Perhaps they should hire somebody to do it (as long as it isn’t an illegal immigrant).
Tim F.
Yikes, yes I did. Stangely I never paid enough attention to the site to know that they were two different people.
Pooh
Yeah. It makes more sense when you realise that this
Is the rough equivalent of
Your father works very hard kids, all he wants when he comes home is to have a warm dinner and a cold beer in peace. Is that so wrong?
Richard Bottoms
>Is Richard Bottoms “The Editors?”
I have been an editor.
My premise for posting is that John’s conversion is too little, way too late.
When history is written about the period of 1984-2008 George Bush will be spoken of as a pigheaded, foolish purveyor of torture, destruction, and fiscal insanity.
The people who put him office, like John will be seen as collaborators in the disappearing of citizens from around the world into a secret Gulag used to exact revenge for 9/11. Enablers, who seeing the writing on the wall are making a bid for some sort of posterity that doesn’t leave them compared to thugs like Marcos.
Even now he fails to see how remarks like this only validate the notion that this is all theater and not a real effort to end the fiscal and spritual nightmare of GOP control of government. That liberals are so irritating in their refusal to offer the slightest bit of sympathy for pundits who now regret supporting torturers as leaders of the free world still drives him up the wall.
People like John know that the debt this administration has heaped on future generations is unconsionable.
They know that the deaths of 2500 soldiers and the maiming 20,000 more, not to mention the rape, murder, and destruction ravaging Iraq is all their fault.
And that some of us remind them of it every damn day.
Shall we cease to darken John Cole’s door?
Quote the Raven, “Nevermore.”
Krista
Are we there yet?
Justin Slotman
I have to go potty!
Richard Bottoms
What’s your point?
Krista
John, Pooh keeps putting his foot on my side! Make him stop!
Pooh
Krista pinched me first…
Steve
My point is that this is extremely standard stuff. That doesn’t mean I disagree with what you’ve said.
Tim, I hope you find this as funny as I do.
ImJohnGalt
Now, it’s been quite a while (I’ve been at the Calgary Stampede for the last week, so I may have missed something) since John has reiterated his stance on the Iraq War, but it’s my sense that the decision to refocus the military effort from Afghanistan to Iraq is one of the few decisions of this administration that he still *does* support.
Now, he may have something to say about the prosecution of that effort (or not, he can speak for himself), but as far as I recall, he is a supporter of the decision.
Personally, I don’t think you should be allowed to distance yourself from the effects of the invasion if you supported the decision to go there in the first place. It wasn’t like you didn’t have several failed companies and a history of cowardice and corruption [koff] Nixon/Contra/Vietnam [koff] upon which to judge the competency and character of this administration. One with a more objective viewpoint might have been a bit more skeptical about how it might’ve all turned out.
And yes, I do also think the Democrats should be held accountable, even if they thought they were not voting for the actual invasion. How stupid do you have to have been not to see how the President was going to abuse that vote?
radish
Maybe we should give him some alone time with mom too…
Krista
Yeah, kind of funny how that happens…
demimondian
Steve:
Richard Bottoms:
Well, I don’t know what his point is, Richard, but you certainly don’t make me feel welcome among the Democrats, and I’ve been a member of the party since I first registered to vote. Remember that the left’s star is in ascendance now, but I’ll still be voiting twenty years from now when the kooks have taken over the left.
Tim F.
Funnier than you know. I pinched him for calling me John in a recent post, so no wonder he thought I was being a douche when I called him sifu earlier. Come to think of it, laid out like that it’s funnier than I meant it to be. Heh heh, if I wasn’t so testy in my first reply I would be tempted to change it back.
demimondian
Krista. Pooh. This is going to stop. Now. Or the car is going to stop. Now. Your choice, guys — which one?
Richard Bottoms
This is the point of their post and what they are trying to impart to JC.
Darrell
So in response to a post in which John Cole slammed the right wing, leftist response is to single him out, calling him a “grade-A loon” who is “reliably insane”. Brilliant.. and so rational. Congrats libs
Tim F.
Me:
Link.
Pooh
You’re not my daddy…even if you do wear the evil Redmond decoder ring…
Darrell
Except that John Cole’s post which was the subject of such harsh criticism didn’t have a fucking thing to do with his position on the Iraq war. Cole was slamming those on the right who were criticizing the NY Times over ‘outing’ the vacation homes of Rumsfeld and Cheney. That post is what he is being grilled on. If you weren’t such a typical irrational leftist, you would see this.
demimondian
So, which am I supposed to do now: throw a chair, or threaten to cut off your air supply?
[Funny story. A few weeks ago, my already crowded schedule was added to by needing to run an errand to pick up a child on my middle son’s baseball team. The child was being kind of unpleasant about the weather, and I merely said something to the effect of “At least you have a ride to the game” in a very soft and level voice. My middle son leaned over to his teammate and said “Um, [name]? That’s my dad’s _this will stop immediately_ voice. You really need to stop. Now.”]
Richard Bottoms
Tough titty.
The fag bashing GOP had JC’s support right up to the point of the Terry Schiavo incident. That he is disgusted by them now cuts no ice with me.
Some of us are through bringing knives to a gun fight. We’ve heard the same crap for years about how the ultra-left are such a problem and if they would only go away John Cole and others like him can finally support Democrats. Total bullshit.
The right is funded by millionaires, billionaires even who build entire TV networks and start newspapers like the Washington Times to blast their message. So Jesse Jackson extorts a few dollars from GM, who fucking cares.
I wouldn’t vote for Jesus Christ if he were a Republican, because their party works against the intersts of my gay relatives and mymilitary cohorts who bear the burden of fighting this stupid war and the one coming up after it.
This is a 1% world. It looks like the 1% have finally seen the light, that torturers and thugs run all three branches of government and that our only hope is to throw them out.
When Cindy Sheehan is elected senator someplace or Jesse Jackson starts up the next Fox News I’ll give a shit what they have to say, until then I have other things to worry about: like people who call for the execution of newspaper reporters while still keeping their pundit status on network television along with some influece about government policy.
ImJohnGalt
Darrell, of course you’re correct. I was digressing, and responding in a way that wasn’t altogether clear to Richard Bottoms post.
Pardon my free-association.
Punchy
If still true in 2006…after 2500+ Americans dead…wow.
dagon
punchy
–exactly…WOW!
peace
tBone
Might want to wander over and actually read that thread, Darrell. Or this one, for that matter. Take particular note of how many of the hated leftists are defending John. Oh, how kooky and irrational they are!
Richard Bottoms
No, he is being grilled on not yet realizing that the theocratic loons, backed by millionaires with influnce and access, run the GOP now.
That there is a qualitative difference between a grieving mother with 15 minutes of fame and people like Jerry Fallwell who get consulted on who goes on the Supreme Court.
Our nuts get a little air time now and then and maybe some hush money to stop being bothersome.
Their nuts RUN THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT.
Josh
The Editors are being a tad unfair, it seems. However:
remember who you are dealing with the next time you run around gleefully quoting
the EditorsProtein Wisdom- nothing more than a small-minded punk with a mean streak a mile wide and a fewcute cat pictureslame dick jokes.Pooh
Exactly how is this drive-by, non-sequitor supposed to be wounding? Even by the comically low Senatorial bar, this is pretty pathetic stuff, D.
Are you so disillusioned that you do this out of contractual obligatation rather than commitment at this point? Please, try harder.
The Other Steve
But you’ll also notice…
nobody is defending Darrell
If the govt were going to hang him for treason, he’d whine about them not using a new rope.
ImJohnGalt
I for one am shocked that John thinks that the extra traffic afforded to him by the Editors’ post might win him a Wanker of the Day Award. Doesn’t he talk to his sources before writing drivel like this? Clearly, the Wanker of the Day award is an Atrios-bestowed award.
Now, perhaps Kip Winger will drop by to drop a little “Time To Surrender” on you, or if you’re lucky you’ll win a Palme d’Hair, but really, it’s like not knowing the difference between an Emmy and an Oscar. Actually, it’s more like not knowing the difference between a Clio and a Dora.
Now, if only this misstatement were proof of something, I could feel like Encyclopedia Brown.
Steve
That’s not the punch line I was expecting. I thought you were going to make an argument for privatization.
Par R
Don’t know a thing about Richard Buttoms beyond what he’s posted here…however, anybody that says this..
…has got to be one great big poopyhead.
Bas-O-Matic
Am I missing your point, Tim, or are you getting The Editors confused with Sifu Tweety, his co-blogger? That would be astoundingly ironic.
Damn. I was going to angrily denounce John for mixing up their names.
Andrew
Come on, it’s not like an elitist university professor knows any of the kind of people who sacrifice their lives in Bush’s war.
SeesThroughIt
Krista and Pooh: I take it you must be proficient at the classic sibling antagonism known as “I’m not touching you!”
For the uninitiated: When told, “Don’t touch your sister/brother!” You take your hand, place it in front of said sibling’s face just a hair’s width from making actual physical contact, then wave it around, declaring, “I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you!” the whole time. Annoying as crap, but still obeying the non-touching dictum. Ah, memories.
capelza
I’m the good kid who just counts Volkswagons I see on the highway…(and draw awful picutres of my sibling and show THAT to the little bastard…it’s silent, Dad can’t hear me antagonise the living hell out of them, only them freaking out. “Oh, look, another VW!!!!!”.
matt
Actually, I think the idea was that voting for Bush in 2000, then realizing that the guy is basically out to destroy American values, then voting for him again, then realizing even more that Bush is no good for the country, then… offering to vote for him a third time… just to piss off the left is basically what your comment describes.
Being a “marching moron” for nobody would entail either having not voted for Bush in 04, or withholding one’s vote for a Republican — one who’s been on-board with all the devastation he’s caused — at some point. JC seems to fail this test.
My favorite one is where the fundies claim that the Democratic Party is funded by millions of dollars skimmed off of hapless women by the evil abortionist lobby. But Code Pink’s control of the Democrats is a pretty close second in terms of sheer stupidity.
Punchy
OUCH. I’m thinking Mr. Cole just crossed you off his Christmas list for that stinger.
Here’s some hilarious OT (from Thinkprogress)
Salaries of WH staff:
What the hell is the DLL? Not to mention, the Fact Checker is making less than half of all these other clowns. Anyone surprised?
Richard Bottoms
Oh snap!
John Cole
You stupid little pricks don’t even know anything about me, do you? you don;t know anything about my past, you don;t know anything about who my friends are, you don;t know anything about what students I have had, yet you feel content to make insulting and asinine remarks about me.
And richard, I have had enough of you. Go back to Eschaton.
LITBMueller
No. They don’t. Its one thing to attack John for his voting record, but this part of the “Cole sucks” argument is just lame.
There are two parts to today’s GOP: the raving religious loonie who honestly think they are the voice of the party and that the people they elect actually will do their bidding; and the big fat rich Repiblicans who run the party, from within and without (they often look like Jabba the Hutt, like Hastert).
The “conservatives” that are really running this country are only interested in “conserving” one thing – their own power. The religious nutbags are just a useful tool they have cultivated and use at every election (aka, The Base). The Base gets stoked, promises are made, votes are held, rallies are formed…but what changes? Not a hell of a lot. Sure, we get the occasional Schiavo and flag burning vote to appease The Base, but most of the GOP really couldn’t a flying shit if such measures pass. They just want to make sure the megachurches bus The Base to the polls.
So, Mr. Cole is incorrect when he uses the qualifier “seems.” And, the Editors are WAY off in their perception of the true power behind the GOP. Believe me, if the religious Base started abandoning the GOP in droves, then the party would drop their charade and cultivate another base. In fact, we’ve already seen that begin in terms of the immigration “debate.” The party likely realizes that they need more than just the religious nutjobs – they also need the nativist/elitist/racist nutjobs if they want to have a prayer of keeping both houses.
(P.S.: the same exact thing happens with the Democratic Base, too.)
jg
I think the Editors point is that the old John Cole who used to defend the Bush adminstration is a lot more firey than the John Cole who has resigned himself to voting dem because Bush turned out to not actually be what he was advertised to be. The left wants the firey John Cole. This current guy who trashes the rights position while also throwing a dart at the lefts extremists isn’t helping so much. Basically you have a voice you aren’t fully using. I could be wrong or maybe you just don’t want to be that loud a supporter of the dems side but I think he may have a point and I think the reason you aren’t as firey as you are when you defend the right has a lot to do with the people you feel you would be seen as siding with (Sheehan, Ted Kennedy, etc.) and you’re right because you will be accused of wanting to mrry Sheehan, guarranteed. That’s how the right works.
ImJohnGalt
Every time there is a blogfight, God kills a kitten.
I’m not sure where you’re going with the whole pseudonymity thing, John. An awful lot of the Internets is populated by pseudonymous bloggers – your own writing partner here, for instance. If you think The Editors should use their own name, to what purpose? Do you want to be able to find out his phone number and address? I’m sure that if you e-mailed him, you could probably get his phone number, or at the very least give him yours and have him call you to talk. If not, what in heaven’s name would either give more or less force to his argument if it were written by “Phil McCracken” rather than The Editors.
For me, one of the better things about the Internet is that pseudonymous blogs mean that rarely can someone argue from authority, rather than the content of their arguments (unless you choose to not be pseudonymous, and therefore showcase your credentials).
Are Digby or Billmon’s arguments to be ignored because they don’t use their real names?
I feel badly that The Eds barraged BJ with this unwarranted attack, both on the substance of your argument (which agreed with theirs) and on their characterizations of you (which I need not repeat). But going over there and griping that they use pseudonyms ain’t gonna do much for, well…anyone.
Perry Como
These internets are fun.
Punchy
I see a plural where I’m not sure one belongs. I’m quite sure Mr. Cole has had students–ROTC?–that have gone to Iraq. God knows I have, having taught next to an enormous military base.
Andrew
John, it’s funny how you get so riled up about a tarty little implication that you don’t care about the troops, and yet we hear so little from you about the actual troops; for example, the 1100 who have died since Bush was reelected.
Yeah, vote for Bush again. Spite the liberals.
And for the record, I do know that you served in the army.
ImJohnGalt
That said, if you really want them to engage (and I think that there were quite a few people defending you, including the Sadly No crew [from the west si-yeed, boooyeee]), having in your first post this:
Doesn’t really convey that you want anything other than to state your rebuttal, namecall back, and not actually initiate a conversation about their unwarranted sniping.
jg
Other than changing the subject in the thread I don’t see the point of that either. Very Darrel-like. Very wingnut-ilke also to attack the messanger not on the merits of his argument but on his credibility based on a tangential issue.
norbizness
Unequivocable?
VidaLoca
John,
Sigh… gotta agree with him on this. You gave ’em a jackalope to chase.
ImJohnGalt
Norb, he was jealous of Kathleen over a SN! who I believe coined “unequivable” the other day. No slacker, John. Can be both grumpy and a create a neologism all at the same time.
John Cole
It was more an observation than anything else- I have just noticed that the majority of people who launch pointed attacks at people and offer little else hind behind their ‘anonymity.’ Even when their name is out there, like the Editors.
You want to say nasty things about me- putyour name on it, cowards.
This isn’t an argument in the sense of a debate- no one is going to change their ideas or opinions. It is the Editors being assholes, stirring shit up, and attacking people. Do you think this was really an attempt by the Editors to stimulateconversation? I don;t, so after reading a bunch of the crap they unloaded on me (fun reading how ‘crazy’ you are for 20 minutes), I shot crap back at them. And it was fun, and I will sleep soundly tonight.
SeesThroughIt
Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. It’s also taken as totally true by the same folks who believe Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink run the Democratic show. But it is, in a way, even more awesome because it ratchets up the outrage quotient: “The money you just spent to KILL YOUR BABY will now go directly into the pockets of DEMOCRATS!”
Vladi G
Why do you continue to either miss or ignore the point? This is like a community, John, and most of the posters in this thread are known by their online handles. As I said in the other thread, my identity is no secret, but I wouldn’t expect anyone in here to know who I was if I decided to hurl an insult at you and did it under my given name. In fact, It would be MORE cowardly for me to do such a thing, as it would look like a comment by some drive by troll and not a regular commenter.
Honestly, we all choose a handle when we begin posting. Some use their real names. Others use psuedonyms. But your argument (and it’s made by those who choose their real names all the time on countless blogs) is just about one of the lamest attempts to change the subject employed in internet arguments. It’s really pathetic.
And FWIW, scrolling through this entire thread, you’re essentially saying that everyone here is automatically suspect, except maybe Justin Slotman. Sorry Tim F., Krista, Darrell, et al. First names aren’t enough information. Too anonymous. John thinks you’re all cowards. OK, he’s right about Darrell, but I can’t believe he said that about Tim and Krista.
jg
Yes. After he clarified his point in subsequent posts I do think he was trying to stir a debate. And I think your Darrel-like pseudonym deflection was stupid and made you look bad.
VidaLoca
John,
True that — but since when did a blogwar change anybody’s opinions? That’s not what the internets are about! Furthermore IMO they were backing down; they (he? she?) realized the original position was not that strong.
No, they were taking a fairly stupid position.
Next time aim, dammit! ;) You didn’t do a lot to help the several of us who were trying to stick up for you…
Good. And BTW, good job on the original post that started it all.
Gus
Can’t we all just get along? I love the Poorman, don’t have to agree with everything they say, but they are reliably hilarious. I also like this blog, especially for the beer info. I may even send you a six pack of Summit EPA, nectar of the gods.
John Cole
I am not talking about commenters, Vladi. I am talking about people who run websites and make money off launching nothing but personal attacks on people. Like, for example, the editors.
ImJohnGalt
And even assuming that someone *does* use their real name, how does it change your response to a perceived insult knowing that they used their real name rather than a ‘nym?
“There, I made them call me a fuckwad using the screen name ‘David Jones-Hightower’ rather than NoFatChicks(tm)”
That’s somehow more satisfying?
And no, I didn’t think they said what they said because they wanted a conversation *with you*. However, there were a number of us defending you over there, and I was just a little disappointed that when you did come over there, it was to throw some feces yourself, point out a jackalope, and then leave.
I know you don’t owe your readers anything. Still, I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised and to say, “See? This is the sort of libertarian/paleo-con Democrats should be trying to find common ground with, instead of writing posts like you did, Eds.” Instead, you came across as the sort of guy that keeps the frisbee that the kids threw in his yard, in addition to calling their mothers. Like I said, not your problem, but I was rather hoping for more.
Pooh
John has served, (GWI correct?) so I think any derivation of ‘chickenhawk’ is so incorrect as to be offensive WRT to him.
As for this:
To use an unfortunate metaphor, John is understandably a little gunshy about bringing the whole fire and brimstone. If I may psychoanalyze for a moment, perhaps he feels a little foolish for his more…boisterous statements before he, came to his senses/stopped drinking the kool aid/was disabused by the Schiavo fiasco/what have you. I see the same thing in my friends who were ardent Naderites, FWIW.
The Editors, who are usually at least funny, are being slightly churlish in this instance. As someone from here mentioned over there, they should try the carrot a little more often and the stick a lot less.
Gavin M.
Whenever I see someone write “Sadly, Not” in a thread, I half expect to see the Braditors or Gavin M show up in the thread to say something irreverent or something in Estonian (to do both would be the exacta). I guess they don’t have the time that Goldstein does to google every variant of their name and to then respond at super-speed with a cock-slappingly funny rejoinder.
[Lenny and Squiggy bang through the door]
Hello!
ImJohnGalt
Mission Accomplished! Thanks, Gavin!
Vladi G
I’m sorry, but it’s really a distinction without a difference unless he’s going around sock-puppeting under his real name (assuming the Editors is a he) or otherwise disavowing or hiding his true identity. And the Editors does more than launch personal attacks. He really likes kittens, too. More of a dog person myself.
W.B. Reeves
Seconded.
VidaLoca
John,
Hm. I can see why, having been called a “grade-A loon” and “stupid” next to that graphic about NYT reporters, you’d take it as a personal attack. My whole take on it though was that it was a clumsy and very poorly thought out political attack. While looking at it from the “personal attack” point of view helps me understand better why you said what you said, I think you had (as ImJohnGalt points out above) a much better chance isolating them on the latter (political) playing field than the former.
Steve
1. This:
is pretty much a perfect take on John as we know him. That doesn’t make him a bad guy. It does mean we lament his tendency to chase after jackalopes from time to time.
2. I, like everyone else, am mystified at why “The Editors” chose this, of all moments, to take a shot at John. Surely they could have waited a couple days (or hours) till he wrote something about Cindy Sheehan.
3. What actually burns me is that John acts like he is making such a sacrifice by not using “The Editors” real name when he already used it, repeatedly, the last time they had a lovers’ quarrel. No one cared then, they don’t care now, but it’s completely silly to make it out to be a magnanimous gesture. As distinguished from people who really want to remain anonymous, the guy used to blog under his real name, everyone who gives a shit knows his real name, and he said just today that he doesn’t care if John uses his real name. So why even bring it up one way or the other?
4. News flash, it’s a perfectly normal Internet convention to use a screen name, it’s really not a big deal if someone does or not. Trying to claim that you’re more of a man – something I seriously can’t believe John actually said – because you use your real name and not a screen name is like ten steps beyond blogospheric navel-gazing. It’s like expanding your navel to the size of Lake Michigan and diving in, never to be seen again.
Kathleen
Norb, he was jealous of Kathleen over a SN! who I believe coined “unequivable” the other day.
Hells no! That was Karen. http://sadlyno.com/archives/003219.html#comment-63074
Ka-ren.
Hey – I have an anonymous reputation to uphold here.
Vladi G
To change the subject and attempt to marginalize an opponent. To give onesself a sense of moral superiority.
Punchy
Wow. Just read the entire list of comments from thepoorman. Not real sure Mr. Cole came off too well…I think he went there to defend himself and then went all Zidane on the bloghosts when they baited him unmercilessly (sp?).
I have to agree the “use your real names” meme was the biggest jackalope I’ve ever seen. Mr. Cole, I think you defended yourself well until you unleashed the shiniest, most logic-defying jackalope alive. And “maroon”? You surely could have used a better insult, like “fucktards” or “Darrell”.
The Other Steve
Punchy – Director of Lessons Learned… Interesting.
That must be like the Lessons Learned meetings we have at work. We spend two hours bitching about everything that went wrong.
Then the next day we go and make the same mistakes again.
So this guy is probably responsible for setting up meetings, and taking notes… “Remember, don’t hire people who are kleptos, have failed at everything else they’ve ever done, have a history of pediphelia, and above all don’t appoint the whitehouse cook to the Supreme Court as people aren’t impressed.”
The Other Steve
Good point. How about…
If the govt were going to hang him for treason, he’d whine about them not outsourcing the execution to Wal-Mart.
ImJohnGalt
Kathleen, my apologies. I sit corrected. [Here in my cheetoh-stained underwear in my parents’ basement].
That’s right, I’m a member of the cheetocracy, bitches!
MMM
Please be nice to Mr. Cole before his head literally explodes…I have seen it near explosion, physically shaking and baking…it is not pretty…and would make a big mess….
John Cole
Vladi- go count the number of comments I posted over there, to which NO one responded to other than thefact that I have noticed all of the nasty attacks I endure come from anonymous folks.
I am not shifting the topic at all. You all focussing on one thing are. Plain and simple.
And attempting to be morally superior to the folks in that comments section, to include the editors- that is setting thebar a little low, no?
The Other Steve
Awesome… Sestak is outraising Weldon in PA-07
That guy is incredible. Here’s hoping the citizens of Pennsylvania get rid of Crazy Curt Weldon.
Gavin M.
John, we were talking about anonymity over at the other place.
I’m sure you’re aware of the vital role of anonymous pamphleteers in early American history, and of the tradition of the unsigned editorial, so I’ll skip a few steps in this argument.
There’s nothing wrong with a newspaper, a magazine, or a blog speaking as itself, without a personal name attached. Nor has there ever been a problem, to my knowledge, about writers taking pen names. These are traditional and uncontroversial practices.
Now, this rescent dust storm about ‘anonymous cowards’ comes, if I may say so, from certain guys on the right who blog under their own names who’ve been consistently romped and pie-faced by their colleagues on the left, these past few years. It’s not because left-bloggers are smarter or wiser people (although such thoughts can be entertained), but because events have turned out a lot more like we imagined they would, than like the right imagined. Simply, we were correct about a lot of things, and that’s what it is, and so be it.
In candor here, a lot of left-bloggers choose not to use their real names because of how nasty and petty right-wingers of the Internet variety can be. I don’t mean you; I mean certain other characters whose names are familiar to many. This nastiness has been in play since the Usenet days. The likelihood of John Cole, conservative blogger, getting a threatening call in the middle of the night is fairly low. The chance of Shecky Tabatchnick, a.k.a. ‘The Editors,’ getting one would be considerably higher — if you can follow that progression to its reasonable conclusion.
So that’s how the lemon tree came to Springfield. These blogger-outings are simply and entirely a way to punish political ‘enemies.’ There’s no ethical principle behind them.
Steve
I count seven. Five of which dealt in whole or in part with the horror of anonymous insults on the Internet.
The Other Steve
We’d give our real names but then the NYTimes would publish our addresses and the terrorists would win!
Pooh
That’s about right. John shares with the late lamented genius a complete inability to allow a personal shot to pass. Understandable if not laudable, but I think ‘defending your honor’ causes more problems then it solves oft-times. I mean if I flew off the handle everytime someone changed an “h” to a “p”…ok, bad example.
That’s your cue, Muffins…
Jimitha
This sentence is masterfully worded. The personal attacks, mention of Bush, and “politics of personal pique” induce a reflexive reaction in the reader, cleverly concealing its true payload: humor.
A third time! It’s funny, people! Just laugh already.
Vladi G
This is not exactly true, as my first response to you took you to task for acting like you don’t know why people attack Jeff Goldstein, which is either a lie, or just willful ignorance.
Regardless, your first comment didn’t really say anything that hadn’t already been said by others in your defense further up the page, but that will happen when you wait until there are 80+ comments before responding (which isn’t to say you weren’t busy doing something else – I’m just pointing out that your first comment came after a lot of discussion, much of which was supportive of you). As a result, there wasn’t much to respond to that wouldn’t have been essentially a rehash.
Another point you made cleared the record on “outing” someone. No response needed, really.
So we have:
1) Your personal defense, coupled with some insults directed toward the peanut gallery;
2) Your clarification on who was and wasn’t outed;
3) Your (quite frankly, not particularly credible) statement of disbelief at why someone as cuddly and innocent as Jeff Goldstein might possibly the subject of attacks from left wing bloggers.
That takes us up through the 90th post. What’s left from John Cole on that thread?
So apparently it’s not true that NO one responded to your orginal post, although it is true that the Editors didn’t respond to it. Pretty much everything after that was a rehash of the “anonymous” argument.
Guess it depends on your definition of morality.
jg
Does that somehow affect the validity of the attack? How does the posters anonymity relate to the foundation of their argument?
If he had used his real name what would you then say to this?:
Par R
Mr. Cole, aren’t you glad that, like Andrew Sullivan, you finally abandoned the GOP and “moved on?” It must feel really great to be in such welcoming company as is on full display in all of the supportive comments found in this thread.
On the other hand, as the old timers used to say, “If you lie down with dogs, you are likely to wake up with fleas. or worse.”
Perry Como
8.5 trillion fleas at that.
Pooh
Thankfully, the Par’s of the right will always surface to remind John that he is indeed on the path (roughly) to righteousness. Thank you for you service, friend!
Steve
Let’s see. Par’s contribution to this thread has been as follows:
1. First, he alleged that “The Editors” are gay;
2. Second, he called Richard Bottoms a “poopyhead” for pointing out that Cindy Sheehan and Jesse Jackson are not, in fact, the primary spokespersons of the Democratic Party; and
3. Third, he asked if the comments in this thread make John happier about the side he has chosen. It’s entirely possible, eh?
Par R
Always happy to please good old PoopHead.
Par R
Northrup has acknowledged that he’s gay.
Bottoms was hardly making the sole point that Cindy Sheehan and Jesse jackson are not primary spokepersons for the Dems.
And lawyers should be more careful in their choice of words.
Par R
….not that there’s anything wrong with it.
Steve
Let’s recap…
Nope, sounds like that was pretty much his entire point!
Hard to believe a plagiarist is criticizing me for my “choice of words.” The irony is rich tonight.
Par R
If Steve is a lawyer, as he once intimated in a comment thread, then he must be a truly rotten one to have so fundamentally shallow a knowledge of what constitutes plagiarism under the law. More likely, he’s just another dimwitted lefty with too much spare time on his hands.
Perry Como
What an honest Republican. Caught dead to rights plagiarizing someone and just flat out denies having done so.
Steve
I didn’t even know plagiarism was a legal term. Shows you what a crappy lawyer I am. But I do have a copy of Black’s Law Dictionary in my office…
Yep, pretty much exactly what you did!
I don’t doubt your word, by the way, but does his wife know?
Gavin M.
Northrup has acknowledged that he’s gay.
Shows how much you know. The Editors’s real name is Tyrone “Two Gat” McWashington, and he lives next door to you and just heard you talking about how he’s gay.
ImJohnGalt
Par R, good on ya for googling the name, finding the name of the Canadian country singer with the same name who is openly gay, and misreading it.
Or maybe people born with that name are all gay. You know, like everyone named Ken Mehlman.
Par R
Pervy Como says:
What rubbish! No more plagiarism than the rampant repetition of talking points picked up the commenters here from Kos diaries, atrios daily shit, etc. Give me a fucking break.
Steve
An openly gay country singer? We really have so little in common with Canada.
Perry Como
The only questions Par is did you cut and paste the paragraph and then swap some words around or did you actually type it out?
John S.
ROFL
You sure are a funny spoof.
ImJohnGalt
There’s a reason they are called talking “points”, Par. So that you can rephrase them and incorporate them into your own analyses, opinion columns, and TV appearances.
They do not, however, consists of lifting entire paragraphs of other peoples’ work without attribution and representing them as your own thoughts or analyses. It’s frowned upon even more if you do this without permission. Does Patterico even know? I’ll bet if he did he’d quit bothering the Sadly No! folks and refocus his efforts.
With apologies to Gavin, I hope nobody tells him.
Krista
Poop!
Krista
Sorry, Pooh. I know I seriously missed my cue.
I’m glad that John wasn’t implying I was a coward, because I don’t post my last name. It’s not that I’m afraid to back up my assertions and opinions. It’s because there are some serious weirdos out there, many of you know the province in which I live, and my last name is unusual enough that it really wouldnt’ take a whole lot of work to track me down.
And for the record, I never did the “I’m not touching her” thing as a kid. I was more of the fan of incessant mimicry of my older sister, combined with a “You can’t tell me what to do, you’re not my mother” followup.
chriskoz
Par R says:
So, I suppose that means you have a link to a 100+ word comment at Balloon-Juice that is almost a direct ripoff of something from one of these sites?
Cuz simply expressing an idea that is seen on other sites is not really the same thing as plagiarizing.
Face it, you plagiarized that post. And I’m pretty sure you know it. Otherwise… why waste the time with the few meaningless edits, except as a lame attempt to hide your deed.
Steve
Kinda sorta.
Andrew
It was fairly obvious that Par was plagarizing, given that the Patterico piece was a topic of a different BJ post that very day. Talk about weak sauce, though I don’t quite know what they means.
At least Darrell has the wherewithall to crib his shit from Cornyn or someone that hasn’t been posted on this very blog (I think).
John Cole
I would say that I honestly believed that they were going to do what they said they were going to do, that the Democrats had built up a great deal of distrust with me over years, so it took me a while to recognize that the modern GOP is full of cretins.
I would also argue that I am not ‘not minimizing Republican misdeeds,’ but actually attacking them pretty regularly and viciously, and I would note that anyone who thinks I spend any more than a passing bit every now and then on the Democrats isn’t paying any attention to me.
Additionally, it is entirely possible to think that the current GOP is corrupt and useless (and dangerous) and at the same time think the Editors and those in his little political circus are total jackasses.
Plus, Michael Moore is fat.
Pooh
Well said in your last post John.
At worst, that makes you naive, hardly ‘a grade A loon’.
Richard 23
What a letdown. The least you could do is threaten to slap The Editors with your, er, thingy.
* ducks *
DougJ
That’s accurate, but it represents real improvement.
jurassicpork
Well, John, maybe the fact that you’d voted twice for a guy who can’t eat a pretzel without CPR supervision or ride a Segway or a bike without training wheels gives your condemnation of right wing bloggers that extra bit of audacity. I believe your stance is commonly known in bloggerese as Too Little, Too Late Syndrome.
Gavin M.
I would say that I honestly believed that they were going to do what they said they were going to do, that the Democrats had built up a great deal of distrust with me over years, so it took me a while to recognize that the modern GOP is full of cretins.
I’m going to confess something publicly for the first time, for John’s elucidation and perhaps toward his liberation from the terrors which now confront him.
This is embarrassing and true, and I can explain, but it’s perhaps best to present the cold fact alone and without mitigation.
I am a registered Republican.
Beej
Too Little, Too Late Syndrome, is it? I’m ever so glad to know that we have someone keeping track of how long we have recognized the current administration as a bunch of cretins. Tell me, Richard Bottoms and jurassicpork, just how long do you have to be a non-Republican to qualify as “on the right side” in your book? 5 years? 10 years? By these standards it seems apparent that anyone who was not a Democrat from their first breath in the delivery room (and possibly in utero) just doesn’t cut it.
ImJohnGalt
Oh, if only I could get that flux capacitor working, we could resolve this with a simple deLorean ride.
ch2
This post is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Mr. Cole, why pour more oil on the fire ?
Tom in Texas
John, John… while it was unbelievably juvenile of The Editor to needle you endlessly today, I for one hope you continue to call the Repub’s on their bullshit. Don’t let him calling you a certified loon keep you down either. Shout the truth.
Incidentally you have no reason to apologize for making the Democratic party earn your vote — that’s what politicians are supposed to do.
Ginger Yellow
For Christ’s sake it’s not a matter of “being a Democrat” for x amount of time. It’s just a matter of not voting for Bush twice, after he’d already sent the country well down the road to fiscal, social, diplomatic and military disaster. It didn’t take a genius to realise the administration was full of spectacularly incompetent ideologues. All it took was not being blinded by hatred of liberals or love of military adventurism.
John S.
I think John just needed a little extra time to overcome both.
Ivor the Engine Driver
I noticed Cole’s post was “Filed under: General Stupidity.”
That must be a darn big category here.
jg
Lets not forget how the media enables voting for repub candidates by reporting all the bullshit, false , or irrelevant ‘dirt’ on democrat candidates.
Pinko Punko
Ok, the poop scoop:
Gavin signed up for teh evil because they were passing out Chips Ahoy snack packs at a College Repub illegal alien hunt/affirmative action bakesale at Rutgers.
And the Editors real name is the Cheddators. Ironically he’s lactose intolerant, just like his beloved (too beloved???) cats.
Gray
“The reliably insane John Cole”
Now that’s really nonsense, John, pls ignore it. Hey, those guys even compare nutcase Pam with Fran Drescher, how idiotic can it get?
Don’t worry, everybody who’s been following this blog knows that you’re the temporarily insane John Cole!
:)
Muqtada
Is John Cole really this stupid or is this all an act?
My guess? Mouth breathing paster eating extraordinaire!!