Who Needs Ann Coulter?

When you have Jane Hamsher:

In fact I’ll venture to say that there is absolutely no context in which this would be in any way amusing, but particularly not given Ben’s own frequent race-baiting comments and certainly not at a site like Red State which welcomes and hosts the exceptionally ugly worldview of the entire bigot brigade.

***

Bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot. The Post.blog is hosting a bigot. It doesn’t matter how many times Ben wants to take away with the left hand what he gives with the right, we know what he is and what he means. And as the hatred of brown people becomes the new gay, there is going to be a lot more of this disingenuous claptrap passed off by the folks at Red State Racists as someone else’s ideas, or just the views of their readers they are under some obligation to provide a home for.

It goes on, and all of it is designed to smear Ben Domenech as a racist. I could link you to hundreds of other smear jobs by Atrios and others, but why bother? Hell, half the things in that despicable Hamsher post were not even WRITTEN BY BEN. Even as I grow more and more disgusted and sick of the Republican party, I am still amazed at the gutter antics of the rabid left.

I don’t agree with Ben Domenech on nearly any social issue, but I have read thousands of his private emails at Red State (we have an Editor’s listserv of sorts), spoken with him (via AOL IM) dozens of times, and I have never seen or heard one shred of racism come from him. I think Ben Domeonech is wrong on a lot of things, but he is no racist, and I think the distortion of what Ben has written by Jane and others is outrageous and disgusting.

Jane Hamsher and those writing that sort of crap should be ashamed of themselves, particularly since the only reason they are writing it is because they don’t want Ben writing at the WaPo- not, after all, because what they are saying about Ben is true. Of course, that would require the ability to feel shame.

More here.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






612 replies
  1. 1
    TexasMike says:

    While I think the racism charges are overblown, I would be interested (especially since you’re an educator) in knowing your thoughts on the obvious instances of plagiarism that were perpetrated by Mr. Augustine.

  2. 2
    sean says:

    not a racist. but definitely a plagiarist and not someone who should be employed by any newspaper.

  3. 3
    feral1 says:

    Umm,

    You might want to look around the internets a little more before you jump on the Defend Ben bandwagon, or you are going to end up with a lot of egg on your face. There’s already more than enough evidence of plaigarism and inaccurate “reporting” to hang him with. His race baiting (calling Coretta Scott King a communist the day after her funeral) is just icing on the cake.

  4. 4
    Marcus Wellby says:

    The examples of plagiarism are blatant and the fact that this doofus thought he could get away with it indicate that he is either painfully stupid or completely unhinged.

  5. 5
    OCSteve says:

    Racist? OK. Let’s look at the first FDL post about all this (by Pachacutec):

    And to save your pasty, invariably white asses…

    And it’s da white man boss at the WaPo.

    Go with Rich Tafel. You’re less his type. He prefers Latinos.

    I didn’t know you’re part Latino, as I am. Didja inherit the swivel hips like I did?

    In a rant about someone else being racist. I’m guessing irony is lost on the echo chamber over there.

  6. 6
    Pb says:

    I have read thousands of his private emails at Red State

    Yes, but how many of those did he write himself?

    Yeah, yeah, normally that’d be total snark, but by this point, it’s half-serious…

  7. 7
    norbizness says:

    On this specific subject, the use of a old John Birch Society canard by a privileged little twit on the day of a great civil rights leader’s funeral (shit, even I spoke well of Reagan for a few days), I would simply point everyone to the writings of Doghouse Riley.

  8. 8
    Ancient Purple says:

    Jane may be absolutely wrong stating that Ben is a racist. On the other hand, Ben certainly deserves a dressing down for referring to Coretta Scott King as a “communist.” That allegation was made against every prominent black leader during and after the Civil Rights movement by people like George Wallace and members of the Klan. It was their code word for lashing out at those uppity Negroes.

    Martin Luther King, Jr.? Communist
    Jesse Jackson? Communist
    Etc.? Communist

    I have little sympathy for someone who uses loaded words to describe people without paying any attention to history. Ben deserves his licks.

    As for his plagiarism, I am absolutely amused by the foaming mouth defense that Leon is putting up over at RedState. First, it was that Ben only committed plagiarism once (which will, I remind everyone, get you bounced out of college). Then, it was that Ben did plagiarize, but it was only a movie review. Now, it is that Ben had some super double secret agreement with Salon magazine and PJ O’Rourke to use their work and claim it as his own.

    Give me an effin’ break.

    The man is a bona fide plagiarist and a stupid clown for the “communist” comment.

    Fear not, however. I am sure that within the next 24 hours, someone will say, “Yeah, but he is only 24 years old!!!”

  9. 9
    John Cole says:

    While I think the racism charges are overblown, I would be interested (especially since you’re an educator) in knowing your thoughts on the obvious instances of plagiarism that were perpetrated by Mr. Augustine.

    They are not overblown, they are outright smears.

    As to the plagiarism, I am not a defense attorney, so I am not in the habit of defending people when they do wrong- and that is what it pretty clearly looks like to me. It sure looks like he lifted some material, and he has to answer for that. I am not even going to delve into the plagiarism- Ben can defend himself. I will note with a little irony that all of the people screaming about Ben’s alleged plagiarism link freely and frequently to Sean Paul at the Agonist, an exposed and admitted plagiarist.

    But the charges of racism are vile and disgusting and should be dropped. It is so typical- this is what the lunatic fringe of the left always does. For example, last summer- there are a million things going wrong with American policy in Iraq, and the Jane Hamshers of the left* spend a month accusing the soldiers of being war criminals for using WP weapons.

    By spending so much time acusing Ben falsely of racism, they have given him the cover he needs- he can now spend all his time addressing the racism charges, which he can defend, rather than addressing the plagiarism issue, which looks a lot tougher to defend.

    I gotta give those charging racism some credit, though. It takes talent to be that stupid and that scummy at the same time.

    *** Update ***

    * For those of you interested, I am not claimng Jane hamsher stated WP wasa chemical weapon, etc. I am using her as an example of the type of partisan grenade tossers who made those claims. If you are really interested, read the long and tedious thread that follows and you will understand the update.

  10. 10

    Joe Conason calls him the love child of Janet Cooke and Donald Segretti.

  11. 11
    Par R says:

    It’s a cheap, sleazy, intellectually lazy smear. But that’s par for the course in the dishonest, ethically-challenged childish babbling that passes for leftist “debate” in this modern age and on this site. As someone recently put it, these days, liberalism is the philosophy of the ill-informed; the intemperate; the marginal.

  12. 12
    Andrew says:

    Come on you leftists! Poor Ben is not racist. He is multi-culturalism-challenged.

  13. 13
  14. 14
    Halffasthero says:

    I am staying out of this fight. Frankly, there are more important things to lose sleep over. Whether he is a plagiarist or race-baiting or whatever, that is up to the Post to vet before hiring. If they screwed up, that is going to be their own fault. It would not have taken too much of an effort to check him out before hiring him. And if he is as bad as they are saying he is, give him a forum so that he can open his mouth and insert his foot. If the Washington Post is willing to be that forum, so be it. I am all for free speech.

    Next subject.

  15. 15
    DougJ says:

    John, my original reaction was the same as yours, but Domenech said that judges were worse than the KKK in one of his posts. Not cool, especially when judges aren’t getting death threats right and left these days.

    The guy has to go. They should have hired s more reasonable conservative blogger: like you.

  16. 16
    McNulty says:

    Maybe he studied under Molly Ivins.

    and this is another one of those issues that shows what a giant, self-important circle-jerk the blogosphere is. I’m sure the average working stiff out there who is paying a mortgage and raising a family and doing this crazy thing called living life really give a flying fuck about Ben fucking Domenech.

  17. 17
    OCSteve says:

    BTW, what this is really about IMO, is a perceived loss of control. Remember the wailing from the left when the LAT’s Martinez fired liberal columnist Robert Scheer, even though conservative Michael Ramirez was fired at the same time.

    Out of power in Washington, with the USSC losing its leftward tilt, the MSM and academia are pretty much the last bastions of the far left. Hilariously, they claim that MSM is actually conservative and a mouthpiece of the administration. But anyone who was awake through the last 2 elections knows better.

    With that said, I agree that the plagiarism charges appear to be legitimate. Where the WaPo screwed the pooch was in failing to vet him adequately. It didn’t take a genius to predict the reaction that would be forthcoming from the left side of the blogosphere. And with Jane’s ax to grind against Jim Brady, you could even predict who would be leading the charge.

    As Pachacutec correctly noted:

    “You are now and henceforth to be on the serious receiving end of a shitstorm of scrutiny that you are not prepared by life to handle.”

    The racism charges were just the first volley, until they could dig in and find something more substantial.

  18. 18
    Steve says:

    I think Ben might actually be too young to understand that “Communist” was a code word used by the racists who opposed MLK. He probably thinks that when he calls someone a Communist, it means Communist. It’s still a fucking disrespectful smear to levy at a great woman on the day of her funeral, though. Was it right below one of those posts about how “the Left doesn’t know how to behave respectfully at funerals”?

  19. 19
    Slide says:

    Waaaaaaaa….. baaaaaaaaa somebody said something bad about a right wing blogger…. whhaaaaaa… bwaaaaaa.

    These right wingnuts can certainly dish it out as anybody that listens to or reads Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mike Savage, Bill O’Reilly, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin, K-Lo, Ann Coulter, etc. etc. knows full well. These exquisite examples of civil discourse and moderation would never engage in personal attacks such as using terms like TRAITORS or suggesting that their opponents are anti-American.

    You just gotta love Cole for his ever so selective outrage don’t ya? Hey guys you started this shit and now you are upset when the other side fires back? Sorry, the days when the left just turns the other cheek and trys to be “above it all” are long gone. You dragged us down into the gutter and now you’re complaining that you’re getting some mud on you? Lol.. that is truly precious.

  20. 20
    MattM says:

    I don’t think Domenech is a racist, based on what I’ve read. He’s an asshole and a plagiarist, and certainly the latter should preclude you from ever writing under the byline of the Washington Post. But racist is and over-the-top smear.

    Like calling Coretta Scott King a “communist.”

  21. 21
    Brian says:

    Like most rants from Leftists, hers reads like its from a seventh grader. Very selfish, childish, hateful, and ignorant. Actually, it reads like most comments I see from Leftists on this site daily, come to think of it.

    At least Coulter has sarcastic wit. I’ll take her over this wanne-be any day.

  22. 22
    Mean Gene says:

    Without putting on hip boots and wading through Domenech’s writings, I can perhaps understand defending him against charges that he’s a racist. He’s a fool, a knave, a liar, and a thief, but calling him a racist calls for more evidence that’s so far been presented.

    That said, equating Hamsher with Coulter is silly hyperbole. Her comments may have been touched with hysteria, but that doesn’t put her in the same padded-cell as Coulter. Though that would make for a fun reality show…

    Domenech is in a can’t-lose situation. The more he gets pilloried by the left (and the middle, and people in general with functioning brains) the more his profile rises on the far-right. If the Post fires him, he becomes a wingnut martyr, a truth-teller muzzled by that dastardly liberal media. Even if video evidence establish that Domenech enjoys, oh, devouring live kittens, he will be forgiven all his trespasses. How soon before he has his own show on Fox or MSNBC?

    If he hangs on to his job, with each column he splatters another pail of dung on the reputation of the Washington Post, that bastion of blue-state bastards. The Right won’t have to lift a finger to discredit the Post, as the Left hurriedly cuts in line. Domenech’s influence is already apparent–ombudsperson Deborah Howell suddenly isn’t even aware that the Post has an online presence. Complaints? Not in her baliwick. If it’s dot.com, she’s dot.gone.

  23. 23
    McNulty says:

    Hey guys you started this shit and now you are upset when the other side fires back? Sorry, the days when the left just turns the other cheek and trys to be “above it all” are long gone. You dragged us down into the gutter and now you’re complaining that you’re getting some mud on you? Lol.. that is truly precious.

    I swear some of you people were either born yesterday, or you’re just flat-out stupid.

  24. 24
    zzyzx says:

    Even as I grow more and more disgusted and sick of the Republican party, I am still amazed at the gutter antics of the rabid left

    John – that’s not a property of leftists though, it’s a property of partisans in general. The religious branches of the right are pretty scary too, as they gloat about how they plan to return to a time when anyone who dares to engage in a sexual activity they wouldn’t do would be punished.

    Then again, I remember the people who used to go to Dead shows in the south for the sole (or is it soul) intent of screaming at people for the nerve of liking a different kind of music than they would. I always wondered why they thought that attacking people would bring them to their church instead of making them more united in their opposition to Christianity. If their goal was to convert people, it was definitely backfiring.

  25. 25
    feral1 says:

    Li’l Ben may or may not be a racist, but it is not unreasonable to come to that conclusion after he calls CSK a commie the day after her funeral.

    I mean that is a lot more evidence of racism, than Cole has for his Xenophobia charge against people who are concerned with the UAE/China national security issues.

  26. 26
    ppGaz says:

    That said, equating Hamsher with Coulter is silly hyperbole.

    We refer the honorable gentleman to the NAME OF THIS BLOG.

  27. 27
    John Cole says:

    These right wingnuts can certainly dish it out as anybody that listens to or reads Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mike Savage, Bill O’Reilly, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin, K-Lo, Ann Coulter, etc. etc. knows full well. These exquisite examples of civil discourse and moderation would never engage in personal attacks such as using terms like TRAITORS or suggesting that their opponents are anti-American.

    When you find me quoting them approvingly, defending them, or repeating their charges, maybe I will listen to you. Until then, back to the corner with you, Slide. And please try not to drool on yourself.

  28. 28
    Slide says:

    I swear some of you people were either born yesterday, or you’re just flat-out stupid.

    well, you really showed me with that scathing rejoinder.

  29. 29
    Pb says:

    John Cole,

    I will note with a little irony that all of the people screaming about Ben’s alleged plagiarism link freely and frequently to Sean Paul at the Agonist, an exposed and admitted plagiarist.

    False. Heck, I’ve never even heard about him before, much less linked to him.

  30. 30
    Andrew says:

    So, what do we think will turn up if we Google “site:redstate.org augustine blacks”

    Anyway, this is some rich stuff from Ben:

    If one spends any amount of time reading the columns of washingtonpost.com’s Dan Froomkin – whose status as leader of the hack is without compare – it’s easy to realize that, on any given day, the cut and paste function has to be a tiring chore. Every day, it’s use the same template, find a new reason to hate. “Bush is a liar because X.” “The President is a fool because X.” “The White House wants to kill your child’s pet because X.” Etc. He has his crowd, and he plays to it.

    But with all that cut and pasting, sometimes little things can get in the way if you’re only reading the lefty sites… things like facts.

  31. 31
    ats says:

    “the MSM and academia are pretty much the last bastions of the far left.”

    Well, with regard to academia, OCSteve could always take the place of that Taliban guy at Yale, or maybe just send in the matchbook cover and change his life.

  32. 32
    Ancient Purple says:

    I am not even going to delve into the plagiarism- Ben can defend himself. I will note with a little irony that all of the people screaming about Ben’s alleged plagiarism link freely and frequently to Sean Paul at the Agonist, an exposed and admitted plagiarist.

    Well, I, for one, don’t even know who Sean Paul is, so there is that.

    Second, I have to confess that I am a bit taken aback by your ambivalence regarding the plagiarism, particularly because you are a college professor. You are, of course, free to ignore the issue, but I would think, just on principle, you would be a bit more outraged.

  33. 33
    sean says:

    if you ask me, Sean Paul sounds like he’s plagiarized Shaggy. or Snow. remember that guy’s music?? yikes.

  34. 34
    Slide says:

    When you find me quoting them approvingly, defending them, or repeating their charges, maybe I will listen to you. Until then, back to the corner with you, Slide. And please try not to drool on yourself.

    thats not the point John, you may not quote them approvingly (I never put you in the same category as those that I listed) but you kinda take it for granted. Hey, rush is just being Rush. The right wing crazies can say just about anything they want and you don’t seem to get to riled up. Fine. That is your choice. But when you selectively seem to only have outrage when out of line comments are made by left wing partisans (like your Cindy Sheehan obsession) I think you are fair game to be called a complete fuckin hypocrite.

    I think the left is far far less incediary than the right. By a long shot. A very long shot. So when I read something like this from you,

    I am still amazed at the gutter antics of the rabid left.

    I just have to shake my head in bewilderment and wonder why we never hear of your amazement of the gutter antics of the rabid right.

  35. 35
    Blue Neponset says:

    I have to come to Jane’s defense. I don’t think she is trying to smear him. I think she genuinly believes he is a racist.

    The Coretta Scott King Funeral diary over at Redstate is just plan disgusting, and Augustine didn’t seem to have a problem with it at the time. One person who did have a problem with it was Mike Krempasky. Krempasky’s comment in the King Funeral Diary is the one Augustine responds to when he says:

    The President visits the funeral of a Communist By: Augustine
    And phones in a message to the March for Life.

    I think we can get a little pissed about this.

    I think Domenech is simply a jerk, but he didn’t do much to disprove Jane’s racist accusations by calling Coretta Scott King a communist.

  36. 36
    neil says:

    Hell, half the things in that despicable Hamsher post were not even WRITTEN BY BEN.

    This would be a novel defense: “I’m not a racist — I just plagiarize from people who are!”

  37. 37
    neil says:

    Oh, by the way, I also think it’s hilarious that the right-blogs are rising to his defense, when they spend half their time accusing people of treason and sedition.

    If Atrios is a traitor, then Augustine is definitely a racist.

  38. 38
    Skip says:

    My my, aren’t we getting fastidious about blg decorum these days.

    If–and I do mean if–Hamsher’s racism charges are over the top, could it be ascribed to three years of her and her compatriots being called traitors? I supect so; charges like that cause bad feelings.
    But the final straw is seeing guys like Andrew Sullivan embracing the very position they once deemed traitorous, saying “my bad,” and expecting to walk away from it.

    Not so fast, boys. People were wounded, voices silenced–and now you owe us a trillion smackers.

  39. 39
    Slide says:

    wow…the examples of plagerism are growing by the moment. Here is just a partial list.

    To paraphrase Cole, I am still amazed at the dishonesty of the rabid right. Seems like the right lies, cheats, and steals with alarming alacrity.

  40. 40
    McNulty says:

    I think the left is far far less incediary than the right. By a long shot. A very long shot. So when I read something like this from you,

    I am still amazed at the gutter antics of the rabid left.

    I just have to shake my head in bewilderment and wonder why we never hear of your amazement of the gutter antics of the rabid right.

    I stand corrected. Apparently, you were born yesterday AND you’re flat-out stupid.

    First off, most of the lefties that come here came here originally because so many lefty blogs were linking to John BECAUSE of his disgust with some of the gutter tactics of the right. So, there we have the born yesterday taken care of.

    Second, your belief that Democrats have been playing by Marques of Queensbury rules up until little Ben Domenech came around definitely puts you in the stupid category.

    Third, after talking about scathing rejoinders up above, and then resorting to the “oh yeah, how about your side” argument and not much else just further proves both.

  41. 41
    McNulty says:

    I just have to shake my head in bewilderment and wonder why we never hear of your amazement of the gutter antics of the rabid right.

    Quote above should’ve been block-quoted too.

  42. 42
    Blue Neponset says:

    To paraphrase Cole, I am still amazed at the dishonesty of the rabid right. Seems like the right lies, cheats, and steals with alarming alacrity.

    Slide,

    Right or wrong, John is defending his friend and in my book that is an honorable thing to do. Why don’t you cut him some slack and stop firing potshots at him?

  43. 43
    John Cole says:

    Second, I have to confess that I am a bit taken aback by your ambivalence regarding the plagiarism, particularly because you are a college professor. You are, of course, free to ignore the issue, but I would think, just on principle, you would be a bit more outraged.

    I am not ambivalent about it- I am not defending him against those charges at all. He has a lot to answer for, and HE is the one who should mount his defense and answer the questions that have been raised. I love how not attacking someone is now considered ‘ambivalent.’

    What I am doing is defending against the racist smears leveled by Jane and others.

    Right or wrong, John is defending his friend and in my book that is an honorable thing to do. Why don’t you cut him some slack and stop firing potshots at him?

    I think defending anyone, friend or foe, from false charges is honorable. I try to make that my own personal policy.

  44. 44
    Geek, Esq. says:

    Well, the fact that he’s a shameless plagiarist certainly makes his obnoxious viewpoints moot.

    Why hire this chump instead of a legit Republican blogger?

  45. 45
    M.A. says:

    What bothers me most about this whole thing is the extent to which the MSM responds instantly to complaints from the right, but never to complaints from the left. The Washington Post has received constant complaints from the left about their pro-war slant, their fudging of the Abramoff scandal to make it look bipartisan, Bob Woodward’s administration suck-uppery, etc., etc. They never respond to criticisms from their left or even take them seriously. But let Powerline complain about Dana Milbank’s orange vest or Dan Froomkin’s fact-checking, and they jump. If the MSM only takes right-wing complaints seriously, and it seems that way, it’s going to drift further and further to the right.

    I agree that Hamsher’s stuff is over-the-top, though comparing the rabid right to the rabid left, the rabid right is worse because of the blatant power-worship. (The most obnoxious thing about the Coulters and the Hewitts is the way they taunt Democrats/liberals with their own political powerlessness; I simply don’t recall lefties kicking Republicans like that after the 1996 election, or for that matter 1977-80 and 93-94 when Democrats had the whole federal government. It’s like righties worship power for its own sake.)

  46. 46
    EL says:

    For the record:
    I have no idea who Sean Paul is, or what the Agonist is. After your post, I googled agonist, and it seems to be a blog, not a newspaper; which doesn’t in anyway excuse plagiarism, but is there a major newspaper giving Sean Paul a column? To me, the issue is a very prominent forum given to someone who is a plagiarist – not once, possibly accidentally, but several times. I don’t approve of plagiarism, and I’d hate to see the gravity of it diminshed.

    For the racist aspect, I don’t know enough about Domenech to say one way or the other. But calling Coretta Scott King a communist is downright idiotic, and clearly on par with calling anyone you disagree with a traitor. I found his “excuse” interesting too – it was “an old comment” (from February 2006) and the Kings “worked with communist organizations in the 50’s and 60’s.”

  47. 47
    MattM says:

    On a side note, I wrote movie reviews for the student paper in college, too (and acted as Arts & Entertainment editor one summer). And the current RedState defense that “it was just movie reviews” kind of pisses me off.

  48. 48
    Jcricket says:

    Right or wrong, John is defending his friend and in my book that is an honorable thing to do. Why don’t you cut him some slack and stop firing potshots at him?

    I’m not sure John should hitch himself to box-turtle Ben so quickly. I do agree that not immediately abandoning Ben because some others “say so” is honorable. But I don’t think defending dishonorable people is “honorable” unless one is a defense attorney. Reminds me of the right-wing’s obsession with “staying the course” as being the ultimate way to show “leadership”. The whole idea that changing one’s mind = crappy leadership is just mind-boggling.

    At any rate, It’s pretty simple for me. Hiring a rabidly partisan conservative writer who has a long history of plagiarizing articles is a stupid move on the WaPo’s part. That’s at the heart of the “true issue” here.

    But what’s really interesting about this Ben thing is that it exposes so many aspects of the difference between the right-wing/left-wing of the blogosphere.

    Ben’s clearly plagiarized a large number of articles. This should make conservatives abandon him post-haste. Instead, because they’re happy the WaPo hired a conservative writer, they’re ignoring something that’s at the core disqualifying someone to be a journalist. It’s weird how much they want to ignore this. John included. I don’t know many left-wing bloggers who rushed to ignore/defend plagiarism issues with Jayson Blair.

    Ben’s made some pretty awful comments about people like Coretta Scott King. Are they racist? I don’t think so, but they certainly are rabidly partisan and insensitive. To me it feels like he’s more suited for talk radio than as a “journalist”. I totally understand why conservatives aren’t bothered by this, but he’s not a “counter-balance to Froomkin” in any meaningful sense. Froomkin would be criticizing a Democratic leader too if they were trying to spin their way out of every situation, facts be damned!

    The right (of which John Cole is not a member) really has gotten to a point where any criticism of a Republican is “left-wing partisanship”, no matter how much the Republican in question is lying, dissembling, spinning or shading the facts.

    There’s always two-sides to every story, and everyone is entitled to their opinions, but not their own facts. If someone says “The moon is made of green cheese” and other people say “No it isn’t, and here’s why” the latter group is right. Doesn’t matter how loudly the first people yell “GREEN CHEESE” and cite polls that the American public agrees with them. How/when Republicans abandoned “objectivity” and embraced relativism is beyond me.

    Lastly, if Ben’s writing is a good example of conservative journalism, there’s a pretty shallow “talent pool” for conservative writers. John Cole would be a much better hire for the WaPo.

  49. 49
    Stephen Colbert says:

    The question to ask is whether or not this whole Ben thing was a set-up job by the WaPo to smear conservative bloggers on behalf of an outraged MSM?

  50. 50
    M.A. says:

    Also: the hiring of Domenech shows that the Post simply doesn’t understand the difference between a journalist and a party operative. Even if you assume Froomkin is liberal — and while he seems to be anti-Bush, that doesn’t make him a liberal — his column can in no way be considered a partisan Democratic column in the way that Kos or Taylor Marsh or Chris Bowers are partisan Democrats. But Domenech, their “balance,” is a Republican operative; his dad is a Republican operative; he founded a partisan Republican blog; his whole purpose is to elect more Republicans. That they can’t see the difference between this guy and Milbank and Froomkin — journalists who might at best have a certain ideological bias — is pathetic, and it shows how much “conservative” has become indistinguishable from “Republican hack.”

    There are plenty of conservatives who are not in the tank for the Republican party. The Post should either hire an ideological conservative (as opposed to Hewitt-style Republican) or balance Domenech with someone who is openly partisan in favor of the Democrats (like one of Kos’s front-pagers).

  51. 51
    Darrell says:

    The right (of which John Cole is not a member) really has gotten to a point where any criticism of a Republican is “left-wing partisanship”,

    Just to be clear you lying sack of shit, John Cole is not complaining about just “any” criticism of a Republican, he is specifically complaining about dishonest racist smears on a Republican, a hateful smear the left uses too often

  52. 52
    DougJ says:

    John: if you really consider Ben Domenech to be a friend, you should urge him to resign. As much as I am amused by the whole thing, he is a real human being and should be spared further humiliation.

    It was wrong of Domenech to plagiarize, call Correta Scott King a communist, compare judges to the KKK, and so on and so forth. But 24 year-old kids do stupid things. That’s why the Post never should have given him the blog.

    I blame Jim Brady, not Domenech, who is really just a victim in all of this. That said, his record as a plagiarist should exclude him from ever working for a newspaper again. But it doesn’t make him a bad human being.

  53. 53
    Slide says:

    I think defending anyone, friend or foe, from false charges is honorable. I try to make that my own personal policy.

    Were there any false charges leveled at Cindy Sheehan ya think? Did Cole’s personaly policy kick in and he felt compelled to defend her even if she were his “foe”, or did he pile on? Can’t quite remember. Can anyone help me out?

    Oh.. and lets remember some of the charges made against her from the rabid right:

    On the January 10 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Glenn Beck called anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan “a pretty big prostitute,” later amending, at the behest of his executive producer, Steve “Stu” Burguiere, that “tragedy pimp” would be “the most accurate description.”

    O’Reilly has accused Sheehan, among other things, of behavior that “other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq” think “borders on treasonous” and has included her as a member of his “coward list.”

    Cindy Sheehan doesn’t have the sense to come in out of the rain. Cindy Sheehan doesn’t have the IQ of a pencil eraser.

    On the August 24 broadcast of Fox News’ Fox News Live, radio talk show host and ” ‘Voices of Soldiers’ Truth Tour” participant Mark Williams continued the campaign of smears against anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan, claiming that “Cindy Sheehan is on a mission to figuratively urinate on her son’s grave and make his death stand for nothing.” In an interview with Fox News host Jon Scott, Williams claimed, “Cindy Sheehan’s not interested in the memory of her son. She’s only interested in using her son as a prop to advance her own hatred for the American troops.”

    LIMBAUGH: I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There’s nothing about it that’s real, including the mainstream media’s glomming onto it. It’s not real. It’s nothing more than an attempt. It’s the latest effort made by the coordinated left.

    On the August 23 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh declared that it is time to question the patriotism of “the people on the left.” After attacking war critic Cindy Sheehan, her supporters, and New York Times columnists Frank Rich and Paul Krugman, Limbaugh said, “[I]t’s time to stop dancing around this issue folks, to tell you the truth. It’s time for somebody to tell the people on the left, you’re damn right we’re questioning your patriotism.

    Hey, love or hate Cindy Sheehan, disagree with her politics if you will, but does she deserve to be treated in this manner? And did our defender of false charges, John Cole, rush to her defense? Yeah, right.

  54. 54
    DougJ says:

    Darrell and John: what do you think about his post comparing judges to the KKK? Do you really think that is appropriate in a climate where judges are getting death threats all the time. Here’s your choice: renounce it or own it.

  55. 55
    Ancient Purple says:

    I am not ambivalent about it- I am not defending him against those charges at all. He has a lot to answer for, and HE is the one who should mount his defense and answer the questions that have been raised. I love how not attacking someone is now considered ‘ambivalent.’

    John, you are misinterpreting what I was getting at and I apologize for not making myself clear.

    I wasn’t expecting you to personally attack him, but you certainly could have been much more forceful with your general condemnation of plagiariam.

    Your position is that Ben sure looks guilty, and he has to answer for that. That sounds more like someone taking a child to task for lifting a Hershey bar at the 7-11.

    Like I said, just on principle, I would think a college professor would be a bit more pointed in his conversation on plagiarism.

  56. 56
    MattM says:

    John Cole would be a much better hire for the WaPo.

    WaPo’s “ooo, look at all the controversy” article today indicates that they were looking for a “social conservative.”

    I don’t think they’re going to come knocking on John’s door.

  57. 57
    Blue Neponset says:

    I think defending anyone, friend or foe, from false charges is honorable. I try to make that my own personal policy.

    It is, but I wouldn’t vouch for someone’s character unless I knew him fairly well. If all you know of Augustine is his e-mails, instant messages and his blog comments/diaries/stories then all you are doing is telling us what your opinion of him is, and your opinion doesn’t seem to be that broadly researched. By the same token Jane Hamsher is giving her opinion of Domenech based on his blog comments/diaries/stories yet you feel she is being disingenuous. It is true that she is making a serious accusation against Domenech with not all that much evidence but you have no evidence that her motives are to smear him.

    Why is it ok for you to speculate about Jane’s motives but it isn’t ok for Jane to speculate about Domenech’s motives?

    I cut you some slack because I thought Augustine was your friend but if you don’t know him that well then I don’t appreciate what you are saying about Jane. Call her an idiot if you want to or point out that she may be jumping to conclusions, but don’t accuse her of smearing someone after she clearly explains how she arrived at her conclusions.

    If I remember clearly you weren’t to happy about people who were doing something similar to Jeff Goldstien a few days ago.

  58. 58
    BumperStickerist says:

    Based on the plagiarizing examples, the WaPo should replace Dommenech. Though, if John were given ‘Red America’ slot my hunch is that it would take about 30 minutes before examples came out about how John is a racist, mouth-breathing tool.

    On the subject of newspapers and blogs, the Philadelphia Inquirer has a blog called ‘Attytood’ written by Will Bunch. It’s a self-described “Lefty” blog. He’s profiled here:

    Blogging in Major Newspapers

    Of course, the blogs he likes are these:

    PHILLY/NATIONAL
    Atrios
    Rittenhouse Review
    Suburban Guerrilla
    Booman Tribune
    All-Spin Zone
    Philly (Dragonballyee)
    Afro-Netizen
    Rowhouse Logic
    MyDD
    Bad Attitudes
    Billmon
    CorrenteWire
    iFlipFlop
    upyernoz
    Tattered Coat
    Fables of the Reconstruction
    Slacktivist

    ———————————–

    So, it’s not like Will’s in any sort of echo chamber.

    Will’s a trained reporter and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize back in the day.

    Interestingly, Bunch links approvingly to Jimmy Carter’s Blog Diary for Kos. If Will read the entry, he either missed the part where Carter advocates the exact opposite of what Kos does or felt that got in the way of just blurbing stuff out there.

    .

  59. 59
    Slide says:

    what I said:

    Sorry, the days when the left just turns the other cheek and trys to be “above it all” are long gone.

    McNutty retorts:

    Second, your belief that Democrats have been playing by Marques of Queensbury rules up until little Ben Domenech came around definitely puts you in the stupid category.

    I leave to others to determine who is stupid.

  60. 60
    zzyzx says:

    Two words for anyone who thinks that making up charges against someone is a sympton of leftism and not partianship – Vince Foster.

    Ah for the Clinton days again.

  61. 61
    BumperStickerist says:

    Darrell and John: what do you think about his post comparing judges to the KKK? Do you really think that is appropriate in a climate where judges are getting death threats all the time. Here’s your choice: renounce it or own it.

    Go back, Doug.

    Read Ben’s original post about judges slowly and outloud.

    ACCURATELY cut-and-paste it.

    And then ask your question again.

    .

  62. 62
    Capriccio says:

    In an ongoing effort to help JC down his road to Damascus, let me suggest the following: Let go of this lazy, tiresome habit you have of projecting all Leftiness onto any one person. No matter how hard you try, the Left, which is nothing if not diverse and disorganized, cannot be summed up in the thoughts and actions of any one person…be it Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore or Jane Hamsher. Jane Hamsher? Ann Coulter? Are you kidding me? Jane Hamsher is at best a second tier blogger. If she published a book tomorrow, how many lefties do you think would take it as their sworn ideological duty to buy her book? How many guest appearances would she get on Clear Channel? What do you think her speaking fee would be at all those liberal colleges? Jane Hamsher? I wonder if Howard Dean even knows who she is. Instead of singling out Jane Hamsher to illustrate “the gutter antics” of the Left, why don’t you go to Hullabaloo and read digby’s thoroughly thoughtful, reflective piece on the same subject and maybe you’ll feel better about this road you’re on, and you won’t be looking back with melancholy eyes on poor, put-upon plagiarizing Ben.

  63. 63
    Ancient Purple says:

    But 24 year-old kids do stupid things.

    DougJ, I will take issue with this. I know you are not excusing it, but dropping something like this in the conversation really muddles the issue.

    He is well over the age of majority and has been able to vote, drink, sign contracts, etc. for several years now. He knows better and has to accept any consequences of his actions.

    His age is irrelevant to the topic.

  64. 64
    Skip says:

    Darrell: ” Just to be clear you lying sack of shit, ”

    Elevating the level of discourse, as usual. What’s up? Are things not going exactly as expected? Go back to the Iraqi border and sniff a flower and suck a sweet.

  65. 65
    Slide says:

    Ok…maybe he is not a proven bigot, but…

    Stealing is a sin in Christianity, and plagiarism is stealing. Ben Domenech, the Washington Post’s new conservative blogger, tells us that he takes pride in his fundamentalist Christianity, including in a literal belief in the Genesis. This makes me think that he would also take pride in following the ten commandments of Christianity which include the command “Thou Shalt Not Steal”.

    If this is true he must feel pretty bad right now, given that he has been found to have plagiarized countless pieces of writing, including work that he has published since college years.

    Plagiarizing is stealing. It is also lying, because a plagiarist pretends to have written or produced something that is someone else’s work. Thus, Domenech appears guilty of both stealing and lying. He believes that his party is the party of moral and ethical values. Well, I guess we have found out what these values mean to him.

    Enough sermonizing about this young wingnut. It’s time to sermonize about the Washington Post who hired him without using the miraculous Googling tool. Either wingnuts get a free pass in the Post or whoever was supposed to have checked Domenech out was sleeping on the job. Or perhaps the whole thing was designed as a great revenge against the horrible liberal blogosphere. Whatever the explanation, the Post is not smelling very good right now.

    .

  66. 66
    neil says:

    Wow, is that the real Stephen Colbert? I know he reads blogs so it’s not far-fetched. Give us a shout-out, Stephen!

  67. 67
    yet another jeff says:

    Good times…good times. Does anyone remember when you could say somehing about someone, and if it was wrong, you were called “wrong” and not “a lying sack of shit?”

  68. 68
    srv says:

    If there’s one thing the Era of King George has taught anyone, it is that the ends justify the means and that shame is a quaint concept, just like the Constitution and Geneva Conventions.

    Anyone defending this Era deserves whatever they get and worse.

  69. 69
    Vladi G says:

    Even as I grow more and more disgusted and sick of the Republican party, I am still amazed at the gutter antics of the rabid left.

    Pretty rich coming from the guy who went out of his way to defend Mr. Cockslap the other day.

  70. 70
    Darrell says:

    Does anyone remember when you could say somehing about someone, and if it was wrong, you were called “wrong” and not “a lying sack of shit?”

    It was an intentional hateful smear, a really ugly smear.. not just an innocent mistake. Can you understand that distinction?

  71. 71
    canuckistani says:

    The following sweet gems are attributed to Ben here:
    http://stevegilliard.blogspot......oblem.html

    People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag. Stated so bluntly, many readers might find that way of putting the matter morally problematic. The extermination of anti-social elements does, after all, have a somewhat controversial history.
    .
    .
    .
    It just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime. I do not question the research or logic of Levitt’s argument. If a specifiable group is inordinately responsible for a social problem, it follows that eliminating a large number of people belonging to that group will reduce the problem.

    Maybe it’s clumsy and humourless Swiftian satire, cooked up by a young twerp who thinks he’s smarter than he is. But I would look askance at any of my friends who wrote that and tried to pass it off as a joke.

  72. 72
    Ancient Purple says:

    It was an intentional hateful smear, a really ugly smear.. not just an innocent mistake.

    But calling Coretta Scott King a Communist was just a simple slip of the tongue.

    Right.

  73. 73
    Vladi G says:

    Let go of this lazy, tiresome habit you have of projecting all Leftiness onto any one person.

    Better yet, project all leftiness onto the person that truly deserves it. Norbizness.

  74. 74
    Pooh says:

    Well, that didn’t taken long for John “done with the GOP” Cole to accuse “The Left,” monolith that it is, of ‘overplaying its hand’. Why do I feel I’ve seen this before?

    Canuckistani’s quote seems to make the charge non-ridiculous. I can’t really pass judgment because A) I’m not at all familiar with BD’s oeuvre (beyond the fact that as a liberal, I am in fact evil, if I believe what I read) B) His oeuvre may or may not be his oeuvre.

    Anyway, back to chucking bodies John, glad to help refocus you on your priorities. Wouldn’t it just have been easier to write a post saying “I hate Kenton Paulino” since that is really what this is all about anyway?

  75. 75
    Darrell says:

    But calling Coretta Scott King a Communist was just a simple slip of the tongue.

    Far, far less offensive than the racist smears thrown by the left at Coretta S King’s funeral:

    How dare a black man not know his place at a funeral, they’ll say. As if the Republican party and its surrogates have any right whatsoever to speak on behalf of Mrs. King, to tell black America what they can and cannot do to honor one of their most revered leaders.

    Despicable as hell? You bet. But typical of the left

  76. 76
    Thomas says:

    Conservatives could avoid defending allegedly nice people from smears if they demanded some sort of intelligence and originality from their publications. I think I’m an okay guy myself, not prone to violence or cruelty, generally, but a lot of people would say bad things about me if I somehow ended up successfully passing myself off as a heart surgeon at Cedar Sinai.

    Likewise, Ben Domenech, allegedly a nice person, is allowed to use a computer and ends up calling judges worse than the KKK and Coretta King a communist, a day after her funeral. Instead of being politely ignored, he seems to rise rung to rung, until he gets to the Post. The fact that this is possible would be equivalent to Cedar Sinai pulling me off the street, giving me a scalpel or whatever heart surgeons use, saying I’m a talented doctor until I believe it, and then permitting me to operate.

  77. 77
    Slide says:

    As a partisan liberal, I so hope that the Washington Post keeps young Ben around for a while. How great would that be? A right winger that steals and lies to advance his political agenda. Yes… Yes…. Please keep Ben as he is a emblematic of what the right is all about in the Bush era. Glen Greenwald, as usual, does a brilliant job dissecting the whole matter. Money quote:

    This strikes me as a very significant story now. The founder of RedState and Regnery editor (who, among others, edited the latest books of Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt) is a serial plagiarist, and Red State is issuing factually false defenses to justify his behavior.

    Domenech has been skyrocketed up the movement ladder quickly because his father is a well-connected Busy loyalist and he has obviously learned the art of limitless and ethics-free political warfare. In many ways, he’s a poster child for the Bush movement. And the fact that WashingtonPost.com hired him to be one of their in-house bloggers in response to right-wing pressure, while his allies defend even his most indefensible conduct, is quite a case study of so many significant things.

    .

  78. 78
    McNulty says:

    Hey slide, you dipshit, you said John’s side “started it”. You guys have only been screaming “racist”, usually with nothing to back it up, for forty years.

    By all means, please point to the incident where it was John’s side “starting it”. I guarantee you I’ll be able to show something equally dirty from Dems before that.

    I mean, maybe Dems are timid in whatever white-picket fence liberal haven you live in (so that you can call people racist while never coming in contact with any of them scary minorities), but here in Philly, they’ve always been pretty bare-knuckle.

  79. 79
    Vladi G says:

    Despicable as hell?

    You’ll have to forgive Darrell the serial liar. That comment that he quoted cut a little to close to the bone for him.

  80. 80
    Andrew says:

    Pooh, geez, poor Ben didn’t write that silly racist crap, he merely quoted it in its entirety. Sort of like saying “Some people think that John Cole is a hypocritical asshole, w.r.t. Domenech and Sheehan.” Hey, I didn’t say it. Someone else wrote that and I just quoted it.

    But geez, give him some credit! He linked and cited the source!

  81. 81
    Steve says:

    Darrell clearly belongs to the new generation of Republicans, who believe that racism is long dead, that we would have total equality if only we could stamp out that darn “reverse racism,” and that unless someone flat-out says “blacks are an inferior race,” it’s a despicable smear to label them a racist. One of the reasons racists learned to talk in “code words” was so they could express wide-eyed disbelief at charges of racism. And when the KKK and their ideological brethren repeatedly slurred Dr. and Mrs. King as “Communists,” a code word is what it was. Whether Ben Domenech knew he was repeating 60’s-style code, I frankly have no idea.

    The right-wing criticism of Mrs. King’s funeral was rooted in flat-out racism and I’m not ashamed to say it. I won’t say racism was the only motivation because clearly, some Republicans were simply upset that someone had the audacity to put their Dear Leader on the spot with a few pointed comments. But I really don’t care how many names Darrell wants to call me for saying it, the charge of racism is absolutely valid. Deny it all you like.

  82. 82
    Pooh says:

    It certainly is a novel defense to plagarism: “I didn’t write that nasty stuff”. It’s sort of the evolutionairy Instapundit – an approving link only approves of the good parts…

  83. 83
    Perry Como says:

    We Must Defend! We Must Attack! We Must Continue! We Must Be Contrived!

    I love Redstate.

  84. 84
    Slide says:

    McNutty:

    I mean, maybe Dems are timid in whatever white-picket fence liberal haven you live in (so that you can call people racist while never coming in contact with any of them scary minorities), but here in Philly, they’ve always been pretty bare-knuckle.

    a) I never called anyone racist

    b) I was a NY police officer for over 20 years, the majority of which time, was spent in minority communities.

    c) you are obviously a major league asshole (big time as Dick Cheney might have said) and I feel no need to respond to your silly insults “dipshit”.

  85. 85
    Ancient Purple says:

    Despicable as hell?

    Please explain how your quote from Avarosis mitigates the fact that calling Coretta Scott King a Communist was a smear.

  86. 86
    OCSteve says:

    I’m glad to see there are plenty of right-wing bloggers calling for him to step down. No one is attempting to defend him at this point.

    junkyardblog
    michellemalkin
    patterico
    americanthinker
    riehlworldview

  87. 87
    don surber says:

    Ben Domenech is a partisan hack who is too inexperienced and too insulated to be of much use to WaPo online readers. Terrible decision. Circle the wagons, bro

    “I have read thousands of his private emails at Red State”

    Maybe he should publish those because his posts come off as vapid

  88. 88
    don surber says:

    Perry Como Says:
    “We Must Defend! We Must Attack! We Must Continue! We Must Be Contrived!”

    Further proof that “big” bloggers are no different than the MSM elities they mock

    Now I am going to close my eyes, hum the Florida State “Tomahawk” fight song and imagine John Wayne Cole ordering everyone to circle those blogs

  89. 89
    Slide says:

    hey, even Michelle Malkin “gets it”

    I cheered for Ben, the editor of my last book at Regnery, when he announced his new position. I criticized unhinged bloggers on the Left who leveled vicious ad hominem attacks against him. It’s clear, as the good folks at Red State (which Ben co-founded) note, that his detractors were on a search-and-destroy mission from the get-go.

    But now the determined moonbat hordes have exposed multiple instances of what clearly appear to me to be blatant lifting of entire, unique passages by Ben from other writers. It is one thing to paraphrase basic facts from a wire story. But to filch the original thoughts and distinctly crafted phrases of a writer without crediting him/her–and doing so repeatedly–is unacceptable in our business. Some of the cases occurred while Ben was in college; he is blaming an editor for these transgressions. But at least one other incident involved a piece he wrote for NRO after he graduated. The side-by-side comparisons of these extensive passages is damning.

    I certainly understand the impulse on the Right to rally around Domenech. But I can’t ignore the plain evidence. And the charges can’t be dismissed as “lies” or jealousy attributed to Ben’s age.

    As someone who has worked in daily journalism for 14 years, I have a lot of experience related to this horrible situation: I’ve had my work plagiarized by shameless word and idea thiefs many times over the years. I’ve also been baselessly accused of plagiarism by some of the same leftists now attacking Ben.

    The bottom line is: I know it when I see it. And, painfully, Domenech’s detractors, are right. He should own up to it and step down. Then, the Left should cease its sick gloating and leave him and his family alone.

    wonder when Cole will “get it”?

  90. 90
    Darrell says:

    The right-wing criticism of Mrs. King’s funeral was rooted in flat-out racism and I’m not ashamed to say it.

    Of course your not.. Because only right wing racism would explain their criticism of statements like these made at Mrs. King’s funeral:

    By far, the harshest criticism came from Rev. Joseph Lowery, a King protégé, who spoke of Mrs. King’s staunch opposition to the occupation of Iraq. “She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar,” said Lowery. “We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew, and we knew, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor.”

    or Jimmy Carter accusing Bush of being a racist at her funeral:

    President Jimmy Carter, who has come to be one of the harshest critics of Mr. Bush, hurled fire across the stage over the deplorable administration response to Hurricane Katrina. “This commemorative ceremony this morning and this afternoon is not only to acknowledge the great contributions of Coretta and Martin, but to remind us that the struggle for equal rights is not over,” said Carter. “We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, those who were most devastated by Katrina, to know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans.”

    Carter also took a moment to drop a brick over the recent revelations that the NSA has been spying on Americans, without court approval or warrants, at the behest of Mr. Bush. “It was difficult for them personally,” said Carter, “with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretapping, other surveillance, and as you know, harassment from the FBI.”

    or this

    The tributes were appropriate. They were on topics not only relevant, but central to the lives and work of Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King, Jr. I’m wondering why Bush was granted speaking privileges to begin with? Their lives have nothing in common and I doubt they were close friends.

    Yet to Steve and so many other Democrats Republican racism is the only explantion for Republican criticisms. There can be no other reason. And he is not “ashamed” to say so. Do you people see how fucked up you truly are? Of course you don’t.. because you have no honor

  91. 91
    Steve says:

    Steve Says:

    I won’t say racism was the only motivation…

    Darrell Says:

    Yet to Steve and so many other Democrats Republican racism is the only explantion for Republican criticisms.

    The only debate here is whether Darrell has a problem with reading comprehension, or simply a problem telling the truth.

  92. 92
    Slide says:

    Do you people see how fucked up you truly are? Of course you don’t.. because you have no honor

    Darrell stirring defense of someone who has been proven to be a serial plagerizer. Priceless. You can’t make this shit up.

  93. 93
    Darrell says:

    The only debate here is whether Darrell has a problem with reading comprehension, or simply a problem telling the truth.

    Here’s what you wrote Steve..

    But I really don’t care how many names Darrell wants to call me for saying it, the charge of racism is absolutely valid. Deny it all you like

    Unambiguous. You’re a scumbag Steve

  94. 94
    jg says:

    Steve all that matters is what he thinks you said. His job is to shout republican talking points and misrepresent the opposition. There is no reason to talk to him. He and certain others serve no purpose beyond giving this blog some rigth wing street cred. To keep it from descending deeper into the cesspool.

  95. 95
    Darrell says:

    Steve all that matters is what he thinks you said. His job is to shout republican talking points and misrepresent the opposition.

    I quoted Steve verbatim.

  96. 96
    Darrell says:

    The right-wing criticism of Mrs. King’s funeral was rooted in flat-out racism and I’m not ashamed to say it.

    that says it all.. and you can bet those lowlife sentiments are shared by most leftists, who do not hesitate to use racist smears

  97. 97
    Steve says:

    I’ll repeat myself.

    Steve Says:

    I won’t say racism was the only motivation…

    Darrell Says:

    Yet to Steve and so many other Democrats Republican racism is the only explantion for Republican criticisms.

    Does anyone besides Darrell not agree that Darrell flat-out lied about what I said?

    Is anyone besides me shocked that Darrell would even show his face in a thread about plagiarism?

  98. 98
    Darrell says:

    The right-wing criticism of Mrs. King’s funeral was rooted in flat-out racism and I’m not ashamed to say it.

    But I really don’t care how many names Darrell wants to call me for saying it, the charge of racism is absolutely valid. Deny it all you like

    I’m sorry, was there anything ambiguous about those quotes from you Steve?.. quotes taken in context

  99. 99
    srv says:

    He’s right, and he’s always original –

    There can be no other reason. And he is not “ashamed” to say so. Do you people see how fucked up you truly are? Of course you don’t.. because you have no honor

    There can be no other reason. And he is not ashamed to say so. Do you people see how fucked up you truly are? Of course you don’tbecause you have no honor

  100. 100
    Brian says:

    If the guy does resign because of this, take note of how prominent Right-leaning bloggers (i.e. Malkin, American Thinker) are taking him to task.

    The lesson liberals should take from this is that we deal with our dirty laundry. We deal with it openly, honestly, and in a forthright manner.

    Can the Right expect the same from the Left? Or can we expect the same circling of the wagons we’re used to seeing (remember Mary Mapes, Joe Biden, Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown, Martin Luther King, Jr.)?

    Truth is, the Right has integrity. The Left is possesed with hypocrisy, hatred, foul mouths, and, worst of all….no sense of humor.

  101. 101
    Darrell says:

    Is anyone besides me shocked that Darrell would even show his face in a thread about plagiarism?

    If you read John’s post, this thread is about leftist tendency to hurl dishonest smears of racism.. which is exactly what you yourself have done.

  102. 102
    SeesThroughIt says:

    I think Ben might actually be too young to understand that “Communist” was a code word used by the racists who opposed MLK. He probably thinks that when he calls someone a Communist, it means Communist. It’s still a fucking disrespectful smear to levy at a great woman on the day of her funeral, though. Was it right below one of those posts about how “the Left doesn’t know how to behave respectfully at funerals”?

    Right the fuck on.

    Basically, Ben is a plagiarist for certain and a smug dickhead who, by virtue of his connections thanks to dear old dad, thinks he’s much smarter than he actually is. And he’s got a very typical far-right-wing obtuseness when it comes to matters of race, which may or may not be intentional. I’m not entirely convinced we’ve got a smoking gun of racism here, but he’s certainly quite foolish and bass-ackward about it.

  103. 103
    Steve says:

    Steve Says:

    I won’t say racism was the only motivation…

    Darrell Says:

    Yet to Steve and so many other Democrats Republican racism is the only explantion for Republican criticisms.

  104. 104
    Darrell says:

    Oh we see Steve, on one hand you say say Republican racism wasn’t the “only” reason, and on the other hand their criticsm was “rooted in flat-out racism”. On what basis do you make that charge you lowlife?

  105. 105
    Steve says:

    If the guy does resign because of this, take note of how prominent Right-leaning bloggers (i.e. Malkin, American Thinker) are taking him to task.

    I’ll just stick to the front page of RedState.org.

    “Plagiarism” is only the sixth or seventh line of attack they’ve tried in their campaign to assassinate the character of a good and decent person.

    The lies told, from charges of plagarism to ties to Jack Abramoff are hyperbolic lies. There are no facts or truths related to any of these charges.

    The charges of plagarism are false, meant to bring down a good and honest man. The presented facts to prove plagarism are specious — products of shoddy work. One could easily think the producers of 60 Minutes II were behind them.

    I could go on like this for hours.

  106. 106
    Blue Neponset says:

    Darrell,

    Redstate.org’s own Mike Krempasky voiced reservations about that diary. Was Krempasky wrong too? The King Funeral diary was disgusting and in very very poor taste. That doesn’t mean it was flat-out racism but that diary was no paragon of racial tolerance either. For fucksake Blanton compared Mrs. King’s funeral to a “Def Comedy Jam”. Can you even at least conceed that that comment was, if nothing else, racially insensitive?

  107. 107
    Steve says:

    Darrell Says:

    Oh we see Steve, on one hand you say say Republican racism wasn’t the “only” reason, and on the other hand their criticsm was “rooted in flat-out racism”. On what basis do you make that charge you lowlife?

    First you can apologize for lying about what I said, and then I’ll explain to you where the racism lies.

  108. 108
    Darrell says:

    First you can apologize for lying about what I said, and then I’ll explain to you where the racism lies.

    Steve, I quoted you directly, but you’re too dishonest to own up to what you wrote. It’s who you are. Anyone doubting this can re-read the thread for themselves

  109. 109
    Pooh says:

    Don’t hold your breathe Steve, Senators apologize to no man.

  110. 110
    SeesThroughIt says:

    the new generation of Republicans, who believe that racism is long dead

    I actually saw a right-wing blogger say, “Blacks aren’t slaves anymore, they’re allowed to vote…so what’s the problem?” Basically claiming that because Blacks are unenslaved and endowed with voting rights, racism has ceased to exist. Except against white males. It was so ridiculous, I didn’t even know what to say. I mean, when somebody honestly believes that, how are you even supposed to have a discussion with them? It’s like trying to talk about addition with somebody who believes 2+2=5.

    Darrell: I see you’re still butt-hurt that people spoke uncomfortable truths at Coretta King’s funeral. You really need to get over it.

  111. 111
    Jorge says:

    From missing WMDS to plagiarizing Ben Ds, it amazes me how Michelle Malkin will call folks on the left moonbats for making statements that end up being proven correct. And I am especially amazed by her calls for folks to leave poor Ben alone when she is merciless in her attacks of those that disagree with her. Malkin has forfeit her right to call for civility.

    As far as the racist comment – well, I can sort of believe that Ben D had no idea that he was using 1960’s racist code when he called Mrs. King a communist. However, I would hardly say that it is unwarranted that somebody might infer from the comment that Ben D is a racist. And considering some of the other quotes we’ve seen about Ben’s views of blacks and poverty, it might seem fairly justified to say that he has some racist tendencies.

  112. 112
    Darrell says:

    Darrell: I see you’re still butt-hurt that people spoke uncomfortable truths at Coretta King’s funeral. You really need to get over it.

    You see, to the scumbags on the left, smears of racism = uncomfortable truths

  113. 113
    SeesThroughIt says:

    Anyone doubting this can re-read the thread for themselves

    I re-read it. Steve’s right and you’re wrong.

  114. 114
    Par R says:

    Slide and a few others here have stated that conservatives are more likely than liberals to slander and hurl nasty remarks/adjectives at individuals with whom they may disagree. Well, Duncan Black/atrios, otherwise known as Tiny Meat…an appellation given him by an early girlfriend in apparent recognition that his manhood could not even satisfy a toy chihuahua…provides one basis for evaluating Slide’s theory. Following are a few verbatim excerpts drawn from Tiny Meat’s site by Dan Morgan last year:

    First, it is interesting that Tiny Meat seems to genuinely consider himself to be tolerant. To get a sense of his kind of tolerance, consider this Tiny Meat quote:

    “I am just so tired of right wing assholes who equate disagreement with an attempt to stifle speech. It is obviously an admission that they are, indeed, full of shit, but shocked that anyone would dare to call them on it.

    “You wanna debate? Bring it on. You got nothing but moronic hate.

    “Disagreement is NOT an attempt to take away your right to speak. Only in your deluded insecure senstive pathetic little baby brains it that the case. You got something to say? Say it. But I’m gonna call you on it, bigotboy.”

    Whew, now is that someone that you want to sit down with and have a civil debate on the issues of the day, or what? Clearly, a model of civility.

    Well, once the debating starts, let’s see the example that Tiny Meat sets for the readers of his site. Keep in mind that he is among the leaders (for traffic) of left-of-center individual bloggers in the U.S., so certainly he would realize his example has consequences. So let’s get rolling on the list of quotes …

    Setting the tone for debate by maximizing your sweeping stereotypes of your opponents:

    “The people who voted George Bush and the Republicans into office this year didn’t do so because they were conned by a right wing asshole posing as a compassionate centrist. They did so precisely because he is a right wing asshole. Yes, the modern Republican party consists of nasty bigots and liars …”

    How to characterize your chief blogging competitor:

    “Glenn Reynolds, Fascist Hatemonger”

    How to criticize a blogging competitor who happens to be gay:

    “Andrew Sullivan works for racists AND homophobes (catch the tell-tale sign of clinton cock obsession at the end). … nice money if you can get it.”

    Daily reminder of your moral superiority to those that you disagree with:

    “Fun Google hit of the day: republican hypocrites sucking cock.”

    A basic method for disagreeing with someone:

    “I hate George Will. Smug overrated hack.”

    Denouncing NYT writer, Nick Kristof :

    “… But, now that it’s all over, I can say – Fuck you Kristof, you human scum…”

    More love for Kristof (apparently Kristof is a criminal of some sort … or a Republican):

    “Yes, human scum Kristof is at it again.”

    Raising the bar on respecting the office of presidency:

    “No you asshole, you aren’t against leaks – you’re just against leaks YOU DON’T APPROVE OF you pathetic piece of shit.”

    Elevating commentary on the presidency as well as mentally handicapped people:

    “I think someone asked in comments recently something along the lines of “Who are we going to see tonight? The angry frat boy or the retarded chimp. I think the answer is, “angry retarded chimp.”

    Hinting that conservatives make natural child molesters:

    “Jeebus, there are days when I feel like I could devote this entire blog to right wing assholes who get caught with kids. ”

    When in doubt, just go for hate:

    “Reagan was not “beloved by all.” He was loved by some, liked by some, and hated by some with good reason.”

    How to disagree with a religous leader’s point of view:

    “Kerry’s a regular mass-attending Catholic despite all the crap the media heaps on him for it because some asshole Bishop somewhere hinted that maybe he shouldn’t be allowed to eat the wafer.”

    Enforcing political partisanship:

    “It just came to my attention that Dennis Kucinich was one of the ones who voted to begin impeachment proceedings against Clinton. Screw you, Dennis.”

    Revisiting Junior High School style name-calling:

    “cock-headed manwhore …”

    Thoughts on religous inclusiveness on the Left:

    “I’m tired of liberalish Christians telling me it’s my job to reach out to Christian moderates who feel that “the Left” is hostile to them. Screw that.”

    Final quote – recall that Tiny Meat considers himself tolerant!

    “If you want to preach your crap, us more tolerant folk are gonna preach our crap more loudly.”

    Now, if the above quotes are those of a tolerant person – imagine what an intolerant person must be like! I guess Duncan/atrios/Tiny Meat is the “Ann Coulter of the Loony Left.”

  115. 115
    Perry Como says:

    Don’t hold your breathe Steve, Senators apologize to no man.

    Maybe this whole episode strikes a little too close to home with the good Senator.

    It is good to see that Red State has the integrity to deal with Young Ben “openly, honestly, and in a forthright manner”.

  116. 116
    Brian says:

    You really need to get over it.

    I think we’re over it, but the bullshit ranting about racism in America needs to be called for what it mostly is: bullshit. The Democrats are living off the Civil Rights – Feminism – Vietnam era struggles, so their entire world view comes from this lens that see perpetual struggle in race, gender, culture, and the “establishment”.

    That said, the King funeral was sickening as a display of this struggle, thrown at the face of a sitting president and first lady, on a national stage. It was rank political opportunism, and the Right is sick of it, and it will be revealed and shamed at every turn.

    When you bring up race, and call us racists, expect these uncomfortable facts about your politics to come into play.

  117. 117
    Blue Neponset says:

    Par R,

    Does the irony that you repeatedly call Atrios, “tiny meat” while you harraunged him for calling people names escape you or am I speaking to DougJ?

  118. 118
    Perry Como says:

    Blue Neponset, this thread is 97% DougJ by my count.

  119. 119
    Jorge says:

    The charges of plagarism are false, meant to bring down a good and honest man. The presented facts to prove plagarism are specious—products of shoddy work. One could easily think the producers of 60 Minutes II were behind them.

    I doubt Redstate goes to half the trouble to vet what they write then what the producers of 60 Minutes II did for the Bush national guard memos story. And honestly, slandering a group of journalists that get it right 99% of the time because of one mistake* in a message meant to defend someone for purposely plagiarizing is ridiculous.

    *The Bush memo story was a colossal mistake. No doubt. But there is no proof that the producers of that show were guilty of anything more than failing to properly vet a story that they felt was true. A huge crime in journalism giving the content and context of the memo but still one incident and nothing that comes close to a pattern in the history of the 60 Minutes franchise. And let’s be honest, if those on the right that castigate 60 Minutes for that one story held the current administration to the same standard for vetting information and telling the truth, the entire Bush administration would be hanging from the tallest tree in D.C.

  120. 120
    Steve says:

    I quite clearly made a charge of racism. I quite clearly said I didn’t think racism was the only motivation at work. And Darrell quite clearly responded that “to Steve and so many other Democrats Republican racism is the only explantion for Republican criticisms.”

    And when called on it, instead of saying “yep, I got that wrong,” he tried to shift the goalposts by saying “see, look at these OTHER things you said! You clearly made a charge of racism!”

    Yes, I clearly made a charge of racism. I also clearly said I didn’t think racism was the only motivation at work. And then Darrell lied and claimed I said racism WAS the only explanation. We could go on like this for days…

    Just a reminder, friends, in case you didn’t click the link I provided earlier, here is everything you need to know about Darrell’s integrity.

  121. 121
    DougJ says:

    Ben Domenech is a partisan hack who is too inexperienced and too insulated to be of much use to WaPo online readers. Terrible decision.

    Exactly. Conservatives are the ones should be angry about his being hired. He makes them look bad.

  122. 122
    don surber says:

    Michelle Malkin just (two hours ago) said Ben should walk the plank

    (plays TAPS)

    Guess John and the RedStaters couldn’t get everyone to circle

    FYI, I have never watched “Red Dawn” so I guess that does not make me a real conservative

  123. 123
    jg says:

    White people love black people now. There’s no racism in this country.

  124. 124
    DougJ says:

    I’ll read it again, Bumper Stickerist.

  125. 125
    Broken says:

    Darrel Quotes:

    The right (of which John Cole is not a member) really has gotten to a point where any criticism of a Republican is “left-wing partisanship”,

    Just to be clear you lying sack of shit, John Cole is not complaining about just “any” criticism of a Republican, he is specifically complaining about dishonest racist smears on a Republican, a hateful smear the left uses too often

    Yeah right. The “Bush-criticism = Left-wing” card is always the first one out of the wingnut deck. Followed by the “let’s change the subject” card.

    Yet to Steve and so many other Democrats Republican racism is the only explantion for Republican criticisms. There can be no other reason. And he is not “ashamed” to say so. Do you people see how fucked up you truly are? Of course you don’t.. because you have no honor

    Gotta love it when the far righties engage in self-parody. Non-righties are fucked-up and have no honor because we don’t like plagerists.

  126. 126
    Louise says:

    I’d find it easier to forgive Ben for being a racist (if he is one, and I have no idea about that) than for being a plagiarist.* Someone who grows up in a fairly insulated environment can believe a lot of things that a more broad life experience would contradict. It’s another matter when someone publishes such small-mindedness on a blog or in a newspaper, but as for the person himself? I’d be more inclined to try and educate him than instantly condemn him.

    But plagiarism? There’s no excuse. It’s not like Mommy and Daddy sit around the dining room table and say “I can’t believe that writer got the job when there was a more qualified plagiarist in line for it!” You don’t grow up learning that plagiarism is ok.

    *And he is. If the editor of your college newspaper fails to provide citations the first two or three times you publish other people’s words, you stop writing for him, or issue a public denunciation. Ditto the National Review, etc.

  127. 127
    Blue Neponset says:

    Blue Neponset, this thread is 97% DougJ by my count.

    Thanks Perry. DougJ is just too good at his craft somedays. This is one of them.

  128. 128
    jg says:

    FYI, I have never watched “Red Dawn” so I guess that does not make me a real conservative

    You should. Its actually a cool movie. A little dated now and sorta cheesy but still a good 2 hrs spent.

  129. 129
    yet another jeff says:

    It was an intentional hateful smear, a really ugly smear.. not just an innocent mistake. Can you understand that distinction?

    Yes. But I do have a question for you, as far as accusations that are debatable in truth go, how would you rate “racism” on a scale of 1-10 where 1 is the most hateful of all and 10 is about even with calling someone an asshole?

  130. 130
    SeesThroughIt says:

    You see, to the scumbags on the left, smears of racism = uncomfortable truths

    I notice you haven’t been able to disprove anything that was said at the funeral. Which would make them truths. And they clearly make you uncomfortable, so….

    Also, there’s nothing politcally opportunistic about talking about the work of one of the most famous and important civil rights activists in American history and then relating that work to present-day conditions to illustrate that much progress has been made, but said activist’s work is hardly done. Again, uncomfortable truth.

  131. 131
    Darrell says:

    Yes, I clearly made a charge of racism. I also clearly said I didn’t think racism was the only motivation at work

    On what basis did you make your sweeping charges of racism? Where is the evidence of this ‘flat-out racism’ you speak of??

    Oh let me guess.. it’s because you “know” deep down that Republicans are racist, right Steve? Take a close look people. This is how MOST of the left thinks. It’s who they are

  132. 132
    VidaLoca says:

    John,

    This is the quote from young Ben (writing as “Augustine”) that sent Jane Hamsher over the top:

    People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag. Stated so bluntly, many readers might find that way of putting the matter morally problematic. The extermination of anti-social elements does, after all, have a somewhat controversial history. One thinks, perhaps inevitably, of the Holocaust, but it did not start or stop there. Six years ago, economist Steven Levitt and law professor John Donohue sparked a brouhaha with their claim that abortion is probably the greatest crime-prevention measure ever invented. Now that argument has received renewed currency in the bestselling book Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Levitt and his co-author Stephen Dubner. In recent years there has been a 30- to 50-percent drop in crime, and many explanations are offered: new policing methods, more than two million people behind bars, the drop-off in the use of crack, and on and on. But a careful analysis of the data, say Levitt and company, indicates that the biggest factor, far and away, is that the millions of young men most likely to commit crimes were killed early on. A refreshing note of candor in the current discussion is that nobody is denying that all those fetuses killed in the womb were really human beings. So it seems the question of when human life begins has been settled once and for all. The dramatic decline in crime began eighteen years after Roe v. Wade, and a few years earlier in those states that liberalized their abortion law. Of course, most of the commentaries steer away from a too-explicit reference to race, although everybody is aware of the astonishingly inordinate incidence of crimes committed by young male blacks and the equally inordinate incidence of abortions procured by black women. In one interview, Levitt said his findings had little or nothing to do with race; his research on the correlation between crime and unstable family situations was based on Scandinavian research. Well yes, but nobody to my knowledge has suggested that the problem of crime in the United States is significantly related to the problem of Swedish immigration. Levitt, like Donohue, is also careful to say that he is not a supporter of the unlimited abortion license. I notice that many other commentators make a point of saying that this discussion is not about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. It just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime. I do not question the research or logic of Levitt’s argument. If a specifiable group is inordinately responsible for a social problem, it follows that eliminating a large number of people belonging to that group will reduce the problem. It is hard to argue with that. What is morally odious is the cool and disinterested way in which the commentariat is discussing what might fairly be described as racial cleansing. It’s too bad about all those dead babies, but it is a kind of solution to the crime problem, if not a final solution. Meanwhile, those who style themselves black leaders, especially political leaders, are overwhelmingly in support of the unlimited abortion license, thus maintaining their distinction of being the only ethnic or racial leadership in history to actively collaborate in dramatically reducing the number of people they claim to lead. If they had been allowed to live, there would be about twenty million more blacks in America. White racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership. In another lifetime, before he succumbed to national ambitions, Jesse Jackson regularly declared that the war on poverty had been replaced by a war on the poor. There is more than a little to that. Having despaired of preparing young blacks to enter into the opportunities and responsibilities of American life, the society apparently decided to eliminate them before they had a chance to become a threat. The story of the Exodus plays a large and understandable part in black history: “Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, `When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him.’ But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live.” Today’s black leaders are more compliant, much to the satisfaction of those who think we would all be better off with fewer black people.

    Her article is here.
    (which is from earlier yesterday, it’s not in the article that you’re quoting). But I don’t think she’s pulling the racism charge out of thin air.

  133. 133
    Broken says:

    DougJ says:

    Conservatives are the ones should be angry about his being hired. He makes them look bad.

    Exactly. Putting a fundamentalist plagerizer wing-nut on the WP site is no favor to the right.

  134. 134
    Jorge says:

    That said, the King funeral was sickening as a display of this struggle, thrown at the face of a sitting president and first lady, on a national stage. It was rank political opportunism, and the Right is sick of it, and it will be revealed and shamed at every turn.

    I think the President and his handlers should have done a little bit of research into who Dr. King, Mrs. King, and the guests of the funeral were before they decided to prop him up on stage. There is a reason why Dr. and Mrs. King were labelled “communists” and were spied upon by the FBI. Do you think the leaders of the civil rights movement will somehow be impressed by the opinions of so many on the right about when and where they should speak truth to power or whether racism is alive or dead in America?

  135. 135
    John Cole says:

    I’m glad to see there are plenty of right-wing bloggers calling for him to step down. No one is attempting to defend him at this point.

    junkyardblog
    michellemalkin
    patterico
    americanthinker
    riehlworldview

    I think he should probably step down if he has plagiarized (and it does not look good). but that was not the point of this post, so I am not sure how I or other conservatives are not ‘getting it.’

    The point of this post was to attack the bullshit racist charges that Jane and others are leveling. I am not in the mood to defend people for sins they have committed (in this case, plagiarism), but I am willing to defend people from nasty smears.

    And what is most amusing about this thread so far is that several of you have mentioned the smears of treasson sometimes leveled against Democrats.

    A.) I defend you when people do that.

    B.) Republicans are called racist as frequently as you are called traitors. Neither is fair or healthy.

  136. 136
    SeesThroughIt says:

    FYI, I have never watched “Red Dawn” so I guess that does not make me a real conservative

    You should. Its actually a cool movie. A little dated now and sorta cheesy but still a good 2 hrs spent.

    Agreed. It’s a fabulously entertaining bit of schlock, totally worth the time spent.

  137. 137
    Darrell says:

    I notice you haven’t been able to disprove anything that was said at the funeral. Which would make them truths

    How do you “disprove” suggestions that Bush let people die from Katrina because of the color of their skin? That is precisely the sort of “truths” being alleged against the President at Mrs. King’s funeral.

  138. 138
    Steve says:

    On what basis did you make your sweeping charges of racism? Where is the evidence of this ‘flat-out racism’ you speak of??

    Oh let me guess.. it’s because you “know” deep down that Republicans are racist, right Steve? Take a close look people. This is how MOST of the left thinks. It’s who they are

    I have to repeat myself again.

    First you can apologize for lying about what I said, and then I’ll explain to you where the racism lies.

    I will give you a hint, though. Your “guess” is incorrect.

    But this is, ironically, totally emblematic of how the Right thinks. There is no such thing as a valid charge of racism, other than racism against whites. In their world, if you accuse Republicans of racism, the only possible reason is that you believe all Republicans are racist. There’s no chance that you might actually have a real basis.

  139. 139
    jg says:

    I thik Ben’s a racist but thats only because I’m fairly certain almost all people are racists, black, white, red, yellow, all of them. I was a much bigger racists when I was a kid but there’s still some left in there. Its natural, birds of a feather. Racism will never go away because of a very simple fact, black people aren’t white and white people aren’t black and so on… There will always be that distinction, there will always be the desire, the preference to live amongst people like you. Doesn’t mean there has to be race riots or that we can never get along, it just means that that basic fact will always be there and tensions will arise from it. There are also many good things that will come from people of different races living together but the tension will also always and forever be there.

  140. 140
    Skip says:

    Box Turtle Ben: “People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them.”

    My God! I expect even John will have a few problems washing that one away.

  141. 141
    Steve says:

    The point of this post was to attack the bullshit racist charges that Jane and others are leveling. I am not in the mood to defend people for sins they have committed (in this case, plagiarism), but I am willing to defend people from nasty smears.

    And what is most amusing about this thread so far is that several of you have mentioned the smears of treasson sometimes leveled against Democrats.

    A.) I defend you when people do that.

    B.) Republicans are called racist as frequently as you are called traitors. Neither is fair or healthy.

    Hey, a point fairly made, John. I give you credit.

    I think, though, that you are too glibly bypassing the fact that the “Communist” smear was quite regularly deployed as a code word, by the KKK and other racists, against Dr. and Mrs. King back in the day.

    I gave Ben the benefit of the doubt, above, when I said he’s just a kid and perhaps he doesn’t even understand the historical context. It is a bit of a coincidence to choose that particular smear for Mrs. King, understand. But still, you shouldn’t act like the accusation of racism just comes out of thin air.

  142. 142
    yet another jeff says:

    How do you “disprove” suggestions that Bush let people die from Katrina because of the color of their skin? That is precisely the sort of “truths” being alleged against the President at Mrs. King’s funeral.

    Yep, suggested…it could also be meant to say that “poor people live in shoddy houses with no insurance and can’t afford to evacuate when disaster comes knocking so we’ve got a lot to do to bring equality to those poor people that quite possibly are in that situation due in part to the color of their skin”

    But, you’re right, they probably meant to say the same thing that Kayne West said but just made it vague so some people, the wrong people that don’t have the decoder rings, might not notice that they were saying “Bush let people die because they were black.”

  143. 143
    jg says:

    The point of this post was to attack the bullshit racist charges that Jane and others are leveling. I am not in the mood to defend people for sins they have committed (in this case, plagiarism), but I am willing to defend people from nasty smears.

    I don’t see why its a smear. There seems to be lots of evidence of his racism. Its not as explicit as yelling ni***rs suck but its still racial hatred. I think you realize he’s a racists but want to defend him because you’re both righties and you’re losing cred and his ability to be coy about his racism gives you a foundation for your defense. Its crap. You attack lefties for implications but defend righties unless their transgression is absolutey explicit.

  144. 144
    Darrell says:

    In their world, if you accuse Republicans of racism, the only possible reason is that you believe all Republicans are racist.

    you have given no basis, no justification for your allegation

    The right-wing criticism of Mrs. King’s funeral was rooted in flat-out racism and I’m not ashamed to say it.

    The reason you haven’t is because there is no basis for making such a sweeping claim. It’s because you’re a flat-out scumbag

  145. 145
  146. 146
    jane hamsher says:

    “Jane Hamshers of the left spend a month accusing the soldiers of being war criminals for using WP weapons.”

    You better be able to back that up because I will be over here every fucking day until you do (and you can’t, because I never wrote about white phosphorous weapons even once).

    Do we understand each other?

  147. 147
    Jorge says:

    Can you imagine Bill Clinton attending the funeral of say, Pat Robertson or James Dobson, and Clinton not expecting folks to strongly bring up issues that are of great concern to the Christian Right and were near and dear to the heart of the person being eulogized?

  148. 148
    Broken says:

    John Cole says:

    And what is most amusing about this thread so far is that several of you have mentioned the smears of treasson sometimes leveled against Democrats.

    A.) I defend you when people do that.

    B.) Republicans are called racist as frequently as you are called traitors. Neither is fair or healthy.

    Yes, you do defend those who are labelled “Traitor” simply for disagreeing with Bush foreign policy. Coming from a conservative, that earns my respect.

    But the charge that the GOP harbors racists has some stick to it. The majority of Jews, Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities vote Democratic for a reason. This has been true ever since the Southern Democrats switched parties in the late 60s.

  149. 149
    SeesThroughIt says:

    How do you “disprove” suggestions that Bush let people die from Katrina because of the color of their skin? That is precisely the sort of “truths” being alleged against the President at Mrs. King’s funeral.

    Right. Here’s what Carter said:

    This commemorative ceremony this morning and this afternoon is not only to acknowledge the great contributions of Coretta and Martin, but to remind us that the struggle for equal rights is not over. We only have to recall the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi-those who were most devastated by Katrina-to know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans. It is our responsibility to continue their crusade.

    Where in there does he say anything about “Bush let people die because they’re Black?” Where does he even mention Bush at all? Touchy, touchy, Darrell.

    Rev. Lowery said, “For war, billions more, but no more for the poor.” Yes, billions upon billions have been approved for spending in Iraq. Meanwhile, social aid program budgets have been slashed. So he was right on the money. If that makes you mad, perhaps you should take it up with your beloved president. But no, you’d rather spew at people who speak these uncomfortable truths.

    I am right, Darrell. You are wrong. I have proven my point. You have only proven your inability to actually listen to what people say and instead debate vigrously based on your false (and, often, stupid) misinterpretation of what people say. But I guess clueless right-wingers like you can’t help being pitifully dishonest to the core, right Darrell? After all, “it’s just who you are,” right Darrell? Battling the made-up voices in your head is the intelelctual depth of the right wing, right Darrell?

    You are dismissed now. Go learn something before you try to argue with me again.

  150. 150
    jane hamsher says:

    “Hell, half the things in that despicable Hamsher post were not even WRITTEN BY BEN.”

    While you’re at it, back up that one too. I want to see where I attributed something not written by Ben TO Ben.

    Unless, of course, you’re talking about something he plagiarised. Did he steal more than we know?

  151. 151
    Davebo says:

    John,

    I don’t know if Ben is a racist or not. I’d say that if you combine his past writings with the fact that he was homeschooled in VA and SC there is certainly a possibility of racism there.

    But then I really think we are most all racist to some degree.

    That said, I don’t think you’re qualified to declare the guy is definately not racist based on reading emails in the echo chamber and a few instant message conversations.

  152. 152
    MattM says:

    Not even a statement from Ben? Come on, doesn’t he realize that some of us are deriving a slow work day’s entertainment from this saga?

  153. 153
    jane hamsher says:

    Waiting…come on, you hack, where’s your proof? I’m waiting…

  154. 154
    BumperStickerist says:

    The Jane Hamsher of the World doesn’t understand what “The Jane Hamshers of the World” means, apparently.

  155. 155
    Steve says:

    Darrell Says:

    you have given no basis, no justification for your allegation

    The reason you haven’t is because there is no basis for making such a sweeping claim. It’s because you’re a flat-out scumbag

    I am forced to repeat myself yet again. It took you at least three tries to understand the last point, but I’m willing to keep at it!

    Steve Says:

    First you can apologize for lying about what I said, and then I’ll explain to you where the racism lies.

    On a separate note, friends, you did click the link where we discussed Darrell’s little problem with honesty, right?

  156. 156
    yet another jeff says:

    Hmmm…this is awkward…might have been better if Jane made it here for a beer and cats day. Well…welcome aboard…

  157. 157
    jane hamsher says:

    You pulled the “white phosphorous” claim out of your article but you posted no correction and it does not let your readers know that you were wrong and you smeared me.

    Come on, you fucking hack, show your proof or admit you were wrong.

  158. 158
    Rome Again says:

    While I am staying out of this racist thing (I really have no interest in reading all the posts on a gazillion sites about this guy, and I trust John truly believes he’s a good person), but I have to say this:

    John, why is it that whenever you seem to inch closer to a “I’ve had it” moment with this administration, you immediately swing the pendulum back and play to the wingnuts on this site (who I think are quite astounding in their hateful rhetoric against anyone on the left whenever you queue them up like this)?

    Methinks you are pandering to those sitting on the right in your audience, throwing them a bone so to speak, to keep them from dissing you completely. Maybe I’m wrong, but the timing is always the same, so it surely seems that way.

  159. 159
    BumperStickerist says:

    Judging from the time stamps, the Jane Hamsher of the World expects John to respond in under ten minutes to a comment that’s

  160. 160
    Steve says:

    Jane, Jane, stop this crazy thing. John gets things wrong, but he has class. If he already edited the post, then he might well be writing a mea culpa as we speak.

  161. 161
    yet another jeff says:

    Ms. Hamsher…I think John only checks the blog every few minutes or so at the most.

    You might want to wait 10-30 minutes for your concern to be addressed.

  162. 162
    John Cole says:

    You better be able to back that up because I will be over here every fucking day until you do (and you can’t, because I never wrote about white phosphorous weapons even once).

    Do we understand each other?

    Wow, Jane. You can’t read and you are an asshole flamethrower. I never said you claimed WP was a chemical weapon or made those charges. I said the “Jane Hamshers of the left,” meaning the grenade chuckers like you.

    Do we understand each other?

    I try to be fair to you, I link you when I agree, but you are clearly nothing more than an angry partisan who cares nothing at all about people, just political gain. I am sick and tired of nasty people- and you are one. Everyone who does not agree with you is a racist, a crazy right winger, etc. Grow the hell up.

    I also find it amusing that this is the ONE thing in this whole post and thread you respond to. Telling.

    Do we understand each other, tough guy?

  163. 163
    jane hamsher says:

    Still waiting. Where did I attribute something to Ben that he didn’t say?

  164. 164
    jane hamsher says:

    So “the Jane Hamshers of the left” doesn’t include me. That’s your argument?

  165. 165
    John Cole says:

    Jane, you itinerant fool. I never said anything about WP in the main post. I said it in the comments thread. It is still there.

    And as I stated a comment above I never said you said that- I said the archetype bombthrowers like you, (ie the ‘Jane Hamshers of the left’) said it.

    So now you can apologize for A.) accusing me of saying something I did not say, and B.) accusing me of shady editing.

    And you can apologize to everyone for being an idiot.

  166. 166
    Pooh says:

    Jane, give the man a few minutes at least.

  167. 167
    jane hamsher says:

    I also find it amusing that this is the ONE thing in this whole post and thread you respond to. Telling.

    No, once again, you lie. Up the thread on several occasions, I indicate that I disagree that I ever attributed anything to Ben that he did not say. Rather than show where in fact I did this, you say that “this is the ONE thing in this whole post and thread” that I respond to.

    Are you even capable of honesthy?

  168. 168
    Steve says:

    I get John’s point, but I have to say it’s a little weak to say Jane Hamsher is not one of the Jane Hamshers of the left.

  169. 169
    Pooh says:

    I predict that this will not end happily.

  170. 170
    Steve says:

    Also, since I was the first one in this thread to ask for an apology, both John and Jane are going to need to get in fucking line and wait their turn before insisting on apologies from one another.

    And since the person I demanded an apology from was Darrell, the line might be a little slow to move.

  171. 171
    John Cole says:

    So “the Jane Hamshers of the left” doesn’t include me. That’s your argument?

    Jane- it is called the English language.

    For example, were I to say the ‘Ann Coulter’s of the right’ said X, if Ann Coulter came here and said “I never said that!” I would laugh at her the same way I am laughing at you right now.

  172. 172
    yet another jeff says:

    Yeah, it is kind of weak to use someone’s name as an archetype that does not include that person. I hope if it’s fixed, it’s fixed like this “the jane hamshers of the world (not including the actual jane hamsher))….”

  173. 173
    yet another jeff says:

    Steve, you’re in a separate apology line.

  174. 174
    BumperStickerist says:

    Well, Jane’s clear mischaracterization of the Domenech quote (the link to Gilliard is off, btw, Jane)

    Ben writes (or, plagiarizes, if that makes you feel good, Jane): “What is morally odious is the cool and disinterested way in which the commentariat is discussing what might fairly be described as racial cleansing. It’s too bad about all those dead babies, but it is a kind of solution to the crime problem, if not a final solution.”

    His posts needs extensive editing. The “It’s too bad…” line needs to be in quotes since Ben is paraphrasing the argument for abortion. The fact that Ben himself finds it ‘morally odious’ might factor into any half-non-fucked up reading of his words.

    Unless Gilliard stops reading the instant he finds what he’s looking for. And Jane follows suit. The evidence supports that conclusion.

  175. 175
    jane hamsher says:

    Even your own readers think you are full of shit, John, in maintaining that the “Jane Hamshers of the left” did not include me.

    Are you claiming that you didn’t pull this quote out of the main body of the post, too?

    “Jane Hamshers of the left spend a month accusing the soldiers of being war criminals for using WP weapons.”

    Because I don’t see it there any more, John, neither is there a correction appended.

  176. 176
    tzs says:

    Ben Domenech has just resigned from the WP. They don’t mention racism but they do go heavily into the plagerism.

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com.....signs.html

    What I don’t understand is why they didn’t do this sort of vetting beforehand. Whatever happened to due diligence?

    Doesn’t make me place much credence in that much of their reporting, if this is how they normally work.

  177. 177
    Steve says:

    I’m going to lunch. This thread better be good when I get back. I will predict, for the record, a sum total of 0 apologies, give or take 0.

    Also, Jane, while I am trying to be fair and objective here, I probably count more as one of your readers than one of John’s. Of course, that might be true of most of John’s readers!

  178. 178
    Rome Again says:

    …but I have to say it’s a little weak to say Jane Hamsher is not one of the Jane Hamshers of the left.

    I agree. What kind of an archtype is that?

  179. 179
    jg says:

    So “the Jane Hamshers of the left” doesn’t include me. That’s your argument?

    Jane- it is called the English language.

    Damn John, just because we know what you meant doesn’t mean it wasn’t the wrong thing to say or the wrong way to put it so just apologize and get it over with. Clearly she’s overreacting but a reaction is expected so put this to rest and lets move on.

  180. 180
    jane hamsher says:

    You’re right, I see it in the comment. My apologies, you did not in fact edit out this gross distortion. It’s still there and your readers still think you are full of shit on that count.

    Now I’m waiting for your justification for your claim that I attributed things to Ben that he didn’t say.

  181. 181
    Vladi G says:

    Wow, Jane. You can’t read and you are an asshole flamethrower. I never said you claimed WP was a chemical weapon or made those charges. I said the “Jane Hamshers of the left,” meaning the grenade chuckers like you.

    God, John, this is the most pathetic excuse I think you’ve ever come up with. Apparently you were talking about all of the Jane Hamshers who are, ya know, not actually Jane Hamsher.

  182. 182
    John Cole says:

    Because I don’t see it there any more, John, neither is there a correction appended.

    Read this S…L…O…W…L…Y… Jane.

    IT… NEVER… WAS… IN… THE… MAIN… POST…

    It was in a comment to the main post, right here:

    As to the plagiarism, I am not a defense attorney, so I am not in the habit of defending people when they do wrong- and that is what it pretty clearly looks like to me. It sure looks like he lifted some material, and he has to answer for that. I am not even going to delve into the plagiarism- Ben can defend himself. I will note with a little irony that all of the people screaming about Ben’s alleged plagiarism link freely and frequently to Sean Paul at the Agonist, an exposed and admitted plagiarist.

    But the charges of racism are vile and disgusting and should be dropped. It is so typical- this is what the lunatic fringe of the left always does. For example, last summer- there are a million things going wrong with American policy in Iraq, and the Jane Hamshers of the left spend a month accusing the soldiers of being war criminals for using WP weapons.

    By spending so much time acusing Ben falsely of racism, they have given him the cover he needs- he can now spend all his time addressing the racism charges, which he can defend, rather than addressing the plagiarism issue, which looks a lot tougher to defend.

    I gotta give those charging racism some credit, though. It takes talent to be that stupid and that scummy at the same time.

    As you can see, I clearly never said you claimed WP was a chemical weapon- I said partisan bombthrowers, (IE, the jane hamsher’s of the left) made those charges, the context of which is even richer considering the smearing you did that I discussed in the main body of the post.

    Given your selective editing and linking to people distorting Ben’s writing, you aren’t that big on context anyway. And I thought the ‘left’ liked nuance.

  183. 183
    Andrew says:

    Sweet! Blog fight! Blog fight!

    But I would like to point out that we are all big dorks.

  184. 184
    jg says:

    “Jane Hamshers of the left spend a month accusing the soldiers of being war criminals for using WP weapons.”

    What I meant in my previous post is that I thought from reading this line that she was one of those on the left that was all over the WP fiasco. Since she clearly wasn’t and it was mistekenly implied just apologize and then you can explain the pther stuff she’s pissed about.

  185. 185
    jane hamsher says:

    And where did I attribute something to Ben that he did not write?

  186. 186
    Davebo says:

    Obviously Jane Hamsher is the new Cindy Sheehan for John.

    But then I expected a pushback after the “screw those republicans” post of yesterday.

  187. 187
    John Cole says:

    You’re right, I see it in the comment. My apologies, you did not in fact edit out this gross distortion. It’s still there and your readers still think you are full of shit on that count.

    The majority of the readers you are relying on for moral support would think I was full of shit if I said this is March 2006. keep that in mind.

    Now I’m waiting for your justification for your claim that I attributed things to Ben that he didn’t say.

    Bumperstickerist covered part of it here, and this quote you highlighted (I think it was after you used the word bigot for the tenth time):

    I also think I have a clearer understanding of why the culture of so many black Americans in this country is below what it should be and is capable of being. The prominent black spiritual leaders, like Joseph Lowery, are more interested in subsidization from The ManTM than salvation from the Lord.

    That was written by Blanton, whose words you used to further prove that Ben is a racist (since, of course, everyone at Red State is one).

  188. 188
    Ezert says:

    Going back to the King funeral, and Carter’s “outrageous” criticisms of Bush, let’s look at something.
    Carter said…

    “We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, those who were most devastated by Katrina, to know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans.”

    To Darrell somehow that means Carter was blaming Bush for the deaths, as opposed to making the generally understood observation that racial equality is still not achieved.
    So, I guess to him Bush blames himself for their deaths and called himself out as a racist for this…

    “As all of us saw on television, there’s also some deep, persistent poverty in this region, as well. That poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America.”

  189. 189
    norbizness says:

    (1) [Ren Hoek voice] I’M the Left!!

    (2) I do like this new rhetorical device; not defining a concept (The Left, partisan bombthrowers), picking an exemplar of this undefined term (Jane), and then tying a complete unrelated issue (white phosphorus usage) to the undefined term that excludes the exemplar. I’m sure that the logical fallacy department at Rome U. didn’t come up with a term for that one, in that they didn’t think it could have possibly been formulated.

  190. 190
    SeesThroughIt says:

    Sweet! Blog fight! Blog fight!

    Which one is Chong Li, and which one is Van Damme?

  191. 191
    Pooh says:

    John. Bullshit.

    Jane Hamshers of the left spend a month accusing the soldiers of being war criminals for using WP weapons.

    I think I understand what you are trying to say, but what you actually said clearly implies (at least) that Ms. Hamsher did make such accusations.

  192. 192
    Krista says:

    Jane, you itinerant fool.

    No offense to Jane, but is anybody else having an SNL Weekend Report flashback?

  193. 193
    Vladi G says:

    What I meant in my previous post is that I thought from reading this line that she was one of those on the left that was all over the WP fiasco.

    When I first read it, that was my interpretation as well. I thought, “I don’t remember reading anything about WP over there”, although I didn’t look for anything. If John wasn’t including the actual Jane in his group of Janes, well, that’s pretty stupid.

  194. 194
    John Cole says:

    What I meant in my previous post is that I thought from reading this line that she was one of those on the left that was all over the WP fiasco. Since she clearly wasn’t and it was mistekenly implied just apologize and then you can explain the pther stuff she’s pissed about.

    I never implied that she said it. You inferred it. I said the Jane Hamsher’s of the left as a synonym for grenade throwers. Given the context, it is really quite clear.

  195. 195
    Pb says:

    Steve,

    Be understanding with Darrell–he’s just defending his old speech-writer… err… speech-plagiariser… eh, something like that.

    As for John and Jane–anyone else reminded of early SNL? Dan Aykroyd? “Jane, you ignorant slut”? Just me?

  196. 196
    John Cole says:

    I think I understand what you are trying to say, but what you actually said clearly implies (at least) that Ms. Hamsher did make such accusations.

    See previous post. I know what I meant when I wrote that, and if after the explanations I have given here you can clearly not see what I was saying, you don’t want to.

  197. 197
    jg says:

    My memory is a little fuzzy but has there been a time in the past 6 years or so when a right winger has misinterpreted what a Bush administration opponent has said and demanded an apology?

  198. 198
    Pooh says:

    Given the context, it is really quite clear.

    Given that multiple people expressed at least confusion in the last 10 minutes or so, no, I’d say it wasn’t clear.

  199. 199
    Krista says:

    The majority of the readers you are relying on for moral support would think I was full of shit if I said this is March 2006.

    POTD. That was delightful. You owe me a new keyboard, John.

  200. 200
    Vladi G says:

    (1) [Ren Hoek voice] I’M the Left!!

    Hey man, I had your back.

  201. 201
    Krista says:

    pb – oh yeah, big time Dan Aykroyd moment.

  202. 202
    norbizness says:

    Then legally change your name to Josh Trevino to further distribute the message. The people who would have started the Second American Civil War over Mr. Domenech at Redstate must be apprised!

  203. 203
    MattM says:

    I never implied that she said it. You inferred it. I said the Jane Hamsher’s of the left as a synonym for grenade throwers. Given the context, it is really quite clear.

    John, I don’t read Jane’s blog, and my immediate takeaway from your statement was that she was one of those pushing the WP story when you were upset about it a few months ago. I agree that you can see it either way, but it’s by no means “clear.”

  204. 204
    Rome Again says:

    Given the context, it is really quite clear.

    In your mind, maybe.

  205. 205
    jg says:

    I never implied that she said it. You inferred it. I said the Jane Hamsher’s of the left as a synonym for grenade throwers. Given the context, it is really quite clear.

    I completely agree. In fact I said flat out that I got the ‘impression’ from your words that she was one of those people. Sinc eI’ve never been to her site all I had to go on was your words. I think you can see why I would think that from your words. Your followup also made it very clear thats not what you were actually saying. My point is that since she got so pissed about it you could simply say I’m sorry I left the implication dangling or whatever and just difuse the whole situation. Why continue to argue a misunderstanding? Just fix it.

  206. 206
    Pooh says:

    See previous post. I know what I meant when I wrote that, and if after the explanations I have given here you can clearly not see what I was saying, you don’t want to.

    Well as long as you know what you meant…didn’t I just say

    I think I understand what you are trying to say

    so, yes, I understand what you meant, NOW THAT IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED, and I suppose I could have understood that from the start, but the most natural reading of “the X of the Y did Z” is that X did Z.

    And how hard is it for you to say “I apologize for my lack of clarity, let’s move on to my real beef, which are the accusations of racism which I think are unfounded”? Or we all go from Zero-to-asshole in 4.5 seconds (par for the course both here and FDL, to be sure), and call each other names, churn some page views and then…ah. Nevermind, carry on.

  207. 207
    Brian says:

    Waiting…come on, you hack, where’s your proof? I’m waiting…

    Love the righteous indignation. Don’t go away mad, Jane. Just go away.

  208. 208
    Jorge says:

    Um, John. When I read what you wrote, I automatically assumed that you were saying that Jane spent month writing about White Phosphorus. And from grade school through the GMAT, my reading comprehension usually tests through the roof.

    I see where you have a debatable out about your intent but that does not change what the vast majority of the people are going to infer about what you wrote.

  209. 209
    John Cole says:

    IF many of you think it was not clear, I can live with that. I thought given the context of the post and that comment it was quite clear. This will not be the last time many of you think something I said was unclear.

    Regardless, I am not apologizing to Jane, because as I have explained, I never said what she thinks I said. I will edit it so I don’t have to waste any more time on this.

  210. 210
    John Cole says:

    POTD. That was delightful. You owe me a new keyboard, John.

    I initially wrote March 2005. But then I have been writing checks for the last three months and dating them 2005. I suppose I will catch up in October or so.

  211. 211
    Pooh says:

    Ok, for the second time, bullshit. Now, not only did you not mean what we thought what you said meant, but you didn’t actually say what you said? Is it really that hard to be the bigger man here? (Considering Jane’s occassionally tenous grasp on civility herself, as evidenced here, I’d say no).

    Yes, I’m being ungenerous, but you’re being obtuse.

  212. 212
    jg says:

    IF many of you think it was not clear, I can live with that. I thought given the context of the post and that comment it was quite clear. This will not be the last time many of you think something I said was unclear.

    Regardless, I am not apologizing to Jane, because as I have explained, I never said what she thinks I said. I will edit it so I don’t have to waste any more time on this.

    And Durbin never called US soldiers Nazis but he was asked to apologize and everntually did to ease the minds of those with those bad reading comprehension skills you’re projected on to us.

  213. 213
    Krista says:

    Well, if you like you can just send me your pre-signed chequebook, and I’ll be more than happy to fill them out for you. I’m helpful like that.

  214. 214
    Davebo says:

    You know, it’s the John Coles of the world and their insistance that democrats enjoy putting their fingers up the anus of conservative’s dogs, their declarations that democrats enjoy having conservatives slap them in the face with their johnsons, that keep me firmly locked in to the democratic party.

    Note: This comment does not imply that John Cole believes any of these things. Any one who draws that conclusion is obviously not a professor of english studies at a school that was just knocked out of the NCAA finals.

  215. 215
    MattM says:

    Oh, SNAP

  216. 216
    Pooh says:

    Thread over. Davebo wins.

  217. 217
    srv says:

    Ah, what a great day for the blogosphere. What goes around comes around.

  218. 218
    John Cole says:

    Ok, for the second time, bullshit. Now, not only did you not mean what we thought what you said meant, but you didn’t actually say what you said? Is it really that hard to be the bigger man here? (Considering Jane’s occassionally tenous grasp on civility herself, as evidenced here, I’d say no).

    Yes, I’m being ungenerous, but you’re being obtuse.

    Pooh- Blow me. You want me to apologize for something I did not say because you misunderstood it. I have corrected it so future people will not misunderstand it, but I am not apologizing for something I did not say. I have taken responsibility for the misunderstanding, but I am not going to confess to meaning.saying something I did not. I have clearly explained myself, and if that is not good enough for you, you aree just going to have to deal. Hang on a little bit and Tim will put a beer post up to calm you down.

    I think you are the one being obtuse.

  219. 219
    jane hamsher says:

    The exact, not selective quote:

    This from Red State Racists on the heels of Coretta Scott King’s funeral:

    I also think I have a clearer understanding of why the culture of so many black Americans in this country is below what it should be and is capable of being. The prominent black spiritual leaders, like Joseph Lowery, are more interested in subsidization from The ManTM than salvation from the Lord.

    Such comments would be deleted by the community at Kos, deleted by me or Redd here, and Jim Brady has said they are not welcome at the post.com. If Red State is not deleting them, they have no right to try and skate out underneath with the “don’t hold us to account for the views of our readership.” They obviously meet the standards of their community. You can’t have it both ways.

    As you can see, the comment is directed at Red State, not Ben. The link through does not even mention Ben.

    So. Are you going to take that back, or stand your ground on this one to?

  220. 220
    Perry Como says:

    I think firedoglake is a clever DougJ ruse.

  221. 221
    Halffasthero says:

    See previous post. I know what I meant when I wrote that, and if after the explanations I have given here you can clearly not see what I was saying, you don’t want to.

    I know that you believe you understand what it is you think I said; but I am not so sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

    I loved the quote and was just looking for an excuse to use it.

    Nothing else to see here. Carry on. : )

  222. 222
    Davebo says:

    Does anyone really win in such a sad situation?

    I think not.

  223. 223
    jane hamsher says:

    And as for your correction:

    For those of you interested, I am not claimng Jane hamsher stated WP wasa chemical weapon, etc. I am using her as an example of the type of partisan grenade tossers who made thoseclaims.

    You can’t use me as example of the type of partisan grenade tossers who make those claims because I never DID make those claims.

    Admit it. I never made those claims, and as such, can’t be used as an example of those who do.

  224. 224
    Davebo says:

    On a brighter note…

    NFL scouts attending Pro Day at the Univ. of Texas report that Vince Young’s official 40 time was faster than all the guys chasing him.

    Hook ’em!

  225. 225
    BumperStickerist says:

    I did a quick search on firedoglake and there is one approving cite by Reddhead to a WaPo article regarding White Phosphorus.

    Then, figuring Jane must lead by example, I checked to see just how an apology by a blogger takes form.

    There weren’t any examples.

    So, the Jane Hamsher of the Left can be a shining example to all the Jane Hamshers of the Left.

    Jane models the election losing ‘fits and starts’ trait of the Left in this post, from January:

    First of all I want to thank everyone who aided in the sacking of Kate O’Beirne’s book Women Who Make the World Worse over at Amazon. The overall book review is at 1.5 stars, and for reasons I have no clue about Amazon has now promoted the General’s review — which has close to 4,000 votes — to the Spotlight review.

    In addition to all the fabulous 1 star reviews everyone contributed (and if you want to feel good about the existence of an active, engaged left go have a read-through, it’s really quite inspirational), it probably had something to do with John Amato’s phone call to Amazon yesterday inquiring as to why they held their customers’ views in such slight regard, for which the General has given him an honorary Seahawkhood. …

    so, anyway, two month’s later KKKate’s (Jane’s non-race baiting term used later in her post) book is sitting at 3.5 stars and is still in the top 600 on Amazon.

    Victorious in January, defeated by March.

    Jane’s book, meanwhile, is ranked #597,595. Though it, too, has 3.5 stars.

    I’m guessing that it will take a while for Kate’s tome to fall at least 597,000 places on the charts.

    The Left, including its Jane Hamshers, need a calendar.

  226. 226
    nyrev says:

    If I remember clearly you weren’t to happy about people who were doing something similar to Jeff Goldstien a few days ago.

    Well, that’s different. After all, Jeff just calls people who disagree with him terrorist-loving dogfuckers. Jane called Ben a racist. I mean, would a racist say that black people are a drag on society or call Coretta King a commie the day after her funeral? Oh, wait…

    Sorry, John. I’m generally not a fan of the mudslinging on either side. But Ben’s said some stupid shit and now it’s coming back to haunt him. If he were a radio show host, he’d have been fired by now.

  227. 227
    Pooh says:

    Was that called for? How is apologizing for any misunderstanding implying that you actually said anything? I mean, I’m not a professor of communications (in which class do we learn that “blow me” is an appropriate response to a disagreement?) but I always thought that lack of clarity was generally a fault of the author not of the audience. Sure, if one person was wildly misconstruing your meaning that would be one thing, but there are plenty of us who were unclear.

    To be perfectly clear, since you seem to be misunderstanding my meaning:

    You want me to apologize for something I did not say because you misunderstood it.

    No. I think, if you want to move on to your real issue, which is Ms. Hamsher’s accusations of racism, you should take responsibility for the misunderstanding and move on. You did not intend to accuse Jane of the WP thing, you’re sorry if your lack of clarity gave the impression that you were. Let’s move on.

    Or, you can yell at me some more, which I’m fine with.

  228. 228
    John Cole says:

    JANE- I know where the damned quote came from. I posted it here with a link. You inserted the quote solely as additional proof that Ben is a racist to support your selectively edited precvious Ben quotes. In other words, “Hell, half the things in that despicable Hamsher post were not even WRITTEN BY BEN.”

    English really is kicking your ass, isn’t it?

  229. 229
    Brian says:

    I also think I have a clearer understanding of why the culture of so many black Americans in this country is below what it should be and is capable of being. The prominent black spiritual leaders, like Joseph Lowery, are more interested in subsidization from The ManTM than salvation from the Lord.

    I’d like an explanation from someone qualified to answer, how this is racist? Just ebcause it would be deleted at Kos doesn’t mean it’s racist, it means that it carries certain coded language that makes liberals uncomfortable.

    The Left calling this racist is like the Left getting apoplectic over someone using the word “niggardly”.

  230. 230
    crg says:

    Hmm. The “jane hamsher” posting here doesn’t write the same as the one who writes at firedoglake. Either she’s not doing her normal editing, or this isn’t her.

  231. 231
    Vladi G says:

    You know, it’s the John Coles of the world and their insistance that democrats enjoy putting their fingers up the anus of conservative’s dogs, their declarations that democrats enjoy having conservatives slap them in the face with their johnsons, that keep me firmly locked in to the democratic party.

    For those of you interested, Davebo is not claimng John Cole insists that democrats enjoy putting fingers up the anus’ of conversatives’ dogs, or that democrats enjoy being cockslapped in the face by conservatives. Davebo is using him as an example of the type of partisan grenade tossers who made those claims.

  232. 232
    John Cole says:

    You can’t use me as example of the type of partisan grenade tossers who make those claims because I never DID make those claims.

    Admit it. I never made those claims, and as such, can’t be used as an example of those who do.

    I can see it is another short bus day today.

    If the previous 100 comments have made ANYTHING clear, it is that I never said you said that. I was using you as an example of the type of bomb thrower who says all sorts of nasty shit. Which you do.

    I don’t know why you care what I say anyway, Jane. I am one of those paid for shills at PJ Media and I am clearly a racist like all those other rednecks at Red State.

  233. 233
    jane hamsher says:

    I know where the damned quote came from. I posted it here with a link. You inserted the quote solely as additional proof that Ben is a racist to support your selectively edited precvious Ben quotes.

    There is nothing in my post attributing it to Ben, or any indication that it came from Ben, and if there is let’s have it.

    Come on, where do I say Ben said this?

  234. 234
    Vladi G says:

    You inserted the quote solely as additional proof that Ben is a racist to support your selectively edited precvious Ben quotes. In other words, “Hell, half the things in that despicable Hamsher post were not even WRITTEN BY BEN.”

    English really is kicking your ass, isn’t it?

    John, are you deliberately being this stupid? Did that illness kill off a few million brain cells? Did the weight you lost come out of your skull?

    SHE NEVER CLAIMED THAT HE WROTE THAT! Really, you’re just being intellectually dishonest, now.

  235. 235
    Davebo says:

    Well I won’t back down, no I won’t back down
    You can stand me up at the gates of hell
    But I won’t back down

    Gonna stand my ground, won’t be turned around
    And I’ll keep this world from draggin’ me down
    Gonna stand my ground and I won’t back down

  236. 236
    ppGaz says:

    Demenech is gone. Resigned (or, whatever).

    What a frigging idiot.

  237. 237
    jane hamsher says:

    I was using you as an example of the type of bomb thrower who says all sorts of nasty shit.

    What “nasty shit?” You mean, about soldiers who were war criminals for using white phosphorous?

    Find one place I ever called soldiers “war criminals.” And while you’re at it, show the place where I attribute the quote you pull out of my blog to Ben.

  238. 238
    Blue Neponset says:

    I am one of those paid for shills at PJ Media and I am clearly a racist like all those other rednecks at Red State.

    C’mon John. That is dismissive bullshit. Who said you were any of those things (today anyway)?

  239. 239
    Jorge says:

    I bet you guys $10 dollars the neither Professor Cole or Ms. Hamsher would be this nasty to each other in real life.

  240. 240
    srv says:

    Tim, it’s Friday and it’s time for BEER!

  241. 241
    Davebo says:

    There is nothing in my post attributing it to Ben, or any indication that it came from Ben, and if there is let’s have it.

    See Jane, this is your problem. Sure you never attributed this quote to gentle Ben. But it could be construed quite easily by others that you had indeed attributed the quote to Ben.

    This is all just ridiculous. John obviously believed you had gotten involved in the White Posphorous affair. Only a total idiot could construe his post in any other way.

    How was he to know you would actually appear here and call him on it?

    But you did.

    So now we’ve gone through several comments containing the most inane pretzel logic seen since the last good Steely Dan album in an attempt to explain that he didn’t say what he very clearly said. Or at least he didn’t mean what he very clearly did mean. And of course, we are all just blathering partisans for taking his words at face value.

    But the biggest irony in this is that it all came about in a defense of Ben’s words. Sure Ben said something that most thinking individuals would construe as racist. But that’s only if you take Ben’s words at face value.

    However if you bend over backwards, wrap your legs around your skull and tie you arms behind your back it becomes clear that Ben was actually paying Mrs. King a compliment by calling her a commie. Cause Ben thinks commies are cool, if a bit hard to come by these days.

    In the end, this is one of the sillier blog exercises I’ve ever seen. And if it weren’t for the fact that I can’t start my weekend for another hour I’d be ashamed to be in the audience.

  242. 242
    John Cole says:

    There is nothing in my post attributing it to Ben, or any indication that it came from Ben, and if there is let’s have it.

    The only reason you included it in the damn post was to back up your previous assertions that that Ben is racist.

    Dishonest hack.

  243. 243
    John Cole says:

    This is all just ridiculous. John obviously believed you had gotten involved in the White Posphorous affair. Only a total idiot could construe his post in any other way.

    Christ. I give up.

  244. 244
    jane hamsher says:

    Blue Neponset Says:

    I am one of those paid for shills at PJ Media and I am clearly a racist like all those other rednecks at Red State.

    C’mon John. That is dismissive bullshit. Who said you were any of those things (today anyway)?John cannot defend his assertions that a) saying “Jane Hamshers of the left” does not, in fact, include me and b) that I ever attributed anything to Ben that he did not write, so he has no choice but to engage in the “bomb throwing” he accuses me of (Come on Jane, is English kicking your ass?)

    Amazing that he could decry me for the only tactics he seems to be capable of employing in the face of his crumbling arguments that nobody is buying.

    Someone upthread said John was “classy.” Wonder if they still think so.

    Oh and I’m still waiting for proof that I in any way indicated the comment he cites came from Ben.

  245. 245
    John Cole says:

    Jane-

    Am I going to have to dig up your PJ threads?

  246. 246
    Jorge says:

    Davebo,
    You probably believe Dick Cheney linked 9/11 and Saddam Hussein together, don’t you?

  247. 247
    Davebo says:

    Christ. I give up.

    Sadly about 10 comments to late.

    Walk it off..

  248. 248
    Davebo says:

    Jorge..

    Just as strongly as I believe that condoms cause sex among teens.

    ;0)

  249. 249
    jane hamsher says:

    The only reason you included it in the damn post was to back up your previous assertions that that Ben is racist.

    No, I was writing about how racist comments met the community standards of Red State, the blog, hence the Red State Link.

    The paragraph following the quote says:

    Such comments would be deleted by the community at Kos, deleted by me or Redd here, and Jim Brady has said they are not welcome at the post.com. If Red State is not deleting them, they have no right to try and skate out underneath with the “don’t hold us to account for the views of our readership.” They obviously meet the standards of their community. You can’t have it both ways.

    Which quite clearly indicates I am speaking about Red State and not Ben, because — as you’ll notice — Ben is not mentioned.

    So come on, John, let’s have it. Let’s have the quote where I in any way attribute this to Ben.

  250. 250
    SeesThroughIt says:

    the Left getting apoplectic over someone using the word “niggardly”.

    Oh, man. I remember this brouhaha, and I remember thinking, “God, how fucking stupid are these people?” That was just plain pitiful.

  251. 251
    Davebo says:

    Don’t look now. But the absolutely non racist, quite reasonable denizens at Red State have begun to eat their young.

    http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/3/24/13456/1406

  252. 252
    D. Mason says:

    Until today I dodn’t have a clue who Jane Hamsher was and I had never gone to firedoglake despite seeing it mentioned here, but I just have to say wow.

    What happened John, did you feel that because she “smeared” this right winger you should “smear” her right back? That’s sure what it seems like. She accused one of your team of something he “didn’t do” so turnabout is fair play right? Just a little partisan tit for tat eh? It really doesn’t matter how venomous or how much of a liar this woman could be. You negate any of that when you infer things about her that aren’t true by including yourself in whatever category you’re trying to put her in. Even if what you said is 100% true and what she said is 100% false, by the way you approached the situation you made your own argument seem ignorant, good job.

    In other words: pot, meet kettle.

  253. 253
    John Cole says:

    How was he to know you would actually appear here and call him on it?

    Umm. She was linked. I was not afraid of her bullying bullshit. You guys on the left have quite a little echo chamber going, but I am not afraid of your crap when you are wrong, and I will agree with you when I think you are right.

  254. 254
    jane hamsher says:

    Oh and by the way, the use of more ad-hominum attacks will be construed as proof that this is all you’ve got and you can’t back up your claims that I attribute this quote to Ben.

  255. 255
    fwiffo says:

    You all must start drinking heavily immediately. This is a fucking emergency.

  256. 256
    Louise says:

    So…um…how ’bout those Tigers?

  257. 257
    John Cole says:

    Which quite clearly indicates I am speaking about Red State and not Ben, because—as you’ll notice—Ben is not mentioned.

    So come on, John, let’s have it. Let’s have the quote where I in any way attribute this to Ben.

    Wow. You are a coward. The only reason you juxtaposed the unattributed Red State piece in that post was to back up your previous assertions that Ben is a racist (based upon selectively edited posts by Ben).

    Speaking of class- you have none whatsoever. I wash my hands of you.

  258. 258
    John Cole says:

    And I am serious. I am done with this for the day. It is Friday afternoon and I am through with this website until tomorrow.

    After today, there is just one less person on the left I respect. No big deal.

  259. 259
    srv says:

    Davebo, you’re on fire today.

    Anyone find the irony that Ben was a speechwriter for the real Senator Cornyn?

  260. 260
    Davebo says:

    On the charges of plagiarism, I’ll accept Ben’s explanation, whatever it is.

    From Jeff. Hmmm… I think I can predict what explanation Ben will offer.

    See Jeff, I was just minding my own business shoving my finger up my dogs ass and looking for someone to slap with my Taliwacker when all of the sudden a voice from heaven came into my head…..

  261. 261
    Davebo says:

    After today, there is just one less person on the left I respect. No big deal.

    Oh yeah. That respect was practically oozing out of the original post John.

    But I think you’ve got the right idea. Take a break. It’s beautiful outside here.

  262. 262
    Slide says:

    Damn… I missed all this in real time? John getting bitch slapped unmericfully on his own blog by Jane? Doesn’t get any better than that. Little clue to John: Say “Uncle” and move on, you are not winning this one.

  263. 263
    Vladi G says:

    Someone upthread said John was “classy.” Wonder if they still think so.

    Well, it’s a relative thing. He is classy compared to must of the other conservatives out there, like that shitbag Jeff Goldstein.

  264. 264
    jane hamsher says:

    Wow. You are a coward. The only reason you juxtaposed the unattributed Red State piece in that post was to back up your previous assertions that Ben is a racist (based upon selectively edited posts by Ben).

    Speaking of class- you have none whatsoever. I wash my hands of you.

    You have no argument, do you? You are utterly dishonest and cannot admit that your entire argument is utterly dishonest. You cannot provide ANY PROOF that I ever attributed a comment to Ben that he did not write because I clearly did not, and you stand by your assertion that “Jane Hamshers of the left” is not intended to include me.

    Well I’m not washing my hands of you. Not by a long shot.

  265. 265
    Jorge says:

    and I will agree with you when I think you are right.

    And that’s why we read you every day, Papi. You really are the most challenging blogger I read. And I always come to you last. Which is a compliment.

    Thinkprogress first.
    Kos second.
    Atrios 3d
    Crooks and Liars 4th
    Talkingpoints 5th
    Sullivan 6th
    Juan Cole 7th
    John Cole 8th

  266. 266
    Davebo says:

    SRV

    Sadly I actually voted for Cornyn. Odd for such a wild eyed moonbat I know, but the truth.

  267. 267
    Steve says:

    Even a boxing match only goes 15 rounds. Let’s declare a winner and MoveOn.

  268. 268
    Krista says:

    Pooh- Blow me.

    I think this thread is the most fun one I’ve seen since I started on here…

  269. 269
    Slide says:

    damn… John is gone just as my popcorn came out of the microwave?

  270. 270
    Vladi G says:

    After today, there is just one less person on the left I respect. No big deal.

    You’re talking about me again, aren’t you?

  271. 271
    Perry Como says:

    John is gone just as my popcorn came out of the microwave?

    I’ve got some roux in the oven. The gumbo won’t be done for a few hours though.

  272. 272
    Slide says:

    Jane I said way way uptread that those of us on the left are not turning the cheek anymore when we are slimed by the right, that those days are long long gone. Thank-you for demonstrating that in spaded. Fight back and they scurry away like the little cowards they are.

  273. 273
    jane hamsher says:

    After today, there is just one less person on the left I respect. No big deal.

    This is your idea of “respect?” This is the shoddy, dishonest crap you generate that depends on gross misreading that you classify as “respect?” Are you fucking kidding me?

    You’ve gone home with your tail between your legs because you cannot defend yourself. You have no defense. Your entire post is bullshit and you can’t prove otherwise, you can’t back it up, you’ve humiliated yourself in front of your readers and utterly disgusted me. A “classy” person with any respect for printing the truth would amend the post to reflect what the truth actually was. You have no interest in writing the truth, you’ve taken a swan dive into a bottle full of ego and decided to wallow there.

    Let’s cut the claptrap about “respect.” You were guilty in that post of everything you’ve ever accused me of and more. If you’re looking for a portrait of a “hack” take a look in the mirror. And I can back that claim up — anyone can just read the previous thread for proof.

  274. 274
    Slide says:

    roux?

  275. 275
    John Cole says:

    You cannot provide ANY PROOF that I ever attributed a comment to Ben that he did not write because I clearly did not, and you stand by your assertion that “Jane Hamshers of the left” is not intended to include me.

    I NEVER SAID YOU ATTRIBUTED IT TO BEN. I said:

    Hell, half the things in that despicable Hamsher post were not even WRITTEN BY BEN.

    You have even stated fifteen times yourself Ben did not write it, Blanton did.

    I am really out of here now.

  276. 276
    Slide says:

    errrr… remind me never to piss off Jane

  277. 277
    Perry Como says:

    roux?

    You have to be joking. Heathen!

  278. 278
    Slide says:

    Cole:

    Hell, half the things in that despicable Hamsher post were not even WRITTEN BY BEN

    . Yes, JOHN, but you inferred that Jane indicated that they were. You are very good at semantics John, but very very dishonest.

  279. 279
    Slide says:

    ahhh…. roux. the base of bechamel, veloute, or white sauce. I knew that.

  280. 280
    D. Mason says:

    Semantical games are what political extremists do best. In many ways it makes them what they are.

  281. 281
    les says:

    ” I know what I meant when I wrote that,” and anyone who can’t read my mind is an idiot undeserving of apology.

  282. 282
    Par R says:

    Why is everyone upset by what Jane Hamster thinks or says? Even some on the Left, such as Oliver Willis, acknowledge that she’s a loony flamethrower, with few redeeming points.

  283. 283
    Slide says:

    Isn’t this precious from the Washington Post?

    We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations. Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism.

    yeah, I bet they do.

  284. 284
    Davebo says:

    Perry,

    No, the heathen is the one who cooks his roux in the oven!

    Is this some kind of New Jersey roux?

  285. 285
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Um, I’m hardly going to defend John here, as I was among those people that took from his post that Jane was pumping the WP story. I do think that while he may have known what he meant, for him to expect that nobody that read “the Jane Hamshers” would exclude the eponymic Jane herself from that set borders on ludicrous.

    It would’ve been quite easy for him to say “Hmm..you’re right, that was a bit misleading, my bad. Still Jane is overly shrill about Ben being a racist, and here’s why”.

    We then could have piled on with only a few pointed barbs aimed at each other (and John), and set ourselves up well for beer blogging and the weekend. scs would’ve come on and asked some question about racism that could’ve been answered by a quick Google search, and Darrell could consistently misinterpret what Steve said, and boy howdy, we could’ve had a few bong hits and laughed about it tomorrow.

    That said, it’s hard to have a measured response when your foe comes in guns blazing. This could have a been a vastly more informative dialogue (albeit much less entertaining) if Jane (who I read regularly, and generally enjoy her fighting spirit) had not been quite so antagonistic with her first post. I believe Glenn Greenwald when he came over here had a reasonable response to something of his John pointed to (if I recall correctly, help me out here).

    We should be encouraging dialogue between the sides, folks, not yelling. What was it Stewart said on Crossfire?

    Anyhoo….carry on, people. Carry on.

  286. 286
    Krista says:

    Definitely no roux that I’ve ever encountered…

    In the oven. I must say I’ve not heard of that – do you find an appreciable difference from roux cooked on the stovetop?

  287. 287
    jane hamsher says:

    It goes on, and all of it is designed to smear Ben Domenech as a racist. I could link you to hundreds of other smear jobs by Atrios and others, but why bother? Hell, half the things in that despicable Hamsher post were not even WRITTEN BY BEN. Even as I grow more and more disgusted and sick of the Republican party, I am still amazed at the gutter antics of the rabid left.

    And now you are saying “I NEVER SAID YOU ATTRIBUTED IT TO BEN.”

    So before you do crawl off to sulk what exactly were you trying to imply, John? What was the point of making this statement? Your earlier defenses indicate that this is precisely what you meant. Did it take you this long in the thread to come up with this one?

  288. 288
    Davebo says:

    It takes all kinds Krista, and I firmly believe in a “big tent” policy among afficionados of acadian cuisine.

    Except for the scum that keeps saying they make “okra gumbo”. Geez, those guys can’t be tolerated.

  289. 289
    BumperStickerist says:

    slide,

    The title of the post of Jane’s that John linked to belies your point to John. Without putting too fine a rhetorical flair on it, it means that you’re wrong.

    Also, as has been pointed out, John never said that Jane attributed something to Ben that Ben didn’t write. He says “Hell, half the things in that despicable Hamsher post were not even WRITTEN BY BEN. ”

    Which is true.

    And remained true the second time and third time he pointed that out.

    So we’re back to Jane taking UMBRAGE over perceived slights rather than actual ones. Which might be a trait of race-bating blaspheming fundie minister’s daughters with blogs. The available data supports that conclusion.

    And, fwiw, there is a White-Phosphorus cite on FDL. Reddhead approvingly links to a WaPo article on the topic.

    .

  290. 290
    Vladi G says:

    And, fwiw, there is a White-Phosphorus cite on FDL. Reddhead approvingly links to a WaPo article on the topic.

    You probably don’t appreciate the irony of that, do you?

  291. 291
    Stephen Colbert says:

    Don’t back down just because you mislead your readers and mischaracterized the Hamster. We all understand there’s a certain ‘truthiness’ to saying the “Jane Hamsher’s of the world” doesn’t actually mean the Jane Hamsher if it turns out I can’t back up what I actually said.

    Gonna have this post ‘await moderation’ for 40 minutes like the last one?

  292. 292
    Slide says:

    if Jane (who I read regularly, and generally enjoy her fighting spirit) had not been quite so antagonistic with her first post

    John’s comments about Jane:

    I am still amazed at the gutter antics of the rabid left.

    I think the distortion of what Ben has written by Jane and others is outrageous and disgusting

    Jane Hamsher and those writing that sort of crap should be ashamed of themselves

    Jane’s first post:

    You better be able to back that up because I will be over here every fucking day until you do (and you can’t, because I never wrote about white phosphorous weapons even once).

    Do we understand each other?

    and you’re putting the onus on Jane for lack of civility? lol

  293. 293
    Alexandra says:

    Honestly, I think it’s pretty much a stretch to say that he’s not at all racist.
    –calling Coretta Scott King a Communist? Please
    –big fan of Jefferson Davis? Come on.
    –That post he approvingly put up citing the article about how blacks should be eliminated to lower crime? Well, let’s just say, I think that you MIGHT consider that a BIT racist.

  294. 294
    Krista says:

    ImJohnGalt – actually, you’re right. I mean, I’m a lefty, and when Jane came in like this:

    You better be able to back that up because I will be over here every fucking day until you do (and you can’t, because I never wrote about white phosphorous weapons even once).

    Do we understand each other?

    I agree that John was being a stubborn fart, but man oh man, when someone comes in like that, it really makes it impossible for the issue to be resolved in a civil fashion.

  295. 295
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Somebody’s gotta be the bigger person. My money was on Jane.
    I was wrong.

  296. 296
    Steve says:

    In the case of Hamsher v. Cole, the plaintiff has asserted two causes of action:

    1. That the defendant made reference to “the Jane Hamshers of the Left” making allegations concerning white phosphorus, when, plaintiff alleges, she has never made any such allegations;

    2. That the defendant accused plaintiff of making a post regarding Ben Domenech where “half the quotes were not even BY Ben” when, plaintiff alleges, she never attributed any quote to Ben Domenech other than those he actually authored.

    As to the first count, the court finds the defendant’s testimony credible insofar as he claimed he never intended to accuse plaintiff of making such statements personally. However, the court also finds that a reasonable reader, upon encountering the construction “the Jane Hamshers of the Left,” would take it to mean that Jane Hamsher herself was included in that formulation. Defendant apparently operates under the belief that so long as he did not intend to say anything inaccurate, he cannot be held responsible for the construction which a reasonable reader would place upon his words. The court disagrees and finds defendant’s refusal to apologize to be unduly stubborn and unwarranted.

    As to the second count, the court finds the statements by both parties to have been literally true. Plaintiff’s post did, indeed, contain a number of quotes that were not authored by Ben Domenech. However, the court agrees with defendant that plaintiff, in so stating, improperly implied that defendant had made less than forthright disclosure of the authorship of such quotes. The court finds that plaintiff, in fact, truthfully attributed the quotes included in her post, including the quote attributed to “Red State Racists,” the plaintiff’s nom de guerre for the internet site RedState.com. Whether a reader of plaintiff’s site would conclude that a statement by one of the front-page posters at RedState.com should be deemed relevant to their assessment of Mr. Domenech, a founder of that site, is for each individual reader to determine. The court finds no misleading aspects to plaintiff’s post that would impair a reader’s ability to make a full and fair determination of that issue.

    Accordingly, the court finds for plaintiff on both causes of action, with costs, judgment to enter accordingly. The clerk will call the next case.

  297. 297
    Krista says:

    It takes all kinds Krista, and I firmly believe in a “big tent” policy among afficionados of acadian cuisine

    Proper thing. Same policy should apply towards afficionados of acadian commenters. LOL.

  298. 298
    Ancient Purple says:

    Wow! The only things missing from this thread are (in no certain order):

    1) MacBuckets calling liberals traitors.

    2) Stormy calling liberals “unhinged” and then leaving to watch Tivo.

    3) scs posting from the liberal haven of Anchorage about something or other.

    4) Al Maviva taking 42 paragraphs to tell us what today’s date is.

    All in all, though, a great flame war.

    Keep up the good work, brave soliders.

    /passes Krista and ppGaz the popcorn

  299. 299
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Having said this, two comments from Red State for your perusal.

    From Ben’s resignation explanation:

    To my enemies: I take enormous solace in the fact that you spent this week bashing me, instead of America.

    We’re genX, n00b. We multitask. We can bash both you AND America. I would’ve thought as a 24-year old, you would understand that. Never played “Call of Duty” while typing your blog entry, talking on the phone and eating pizza (in your underwear)? And don’t lie – there are probably pictures out there.

    I repeat: Should the entire American Left fall over dead tomorrow, I would rejoice, and order pizza to celebrate. They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human. I look forward to seeing each and every one in Hell.

    Quite frankly, I don’t really have anything to say about this. I don’t even have it in me to do a Darrell…you know “this is the right. this passes for deep thinking on the right.” I really hope that isn’t true.

  300. 300
    Andrew says:

    Let’s get to the real issue at hand:
    Does Jane want lasers, or not?

    And the RedState foot soldiers are proving to be as magnanimous in defeat as they are in victory:

    For the record By: Thomas
    I repeat: Should the entire American Left fall over dead tomorrow, I would rejoice, and order pizza to celebrate. They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human. I look forward to seeing each and every one in Hell.

    To those conservatives who couldn’t wait to find wrongdoing where none existed: Gee, funny you didn’t get all hyped up about this with Bob Bork. Or Sam Alito. I guess maybe your common sense detector — or decency reserve — only kicks in when it gets you something you want?

    You’re all dead to me, as well. Too bad: One lady in particular was a favorite writer of mine. Ah, well.

  301. 301
    Slide says:

    Somebody’s gotta be the bigger person. My money was on Jane.
    I was wrong.

    you mean by “bigger person” to allow someone to defame you without fighting back? Thats not a “bigger person” thats a Democrat.

  302. 302
    Perry Como says:

    Davebo says:

    Is this some kind of New Jersey roux?

    Heh. It’s a method I’ve found that works well when you want a very dark roux. Start off with your fat and flour in the cast iron skillet and stir it over low heat on the stove until it starts to froth. Toss it into a 300 degree oven and then stir every 5 minutes until it gets a little past the peanut butter stage. Pull it out, toss it on the stove at high heat, whisk like hell, and you’ll have a dark roux in another 5 minutes. Turn the heat off and keep whisking and you can get a very dark roux with the residual heat.

    Takes less effort and seems to be more foolproof than doing the entire thing on the stove top. Especially if you are doing a large batch (this batch is 6 cups worth). Mmmm, looks like dark chocolate.

    And okra goes best with stewed tomatoes and some tasso.

  303. 303
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Um. There’s fighting back with the intent to persuade, and then there’s fighting back with the intent to, I dunno, escalate the hostility? I didn’t say she shouldn’t respond, Slide. Only that she might have had a more constructive dialogue if she hadn’t posted as she did, and then demanded within moments that John respond. People here do have jobs that sometimes keep them away from the computer.

    Honestly, I am a fucking registered Democrat, but it doesn’t mean I applaud incivility by anyone [other than myself – that I’m totally okay with].

  304. 304
    Krista says:

    4) Al Maviva taking 42 paragraphs to tell us what today’s date is.

    /Krista accidentally spits her popcorn all over Ancient Purple.

    Damn. Sorry. I’ll be back with some more…the thread’s quieting down a bit, but I sense trolls lurking, and will need sustenance.

  305. 305
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Perry, that sounds awesome. Think I’ll go get the fixin’s for for a gumbo this weekend.

  306. 306
    Andrew says:

    Which one is Chong Li, and which one is Van Damme?

    Whenever I think of John Cole, this springs immediately to mind…

  307. 307
    LITBMueller says:

    When John wrote

    Jane-

    Am I going to have to dig up your PJ threads?

    I thought to myself, “Whoah! John slept with Jane, and he’s threatening to find forensic evidence left behind by her pajamas?!?!?! WOW! This is the best thread ever!!!”

    Heh heh….

    That was a blast. It definitely made my Friday go a little faster. Too bad John took his ball and went home, but, at the same time, I can’t blame him – Jane was pretty rude.

    Jane, you could have won your argument really easily without being so combative. All you did was give him an “out.” :(

    More fireworks tomorrow, I hope? On to the beeeeeerrrrr!!!!

  308. 308
    yet another jeff says:

    Someday John and Jane will look back on this day and laugh…

    Is is just me, but did y’all sense some sexual tension between them…or am I confusing that with fighting like married people?

  309. 309
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Married people have sexual tension?

  310. 310
    Slide says:

    Honestly, I am a fucking registered Democrat, but it doesn’t mean I applaud incivility by anyone

    sorry but I would love this country to have civil political discourse but we are not in an environment where that can happen. Unfortunate but true. And, I’ll be damned if only one side will play nice while the other side beats them over the head by questioning their very patriotism on a daily basis. Don’t like every single provision of the Patriot Act – you’re helping the terrorists. You want some changes regarding unions in the Homeland Security Act? you are working with Bin Laden. You are a journailist reporting on what is happening in Iraq? you are helping the enemy. This is every fucking day in this country and you are going to attack someone that fights back? Give me a fucking break.

    America likes fighters. They expect you to fight for your beliefs even if they disagree with them. I belive John Kerry lost because he failed to understand this and didn’t get “uncivil” with the Swift Boat liars. Yes, he took the higher road and he got nowhere for it. People naturally see that if Kerry was unwilling to fight for his own honor how can we expect him to fight al Qaeda? I’m tired of Dems bemoaning liberals taking a tough slash and burn approach. I dont’ think we should ever lie about our adversaries, like the right does about us, but we should never NEVER fucking sit back and not respond immediately to their bull shit and call them on it. Sorry, the civility in me has been sucked out by an administration that raised the demonization of its political opposition to an art form.

  311. 311
    Blue Neponset says:

    I agree that John was being a stubborn fart, but man oh man, when someone comes in like that, it really makes it impossible for the issue to be resolved in a civil fashion.

    I can’t blame Jane for getting so miffed. God bless his heart and all that but, John accused her of pretty much being a muckracking hack who was misquoting Domenech and wrting lies about white phospherous (that is how I read it anyway). If the author of a fairly popular political blog accused me of those things I would have responded angrily as well.

  312. 312
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Slide, I hear you. And yet, I am somehow able to discern the difference between our Democratic Representatives calling out the lies of the Republican party when they occur (and, for that matter calling them “lies”), and using every legislative and procedural device at their disposal to further prevent or delay the Republicans from running the damn country into the ground, vs. coming to a blog run by an independent citizen and saying:

    You better be able to back that up because I will be over here every fucking day until you do (and you can’t, because I never wrote about white phosphorous weapons even once).

    Do we understand each other?

    [sorry for the run-on sentence]

    It does seem needlessly provocative and threatening. But whatever, YMMV.

    I respect Jane as a passionate writer on liberal/Democratic issues, and John as a libertarian/old-school conservative. Given that these two groups are the only ones who seem to actually have any constructive ideas about how to run the country, at some point they’re going to have to be able to talk to one another to fix the shitstorm that the Republicanites (testing a meme, here) have caused over the last 5 years.

  313. 313
    BumperStickerist says:

    again, John said that half the things in Jane’s ‘Box Turtle Ben’ post and cited as proof of his being ‘racist’ weren’t written by Ben. Which is, you know, true.

    As for Jane’s hackiness and muckraking, in that post she cites back to other Leftie blog posts rather than source material. And demonstrates in the process that she doesn’t bother to read the source material but rather trusts the opinion of the sourcing blogger.

    That strikes me as being hacktastic.

  314. 314
    SeesThroughIt says:

    Whenever I think of John Cole, this springs immediately to mind…

    I love that shit. The little move where he looks like he’s holding an invisible head in front of his crotch is so brilliant.

  315. 315
    MattM says:

    Ben’s defense of his movie review plagiarism is a HUGE load of horseshit. The passages in question were used to build the argument that he was making. An editor couldn’t just add them without setting up the plagiarized quote and transitioning from it to the next “original” thought.

    And his imaginary editor must have had a TON of time on his or her hand. It’s much easier to do what editors actually do, which is to say “This sucks. Rewrite it.”

  316. 316
    Blue Neponset says:

    As for Jane’s hackiness and muckraking, in that post she cites back to other Leftie blog posts rather than source material.

    Why is it OK for you not to cite the source material?

  317. 317
    Geek, Esq. says:

    So, JC, what do you think about bloodthirsty hatemongers like Thomas and the rest of the Redstate crew, who just characterized half of America as subhumans who deserve immediate death?

    Today is the day that Redstate died a long overdue death. Long known to be a bunch of clinically insane cave dwellers by us on the left, they’re now burning their bridges with the conservative bloggers who have full use of their faculties.

  318. 318
    Pooh says:

    I love that shit. The little move where he looks like he’s holding an invisible head in front of his crotch is so brilliant.

    Pooh- Blow me.

    Ewww.

  319. 319
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Oh, that’s nice. The carpetbagger also thinks you would make a nice replacement for Ben.

  320. 320
    Andrew says:

    I love that shit. The little move where he looks like he’s holding an invisible head in front of his crotch is so brilliant.

    I so need a fake suspenders tank top shirt like that.

    Wait, wait, I bet it’s actually a UNITARD!!!!

  321. 321
    BumperStickerist says:

    As for Jane’s hackiness and muckraking, in that post she cites back to other Leftie blog posts rather than source material.

    Why is it OK for you not to cite the source material?

    I did give a cite. The post in question is linked at the top of this comment thread.

    Now that we’re 300 comments into this pile of crap I just figured that EVERYBODY would have read the actual posts involved for themselves by now.

    If you haven’t yet, you can go scroll up to the top of this thread and find Jane’s post.

  322. 322
    Brian says:

    I repeat: Should the entire American Left fall over dead tomorrow, I would rejoice, and order pizza to celebrate. They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human. I look forward to seeing each and every one in Hell.

    Maybe we’ll have another civil war in this country, this time between the Left and the Right. If so, we on the right will hunt you like the dogs you are, and go all Muslim on people like Kos. You know, behead him on his own site.

    Now I can enjoy a pizza to that!

    You won a battle, but you’ll never win the war, especially with people like Jane Hamsher in your ranks.

  323. 323
    jg says:

    The war would last about eight minutes. Who owns the armed forces, the right or the left?

  324. 324
    Steve says:

    I appreciate Brian’s effort to just laugh it off. I guess I would do the same, if I wanted to be able to continue spewing the line that the other side is some kind of brewing cesspool of hate that can’t be trusted to run the country. But you know, Brian, you may not mean it, but he did.

  325. 325
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Let’s see now. Domenech calls Coretta King “a Communist”, has to apologize almost immediately and admit that this was a totally false accusation, and is caught by Brad Delong gushingly praising Jefferson Davis last June — and John Cole expects us to believe that he is utterly devoid of racism? Riiight. If this isn’t “racism”, it is something so close that the difference could not be determined with a microtome.

  326. 326
    Pooh says:

    Brian, you are in fact joking, right?

    I think this thread demonstrates the need to be…clear with one’s meaning, otherwise someone might misunderstand. Which would be all their own fault, becuase you know what you meant, so blow emscrew em.

  327. 327
    Barbar says:

    Why someone would bother to defend Ben Domenech from an army of hacks is beyond me.

    “Oh political hackery is so offensive to me, how dare you attack poor innocent Ben.”

  328. 328
    Brian says:

    spewing the line that the other side is some kind of brewing cesspool of hate that can’t be trusted to run the country

    Cut the guy some slack, will you? Have you no heart? I mean, really, the guy’s been put through the grinder this week and just resigned. Even if you disagree with him, can you let him vent? Does it ever end with you folks?

  329. 329
    Slide says:

    the compassionate Brian

    Cut the guy some slack, will you? Have you no heart? I mean, really, the guy’s been put through the grinder this week and just resigned. Even if you disagree with him, can you let him vent? Does it ever end with you folks?

    the not so compassionate Brian:

    Maybe we’ll have another civil war in this country, this time between the Left and the Right. If so, we on the right will hunt you like the dogs you are, and go all Muslim on people like Kos. You know, behead him on his own site.

  330. 330
    Steve says:

    I was referring to you, Brian, with that paraphrase of how 50% or more of your posts typically read.

    My point was that you would have a hard time continuing to accuse the Left of subhuman incivility were you forced to acknowledge that yes, there are leading conservatives at places like RedState.org who actually do wish Democrats dead.

  331. 331
    MattM says:

    Cut the guy some slack, will you? Have you no heart? I mean, really, the guy’s been put through the grinder this week and just resigned. Even if you disagree with him, can you let him vent? Does it ever end with you folks?

    Had the guy taken any responsibility whatsoever for his actions, I’d probably be feeling a little sympathy towards him. The fact that he didn’t, and is relying on the fact that most people don’t understand how a newsroom works to push this bogus “my editor did it” line…well, let’s just say that it’s not unjust for the dogpile to keep getting larger.

  332. 332
    Andrew says:

    Cut the guy some slack, will you? Have you no heart? I mean, really, the guy’s been put through the grinder this week and just resigned. Even if you disagree with him, can you let him vent? Does it ever end with you folks?

    Oh geez, you are so right. Come on liberals, can’t you just go back to being objectively pro-terrorist and stop being so subjectively anti-Ben, just for a little while?

    Actually, I’m pretty sure that Ben Domenech doesn’t exist and is instead a masterful DougJ spoof, and fooling the Washington Post is his best work yet.

  333. 333
    Ancient Purple says:

    Oh, good God! Ben is a complete idiot.

    Virtually every other alleged instance of plagiarism that I’ve seen comes from a single semester’s worth of pieces that were printed under my name at my college paper, The Flat Hat, when I was 17.

    And… he plays the age card. Yes, we are all magically absolved because of our age.

    Question for you, Ben: if you couldn’t be trusted not to plagiarize, why should you have been trusted to drive a vehicle?

    But the truth is that I had met P.J. at a Republican event and asked his permission to do a college-specific version of his classic piece on partying. He granted permission, the piece was cleared with my editors at the paper, and it ran as inspired by O’Rourke’s original.

    Right. Because P.J. O’Rourke just willy-nilly waves copyright for any college newspaper writer that comes along. Any paperwork to back up your claim? An email? A note on a cocktail napkin?

    My critics have also accused me of plagiarism in multiple movie reviews for the college paper. I once caught an editor at the paper inserting a line from The New Yorker (which I read) into my copy and protested.

    You poor, poor scapegoat.

    Life is a veil of tears, Ben. Welcome to it.

  334. 334
    Guesst says:

    So everyone buys that Ben lifted a movie review from Salon—-but did anyone bother checking to see if Salon lifted it too?

    They aren’t the only two examples, in case nobody noticed.

    The Left is SO unreliable, but on a positive note, they do excel at smearage and combined coverage of smearage.

  335. 335
    Perry Como says:

    You won a battle, but you’ll never win the war, especially with people like Jane Hamsher in your ranks.

    You can send your waves of Christian warriors while my robot army rips them apart as I sip a mojito. Maybe faith will trump science.

  336. 336
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Cut the guy some slack, will you? Have you no heart? I mean, really, the guy’s been put through the grinder this week and just resigned. Even if you disagree with him, can you let him vent? Does it ever end with you folks?

    Uh, give that I re-posted that quote above about killing half the country, let me state that it was not Ben that said it, but rather one of the commenters on RedState. That is, someone who had no skin in the game other than that Ben was discovered to be a plagiarist, and who felt that the best way to express his sympathy for Ben was was to wax poetic at the idea that half of the country should die for their beliefs at his “team’s” hands.

    Say what you will, and perhaps you can come up with someone on Dailykos who has said it, but I see an awful lot more eliminationist rhetoric coming from the Republican side than the Democratic side of the divide. Calling people idiots and morons seems a lot less crass when you put it up against people calling for your death.

  337. 337
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Perry, you have a robot army? Can it make a good gumbo?

  338. 338
    ImJohnGalt says:

    So everyone buys that Ben lifted a movie review from Salon——but did anyone bother checking to see if Salon lifted it too?

    Maybe, just maybe, Salon lifted it from Ben. Didja ever think about that? Sue them, Ben!

  339. 339
    Perry Como says:

    IJG – it still uses too much cayenne :/

  340. 340

    Cut the guy some slack, will you? Have you no heart? I mean, really, the guy’s been put through the grinder this week and just resigned. Even if you disagree with him, can you let him vent? Does it ever end with you folks?

    People are only doing to Ben, what Ben would gladly do to others.

    Maybe if the rightwing showed some Christian values, people wouldn’t be so happy to gang up on them. Next time you think about opening your mouth and insulting someone, you ought to keep that in mind, Brian.

  341. 341

    Oh wow. Our Vice President just announced she’s going to run for Sabo’s seat in Minnesota.

    That’s just outstanding. She’s been an awesome leader here. I hope she gets the nomination.

    We’re really seeing some high quality candidates running in 2006.

  342. 342
    capelza says:

    For the record By: Thomas
    I repeat: Should the entire American Left fall over dead tomorrow, I would rejoice, and order pizza to celebrate. They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human. I look forward to seeing each and every one in Hell.

    To those conservatives who couldn’t wait to find wrongdoing where none existed: Gee, funny you didn’t get all hyped up about this with Bob Bork. Or Sam Alito. I guess maybe your common sense detector—or decency reserve—only kicks in when it gets you something you want?

    You’re all dead to me, as well. Too bad: One lady in particular was a favorite writer of mine. Ah, well.

    Is this a Goodbye Cruel World type of thing? Oh please, please…what a god damned drama queen. Historonic and childish…though no suprise. If he leaves, will he take that misogynistic fuck, Nick Danger with him?

    I crawled out of my sick bed, too late, for the fireworks…:( Looks like a good brawl though… :)

  343. 343
    RonB says:

    Maybe John just wanted someone indefensible to defend like Tim did with Goldstein.

  344. 344
    Brian says:

    Next time you think about opening your mouth and insulting someone, you ought to keep that in mind, Brian.

    What the hell does that comment have to do with anything? And when or where did I insult you? Where do you get off lecturing me?

    I’m a conservative, but not religious. So, I don’t have to live by any religious creed you try to throw back at me. If Ben is religious, everything I’ve read of his comes nowhere close to what I see from people like you, or Kos.

    Put away your knives for once.

  345. 345
    Brian says:

    Calling people idiots and morons seems a lot less crass when you put it up against people calling for your death.

    I thought the quote from RedState was from Ben, so I apologize for getting that wrong.

    However, your above quote is plain wrong. I see it on sites all the time. I have seen horrible comments from visitors of this site, Kos, Crooks and Liars, MyDD, Atrios, and more. You’re kidding yourself if you think leftists are all peaceful flower children.

  346. 346
    Sirkowski says:

    John Cole got PWN3D AGAIN! lol

  347. 347

    What the hell does that comment have to do with anything? And when or where did I insult you? Where do you get off lecturing me?

    Whatever. The fucking maggot deserves it. He should go out and get a job like real americans and stop living off the titty of the government. Fucking Welfare Trust fund boy.

    Put away your knives for once.

    Knives? I’m bringing guns.

    The Washington Post is going down over this one. They should never have hired that bastard to begin with. Bunch of freaking weenies, thinking that they can placate Conservative criticism over fact based journalism by hiring Bush cronies. It’s like an abused spouse trying to appeal for mercy. You don’t get respect by cowering in the corner. You get respect for standing up for yourself.

    Go sit in the corner, brian. This is obviously too hot for your sensitive little weenie ass to handle.

    And before you whine poetically about what myself or someone like Kos has said, you better go look in the mirror. Your posts are some of the most hate filled, illogical diatribes I’ve ever encountered.

  348. 348
    LITBMueller says:

    Man, oh, man….would somebody please call those guys at RedState a frickin’ waaahhhhhmbulance already??

    I mean, I do personally agree that the vehemence with which Mr. Domenevech was attacked was way over the top. Personally, I would have preferred to see him keep blogging, and then had the chance to respond to him in his comments section (since RedState bans those that disagree).

    That being said, though, the RedState folk need to stop their whining after their own tactics get used upon one of their own. What short memories! Have they forgotten that this kind of crap was created by Lee Atwater? Who can forget this choice Atwater quote?

    You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

    And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

    Atwater’s protege’, Karl Rove, turned dirty politics into a science. And, we got to see his handiwork in the dismantling of McCain in 2000 and the activities of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004.

    I personally hate dirty politics and out-of-whack partisanship. But, man, I hate whiners more.

    You reap what you sow.

    turned into a science by Karl Rove, and

  349. 349
    EL says:

    New information speaking to the “my editor added it without my knowledge” defense. Atrios posted this within the last few hours:

    Hi —

    This all seems to have happened really fast. I hadn’t really checked the news til midday today when I saw all of this happened. It might be kind of moot now, but I was Domenech’s editor at The Flat Hat when he was writing the reviews. Four people, including me, would have handled his copy, the others being my assistant section editor, the managing editor and the editor.

    This should seem obvious, but no one on the editorial staff was going into Salon (or wherever) and pasting whole sections into his reviews. We were more concerned about getting the paper done so we could get home at 2 in the morning instead of 5. We may have put additional words in the story, but it would never have been completely foreign content. It was just editing.

    For those who want a pointer, it’s under “Wanker of the Day,” about 1/4 of the way down the page.

  350. 350
    ppGaz says:

    Okay, I went back and re-read the thread, and I still don’t know what the hell the John-Jane argument was about.

    I’m out of popcorn, and I’ve got a leg cramp and the cat has drooled all over my keyboard.

    Can I get a refund?

  351. 351
    Billy Bob says:

    The question to ask is whether or not this whole Ben thing was a set-up job by the WaPo to smear conservative bloggers on behalf of an outraged MSM?

    Are you suggesting that the WaPo deliberately hired a known plagiarist and published him on their website, thus exposing themselves to public opprobrium, in order to discredit the right?

    Wow… That’s um, kinda loopy, isn’t it?

  352. 352
    t. jasper parnell says:

    PPGAZ,
    The initial post accused the Jane Hamshers but the Jane Hamsher of making a specific factual error (something to do with the Willy Pete imborglio) and Ms. Hamsher cheating on a quote. In both case, I have to say, Mr. Cole came off the worse.

  353. 353
    p.lukasiak says:

    I don’t agree with Ben Domenech on nearly any social issue, but I have read thousands of his private emails at Red State (we have an Editor’s listserv of sorts), spoken with him (via AOL IM) dozens of times, and I have never seen or heard one shred of racism come from him. I think Ben Domeonech is wrong on a lot of things, but he is no racist,

    correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t John one of those who thought that Bill Bennett’s “if we abort all black children, the crime rate will go down” statement was not racist…..

    I hate to break it to you John, but just because you don’t support lynching doesn’t mean you are not a racist — even if that is how they define “not a racist” in West Virginia….

  354. 354
    kl says:

    correct me if I’m wrong

    When has that ever worked?

  355. 355
    BumperStickerist says:

    Hi ppgaz,

    you’re wrong.

    To directly quote Dennis Prager on this topic:

    What happened is easy to summarize. In response to a caller who said that America “lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years,” Bennett made the point that one cannot argue against abortion by pointing out anything theoretically positive that could come from either allowing or outlawing abortion.

    For example, he went on to say, “You could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” And he immediately added, for the sake of those who might distort his meaning, that aborting all black babies would be “impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible

    [emphasis added]

    So, Bill used a thought experiment. That’s somewhat of the same tack that Ben took on the part that has Gilliard and, thanks to unblinking acceptance of Gilliard’s pronouncement by Hamsher of Gilliard’s work, THE Jane Hamsher all striken and afflicted. Ironically, I think that Ben used the same phraseology as Bennett in his blog piece, so – there you go – another bit of plagiarism by Ben, yet not an ounce of racism in either piece.

    And, forgive me if I don’t accept Gilliard’s and Hamsher’s take on Ben and ‘codewords’. My experience is that when the term ‘codeword’ is used by the Left it’s just their codeword for “Fuck it, I got nothing.”

    .

  356. 356
    Brian says:

    Your posts are some of the most hate filled, illogical diatribes I’ve ever encountered.

    Cut the rhetoric with a knife.

    I am the most reasonable person here most of the time, along with others, like Al, Darrell, etc. Unlike most conservative sites, you’re unwilling, or unable, to engage anyone who opposes you in seasoned debate on any topic. Your responses are always couched with epithets; a sign of a weak and feeble mind.

  357. 357
    MattM says:

    A quick trip over to the NRO will reveal that The Corner has thrown Gentle Ben under the bus. Big time.

    The guy’s undeniably a serial plagiarist.

  358. 358
    p.lukasiak says:

    So, Bill used a thought experiment.

    yes, a thought experiment premised on the idea that blacks are innately criminal. (“You could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” )

    The issue isn’t whether Bennett was advocating genocide, the issue is that his premise was obviously racist.

    Ben Domenech quoted (approvingly) a long column that used the exact same racist premise.

    Ben a racist. Bill Bennett is a racist. And the fact that John can’t recognize their obvious racism doesn’t make him look so good either….

  359. 359
    unreasonablereader says:

    I guess I am not a reasonable reader, because I thought it was pretty clear that he just meant the grenade-throwers like Jane, and wasn’t actually attributing that particular claim to her. Regardless, once he explained to the reasonable readers that didn’t understand, why wasn’t that enough? I can’t believe I read this whole thing…

  360. 360
    p.lukasiak says:

    A quick trip over to the NRO will reveal that The Corner has thrown Gentle Ben under the bus. Big time.

    and a quick trip over to John’s buddies at Red State will reveal that anyone who points out that NRO has thrown Ben under the bus is banned.

    I mean, people who are making perfectly respectful, factual comments about Ben’s plagiarism are being banned left and right….

    I wonder if John will find the time to comment about that tendency of his Red State buddies?

  361. 361
    Steve says:

    I am the most reasonable person here most of the time, along with others, like Al, Darrell, etc.

    Hahahahaha!

    I won’t even bother to compile your greatest hits, as I know you’re not being serious :)

  362. 362
    The Other Steve says:

    So, Bill used a thought experiment. That’s somewhat of the same tack that Ben took on the part that has Gilliard and, thanks to unblinking acceptance of Gilliard’s pronouncement by Hamsher of Gilliard’s work, THE Jane Hamsher all striken and afflicted. Ironically, I think that Ben used the same phraseology as Bennett in his blog piece, so – there you go – another bit of plagiarism by Ben, yet not an ounce of racism in either piece.

    Old Bill Bennett screwed up big time. Whether or not something was a thought experiment, it was reprehensible to think and morally repugnant to articulate.

    If Ben said the same thing, there’s simply no excuse for it.

  363. 363
    The Other Steve says:

    I am the most reasonable person here most of the time, along with others, like Al, Darrell, etc. Unlike most conservative sites, you’re unwilling, or unable, to engage anyone who opposes you in seasoned debate on any topic. Your responses are always couched with epithets; a sign of a weak and feeble mind.

    I see your projecting your own weaknesses, again.

    In more than numerous threads you have articulated bizarre, radical positions all in the name of supposed reasonability. The debates on abortion have been particularly mind numbing.

    Then you come into this thread, trying to defend a guy who is not only socially repugnant, but a lying cheat to boot. Yep, the kid’s only 24 years old or whatever, he may not even be aware of what he’s doing. But if we don’t give him a spanking he’ll never understand the difference between right and wrong. If you protect him, he’ll never understand that you don’t go around being a repugnant little scum sucker, and then blaming others for your bad behavior.

    I’m not reasonable, I fully admit that. I’m through with reasonability. I put up with you guy’s fucking bullshit during the Clinton years, and I’m not putting up with it now that we have this cocksucker of a President destroying our nation.

    If that makes me rabid, shrill, angry, whatever. Fine, so be it. I am. I’m the rabid, radical, angry center and I’m mad as hell and I’m not taking it any more.

  364. 364
    The Other Steve says:

    A quick trip over to the NRO will reveal that The Corner has thrown Gentle Ben under the bus. Big time.

    I’m glad to see the National Review recognizes the difference between right and wrong.

    There is still hope for our country.

  365. 365
    MattM says:

    and a quick trip over to John’s buddies at Red State will reveal that anyone who points out that NRO has thrown Ben under the bus is banned.

    I mean, people who are making perfectly respectful, factual comments about Ben’s plagiarism are being banned left and right….

    Yeah, they’re scrubbing those threads pretty furiously. I mean, I get watching out for your own, but after that craptacular statement Gentle Ben made…RedState would have been much better off to wash their hands of him today, rather than have to do it next week.

  366. 366
    ppGaz says:

    BumperStickerist Says:

    Hi ppgaz,

    you’re wrong.

    I sometimes am. For example, today I was wrong that I’d have an easy day at work. But anyway …

    Nothing in your post refers to me or anything I have posted about in recent history. Check your attributions!

    Oh, and Bill Bennett is a big fat lying stupid piece of shit.

    IMO, of course.

  367. 367
    Fledermaus says:

    Containing the most inane pretzel logic seen since the last good Steely Dan album

    Wait. There are good Steely Dan albums?!!?

    They must be somewhere lying alongside Saddam’s WMDs.

  368. 368
    Janus Daniels says:

    Please support this charge; thanks.
    John wrote:
    “I will note with a little irony that all of the people screaming about Ben’s alleged plagiarism link freely and frequently to Sean Paul at the Agonist, an exposed and admitted plagiarist.”

  369. 369
    EL says:

    RedState would have been much better off to wash their hands of him today, rather than have to do it next week.

    They finally did, making it clear it was temporary (leave of absence), and with much soft-pedaling and citing his wonderful qualities. The post ended by bashing the critics who exposed him as “lowest of the low.”

  370. 370
    The Other Steve says:

    They finally did, making it clear it was temporary (leave of absence), and with much soft-pedaling and citing his wonderful qualities. The post ended by bashing the critics who exposed him as “lowest of the low.”

    But of course. A conservative would never accept responsibility for his own actions, especially if he was guilty or wrong.

    I still remember when Bill Janklow from South Dakota massacred Randolph Scott, a Minnesotan motorcycle rider, on the highway by running a stop sign. It was everybody’s fault but his own. The stop sign should not have been there, someone caused him to run through the sign. He had high blood pressure. Anything he could think of to not accept responsibility for the fact that he broke the law, a law that was there to stop exactly the kind of accident that he caused.

    I’m so fucking sick of them all. Whiners, excuses. Fuck ’em all.

  371. 371
    Andrei says:

    Jane Hamsher and those writing that sort of crap should be ashamed of themselves…

    Wait…. you are comparing Jane Hamsher to Ann Coulter and Jane is supposed to feel ashamed for the “crap” she said about Ben D? Give us a friggin’ break. Ann Coulter says things easily a thousand times more heinous, cold, slimy and smearing than anything Jane has written in a short period of time lately.

    You have truly lost it lost it Cole. Really… you are easily making yourself a pointless read these days.

  372. 372
    p.lukasiak says:

    They finally did, making it clear it was temporary (leave of absence), and with much soft-pedaling and citing his wonderful qualities. The post ended by bashing the critics who exposed him as “lowest of the low.”

    y’know, I’d take them a lot more seriously if they hadn’t been so obnoxious when CBS withdrew the Killian documents story. That was an honest journalistic mistake, but these guys crucified everyone associated with the story — and did so mercilessly. But when it turns out that one of its own is not merely a serial plagarist, but lied to his own defenders to hide the fact that he was a serial plagarist, they STILL show him mercy, and attack his critics.

    Assholes.

  373. 373
    RonB says:

    Wait. There are good Steely Dan albums?!!?

    You should be ashamed of yourself for writing that sort of crap.

  374. 374
    The Other Steve says:

    This is classic, Josh Marshall

    I don’t think I have anything else to say on this Ben Domenech and ‘Red America’ issue. Whatever Ben’s done, I’m sure getting knocked around and knocked off his perch wasn’t much fun. And I’m sure it wasn’t any fun for his family either. Everybody’s human. And everyone, or just about everyone, is better and more complex than their public caricature at their lowest moment.

    But I can’t manage not to say something about this sign off line in Ben’s apologia post at Redstate …

    “To my friends: thank you for your support. To my enemies: I take enormous solace in the fact that you spent this week bashing me, instead of America.”

    Ben, thank you. Thank you for taking all these blows on America’s behalf. Thank you lifting passages out of other people’s prose so America could take a breather. Thank you for slandering cherished American heroes for America’s sake.

    Most of all, though, Ben, thank you for illustrating Dr. Johnson’s dictum that ‘patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.’

    Vainglory, today, thy name is Ben.

  375. 375
    The Other Steve says:

    blockquotes within blockquotes don’t work well. s rory!

  376. 376
    Broken says:

    Brian:

    Maybe we’ll have another civil war in this country, this time between the Left and the Right. If so, we on the right will hunt you like the dogs you are, and go all Muslim on people like Kos. You know, behead him on his own site.

    I am beginning to think it is time the anti-Bush Americans agreed that gun control is a bad idea.

  377. 377
    ppGaz says:

    I have five bucks that says that any poster to this thread could have lasted longer at WaPo than Ben Demenech.

    Even frigging Darrell could have done better.

  378. 378
    John Cole says:

    I can’t believe you all are still lying about what Bill Bennett said.

  379. 379
    ppGaz says:

    I can’t believe you all are still lying about what Bill Bennett said.

    There are different ways to process that remark:

    1) If it’s a troll, I’d give it a B-. Which is not all that bad a grade, but it’s certainly not up to the BJ standard established by yourself and other accomplished trolls around here.

    2) If it’s genuine, then one has to rhetorically gasp at calling differences of opinion “lies.” If we’re talking about the “abort the black babies” thing. If there’s a lie, it’s that you or any defender of his would presume to “know” his true intent at making the remark. The only way to gauge that, unless you were his wife or brother or closest confidante, would be to assume that the man is a wholesome and innocent and sincere person who is always out there just { aw, shucks } tryin’ to do and say the right things. But you see, that presumtion requires something bordering on mental illness. I’m a pretty good judge of public people, certainly as good as you are, and more experienced by far … and I take the man to be what I said he was upthread. And worse. I think he is the worst kind of dishonest, hypocritical pig of manipulator who knew exactly what kind of reaction his remark would set off, and did it deliberately. I have no reason at all to believe his protestations to the contrary, and even less reason to believe yours, not as any slight to you but simply as a rational matter …. you are basing your assertions entirely on your own views and opinions, as I am. So your take on it is no different from mine in quality or believability, unless there is some relationship between him and you that we don’t know about.

    3) It’s early and you aren’t really awake and just made an ill-considered post that has no real connection to anything important, at all.

    While I like the idea of #2, because it gives me a chance to rant, again, about how dumb your original thread on that subject was lo these many moons ago, I am inclined to think that #1 or #3 are more likely to be true. And between #1 and #3, I’d go with #3. But that’s just conjecture.

  380. 380
    Slide says:

    how about

    4) Cole is still shell shocked from the ass whopping he took yesterday from Jane Hamsher ?

  381. 381
    Perry Como says:

    Let’s check the tape, Mr. Cole:

    “I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could—if that were your sole purpose—you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down,”

    “That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So, these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.”

    You are a communications professor, so maybe we can hash this one out:

    – Bennett posits that killing all black fetuses would reduce crime
    – Bennett then says that killing all black fetuses to reduce crime would be morally reprehensible
    – Bennett then restates that killing all black fetuses would reduce crime

    Anything I’m missing there?

    Okay, so now let’s extrapolate:

    – Killing all caucasian fetuses would reduce crime

    The above statement is true, much like Bennett’s statement. Looking at crime statistics, you would reduce a greater amount of crime by killing all caucasian fetuses, since caucasians commit more crimes than blacks. So why didn’t Bennett use caucasian fetuses as his example?

    Because he is a racist piece of shit.

  382. 382
    John Cole says:

    You have two choices if you continue to insist that Bill Bennet was just acting out of racism when he made the comments:

    1.) You are a complete and total idiot.

    2.) You are partisan hacks who see an opportunity to lieabout what he said for political gain.

    Either way, I don’t have to deal with you anymore. There is a third option- the one Matt Yglesias, Brad DeLong, and anyone with a GED or better took, and that was recognize it as a provacative thought experiment. Based on your behavior and writings here, I am guessing you do not qualify for that route.

    Additionally, I took no such shellacking from Jane Hamsher. She accused me of editing a post. Wrong. She apologized.

    She accused me of claiming she made WP remarks. I never did. I have explained that repeatedly.

    She accused Ben of racism based on selective editing by Steve (“Black Sambo” fame) Gilliard, and then tried to bolster her case by using the writings of another individual. Most people see through the bullshit racism charges.

    She then tried to claim I stated she attributed Blanton’s remarks to Ben. I never did. I stated that she was using the writings of someone else to bolster her bullshit charges of bigotry.

    That you morons think anything was ‘won’ here is amusing. In short, I am sick of you all. Everything I write here you intentionally miss the point and nitpick around the fringes of an argument, when I clarify you accuse me of lying or changing my position, and you simply make bad faith assumptions about everything I say all the while trying to guess the ulterior motive for whatever I am posting.

    For example- is there ANYONE here who honestly thinks Ben Domenech is a racist?

    Doubtful- but how many of you defended Jane throughout this thread?

    Why? Because she ‘stood up’ to the evil caricatrure of Republicans that you are running around with and that is coloring your every action. That is the only way you can think ANYTHING was won here. Jane made a vicious and unfounded smear and didn’t back down, so somehow you all ‘won.’

    Some of you don’t want to debate- you want to shit all over anyone who in your warped minds represents the Republican party. I have merely provided you a forum for your groupthink.

    In short, I am done attempting to argue with some of you. When you say stupid things, I am just ignoring you, rather than trying to explain things- you don’t want to discuss things. You want to confirm your own little worldviews.

    And Perry Como- a dumber distillation of the Bennett saga could not be found.

  383. 383
    DougJ says:

    John, you’re a nice guy and we all like you, but you’ve got to punch your weight and Jane is way out of it. She knocked on your ass and no number of Al Mavivaesque 300 hundred word posts nit-picking at something Perry Como or ppGaz said is going to change that.

    Additionally, I took no such shellacking from Jane Hamsher.

    I’m putting that in my top ten of ridiculous conservative lies, behind “the insurgency is in its last throes” and ahead of “we have a strong dollar policy”.

  384. 384
    Slide says:

    As I can never KNOW what is truly in a man’s heart, I can’t say if Bennet or Domenech are racists. And neither can YOU John. I DO know that what Bennet said was racist and what Domenech said was insensitive and stupid.

    Domenech is a dishororable cheat, liar and thief that much we do know, whether he is a racist or not is sorta moot at this point.

    Old saying John, live by the sword, die by the sword. Another moral Christian esposing superior “values” exposed for the world to see. Except John of course because you see he has emailed him back and forth and therefore knows him imtimately. Kinda like Bush looking into Putin’s eyes and seeing his soul. Amazing how these Republicans are so intuitive ain’t it?

  385. 385
    Par R says:

    Suggest that John move his 10:01AM, 3/25/06 post out of the comment thread and post it on the main site as a stand-alone item.

    The faux intellectual posings of many posters here are often quite stunning to behold. Clearly, most of those sort of fools can barely manage to successfully wipe themselves after a dump in the morning.

  386. 386
    John Cole says:

    DOUGJ- You are out of your mind. She made a number of assertions, and backed up none of them.

    She has made no case that Ben is racist.

    She made no case that I actually said she made WP claims.

    She made no case that I stated she attributed the Blanton piece to her.

    She then apologized for falsely accusing me of editing a post.

    Again, you folks think ‘winning’ means just being a vicious hack who doesn’t hack down. It doesn’t. janes whole shtick to generate traffic is to be a ‘fighting lib,’ which means she is in the nasty wing of the blogosphere with Gilliard, tbogg, northrup, atrios, etc. They only win if you define ‘winning’ by being relentless assholes. They don’t win many arguments, though.

  387. 387
    Perry Como says:

    I’m confused on which of my points was incorrect in your mind, other than the conclusion. Did Bennett not claim that aborting black fetuses would reduce crime? Twice? He could have picked a multitude of examples to make his point, yet he chose black fetuses.

    Meh. This was hashed out on a thread when it happened. Back to snark.

    —-

    Ben Domeonech will be seen as one of the greatest young thinkers of our time. Despite the vile spewings from the Left, he will emerge from this experience stronger than ever. A party that has no ideas can only offer up personal attacks.

    We will defend! We will attack! And we will continue!

  388. 388
    Blue Neponset says:

    Doubtful- but how many of you defended Jane throughout this thread?

    I did, and I defended you too, you obtuse bastard.

    In short, I am done attempting to argue with some of you.

    Then fucking don’t. In one of my first fucking comments at Balloon Juice I asked you why you bother arguing with those who piss you off the most? Just about everyone over six year old thinks choosing who one argues with is a choice. Apparantly you think it is a compulsion.

    I have merely provided you a forum for your groupthink.

    So then start asking the groupthinkers among us to leave. If you include me in that group then please man up and ask me to leave because I don’t want to participate on a blog where I am not welcome.

    It is up to you John. Do you want Balloon Juice to be like a Protein Wisdom II or a Obsidian Wings II. Don’t fucking blame us for fucking ruining your motherfucking blog by coming here to fucking participate. At least Goldstein has the stones to ban people he doesn’t want. You just complain about the ones you don’t want once every two months or so. Stop dropping hints and do something about it. WHAT THE FUCK?!?

  389. 389
    Perry Como says:

    You just complain about the ones you don’t want once every two months or so. Stop dropping hints and do something about it. WHAT THE FUCK?!?

    Someone has a case of the Mondays.

  390. 390
    The Other Steve says:

    Either way, I don’t have to deal with you anymore. There is a third option- the one Matt Yglesias, Brad DeLong, and anyone with a GED or better took, and that was recognize it as a provacative thought experiment. Based on your behavior and writings here, I am guessing you do not qualify for that route.

    I generally agree that it was a thought experiment. But we can all agree it was a thought experiment that ought not to have been articulated.

    It’s kind of like saying, “You know, I think if we were to stick all of the jews is an oven and gas them to death it would probably make the Arabs happy, but it wouldn’t really make the jews happy and as a policy I don’t think anybody could get re-elected on it here in America.”

    yep, it’s an interesting thought experiment, but what’s the fucking point and who in their fucking right mind is going to articulate that?

    Bill Bennett is probably not be a racist, but what he said was still wrong. To continue to defend him rather than condemning him in the fashion you see fit shows a willful obtusivity on your part as well.

    So if you want to be reasonable, simply articulate how you think Bennett shouldn’t have said what he said that doesn’t imply racism.

  391. 391
    The Other Steve says:

    It is interesting, when you look at it.

    redstate has about 12 comments per thread over there. Mainly because they had to ban 3/4ths of their posters for not towing the redstate line.

    Here we’ve got nearly 400.

    There is no groupthink here.

  392. 392
    The Other Steve says:

    Again, you folks think ‘winning’ means just being a vicious hack who doesn’t hack down. It doesn’t. janes whole shtick to generate traffic is to be a ‘fighting lib,’ which means she is in the nasty wing of the blogosphere with Gilliard, tbogg, northrup, atrios, etc. They only win if you define ‘winning’ by being relentless assholes. They don’t win many arguments, though.

    This would actually have some meaning if the Republican Party wasn’t run by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson and a wide variety of other hacks, all of which have a far larger following than someone named Jane Hamsher.

  393. 393
    ppGaz says:

    Well, first of all, I have to point out that my Bennett argument has never been grounded in an assertion that he’s a racist. But I have also asserted that there is no evidence that he is not a racist other than his own assertions. Racism is pretty hard to prove, or disprove. Any asshole — and I put Bennett squarely in the category of any asshole, because he is a classic egomaniacal asshole — can say anything and then grin and wink and say “But, I’m not a racist.” Why stop there? Why not add, “Hell, I’ve never even personally drug a nigger behind my truck, or nothin’.” The defense is worthless. Worthless.

    Bennett, however, quite definitely, and provably, is a lying manipulator who deigns to make a living pretending to be morally superior to other people. For that reason alone, I consider him to be a piece of despicable feces not even worthy of my heel. And there is no way that I am going to come to the defense of a man like that on this racism charge based just on “innocent until proven guilty” reasoning. You know what? I’m not a racist either, and you couldn’t pay me enough fucking money to go on the radio and say what he said. Why? Because there is no reason on earth to cause that kind of psychic injury to innocent listeners just in order to make some stupid arcane point on a stupid fat pig’s radio show, that’s why.

    Bennet is a turd, and this defense of him is a bunch of crap.

    I mean that quite literally.

  394. 394
    Darrell says:

    John, you’re a nice guy and we all like you, but you’ve got to punch your weight and Jane is way out of it. She knocked on your ass

    I think because he occassionally displays a sense of humor, most people overlook that DougJ is a drooling whackjob

    DOUGJ- You are out of your mind. She made a number of assertions, and backed up none of them.

    She has made no case that Ben is racist.

    She made no case that I actually said she made WP claims.

    She made no case that I stated she attributed the Blanton piece to her.

    She then apologized for falsely accusing me of editing a post

    Yet you lefty halfwits run around screaming around like 7th graders that Jane Hamsher “kicked John’s ass!” “She sure showed him”. Pathetic

  395. 395
    Steve says:

    She has made no case that Ben is racist.

    He repeated a smear against Coretta Scott King that was commonly used as code by the KKK and other racists back in the day.

    Are you going to argue that the KKK wasn’t being racist when they tried to discredit Dr. and Mrs. King as communists?

    Ben’s only possible defense, and it may well be true, is that he was too young to understand the historical context of that particular smear, to know that it was a racist smear.

    But to say Jane has made “no case” is just absurd. Typical of the modern Republican who wants to believe that there is no longer any racism in America, except for racism against white people, but still absurd.

  396. 396
    Darrell says:

    He repeated a smear against Coretta Scott King that was commonly used as code by the KKK and other racists back in the day.

    Oh my, he called her a “communist”.. and every good lefty knows that’s “code” for racists. Just like when Dems tell us tax cuts and changes to welfare are code for racists. Anything for a good smear, right aholes?

  397. 397
    Darrell says:

    Typical of the modern Republican who wants to believe that there is no longer any racism in America

    Typical of the modern Democrat who dishonestly smears Republicans as racist without basis. Fucking pricks, but this is the modus operandi for MOST leftist Dems. Oops, I forgot, accusing someone of being affiliated with the Communist party “proves” that such accusations are racist.. right whackjobs?

  398. 398
    Steve says:

    Right, as if I said “communist” is code for racism in all cases. You just can’t help but lie, can you Darrell?

    It’s an undeniable historical fact that the KKK and other racists spent years and years using “communist” as their smear of choice against Dr. and Mrs. King. When someone echoes KKK smears on the occasion of her funeral, it doesn’t take much of a logical leap to call it racism. It takes deep denial of both history and reality to pretend that it couldn’t possibly have been racism, though.

  399. 399
    Darrell says:

    You know, Dems are so quick to throw their smears of racism against Repubs.. it’s who they are. Yet it’s Dems who field outright racists such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for president.. Ever heard a peep of objection to those racists from Dem rank and file? No?

    I’ve never read a truly racist comment from a conservative on this blog.. if it occurred, it’s not common. However, just a couple of months back when Michelle Malkin was involved in a controversy, there were so many racist comments from the left that they were forced to delete them they were so vile. “Back to fucky sucky American navy man in Phillipines you brown whore” and similar type bile coming from the left on Balloon Juice threads. And there was quite a bit of it

    The racism on the left is pervasive, and far greater than racism on the right. Yet it’s the left who throws the race card at any perceived slight to dishonestly smear their political opponents. Like I said, it’s who they are

  400. 400
    Perry Como says:

    When someone echoes KKK smears on the occasion of her funeral, it doesn’t take much of a logical leap to call it racism.

    In Ben’s defense, he was probably just repeating what somewhat else wrote.

  401. 401
    Darrell says:

    It’s an undeniable historical fact that the KKK and other racists spent years and years using “communist” as their smear of choice against Dr. and Mrs. King

    Really? I thought it was the Kennedy administration who ordered wiretaps on King for suspected communist ties.

    Furthermore, did King receive support from the communist party and/or communist groups? Was he affilitated with them? I honestly don’t know, but if he was, it would make your smears even more dishonest, wouldn’t you agree?

  402. 402
    ppGaz says:

    Yet you lefty halfwits run around screaming

    Shorter Darrell (shorter Darrell’s entire year that I have been here):

    You lefty halfwits!

    You and John and Stormy and Tall Dave and scs all truly deserve each other, Darrell. Seriously.

    Why don’t you guys start a blog? Oh wait, Tall Dave already tried that ………..

  403. 403
    Steve says:

    Really? I thought it was the Kennedy administration who ordered wiretaps on King for suspected communist ties.

    Furthermore, did King receive support from the communist party and/or communist groups? Was he affilitated with them? I honestly don’t know, but if he was, it would make your smears even more dishonest, wouldn’t you agree?

    Shorter Darrell: I’m going to bring up something totally irrelevant, and then speculate that maybe the KKK was right all along.

    I suspect Ben Domenech, like Darrell, “honestly didn’t know” either, but it didn’t stop him from tossing a cheap smear, to besmirch a great American who had just passed away.

    Yet it’s Dems who field outright racists such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for president.. Ever heard a peep of objection to those racists from Dem rank and file? No?

    This is my favorite part. Yes, it’s true, the Democratic rank and file has no issue with Al Sharpton whatsoever! My Democratic friends tell me every day how much they admire the man, and how they agree with every word out of his mouth!

    It’s unsurprising that proven plagiarist Darrell has little intelligent thought of his own to contribute to the discussion.

  404. 404
    Darrell says:

    Shorter Darrell: I’m going to bring up something totally irrelevant

    How is it irrelevant? You claimed that accusations of “communist” against King were code for racist. That was your point. So if the Kennedy administration ordered wiretaps based on suspected communist ties, their suspicions must have been rooted in racism, right Steve? Entirely relevant, no matter how much dishonestly pretend otherwise.

  405. 405
    RonB says:

    You know, Dems are so quick to throw their smears of racism against Repubs.. it’s who they are. Yet it’s Dems who field outright racists such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for president..

    You didn’t even make it a sentence without blowing your whole theory, could you?

  406. 406
    Darrell says:

    Hey, where are the rest of the lefty whackjobs who like to run around on every thread claiming how they “kicked their asses” intellectually to every conservative or moderate that doesn’t agree with their extremist worldviews. We’ve probably got about 20 or 30 examples of this lefty tendency on this thread alone. Real deep thinkers you lefties are

  407. 407
    Darrell says:

    You didn’t even make it a sentence without blowing your whole theory, could you?

    Ron, let me spell it out for you since you don’t appear particularly bright. Dems are more accepting of racists. Therefore, they field racist candidates like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Cynthia McKinney for president and congress.

  408. 408
    Blue Neponset says:

    Real deep thinkers you lefties are

    If we are so fucking stupid Darrell what does that make you? Why the hell do you bother arguing with us if we are such fukcing nitwits?

  409. 409
    Steve says:

    It’s just a funny coincidence how in Darrell’s world, the only racists happen to be people who are racist against whites.

    In the slightly more nuanced version of Darrell’s world, people who are racist against black conservatives also get added to the list.

    Let me propose a simple test. We can call it the Darrell Test.

    Darrell, do you think there was a racist appeal in Reagan’s choice to kick off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, with an appeal to “states’ rights”?

    If you answer incorrectly, I’m afraid you just might not be qualified as an authority on the subject of racism.

  410. 410
    Darrell says:

    It’s just a funny coincidence how in Darrell’s world, the only racists happen to be people who are racist against whites.

    Did I ever say or infer that? No? Well then Steve, you certainly have a ‘solid’ point there. Next strawman please

  411. 411
    ppGaz says:

    Us “stupid lefties” are a plural, Darrell.

    But there’s only one of you. Even in the world of stupid righties, there is only one Darrell. You are one of a kind.

    You must be the reason why John Cole puts up this blog, though. Notice how he never slaps you around, but calls your adversaries names and generally shits on them at every opportunity?

    Savor it. He never slaps you around, despite the moronic and constant refrain of Gop-defense you put up here, in contrast to his constant “The GOP just can’t piss my off any more than they have” observations. And yet, he never slaps you. Us, he slaps every hour of every day.

    How to figger it?

    Are you paying him for this venue, or …?

  412. 412
    ppGaz says:

    correction: “my any more” = “me any more”

  413. 413
    Darrell says:

    You must be the reason why John Cole puts up this blog, though. Notice how he never slaps you around, but calls your adversaries names and generally shits on them at every opportunity?

    You’ll notice that I usually back up my assertions, with you know, examples and logic vs personal attacks and rantings over how “you got your ass kicked” type of drool coming from the left.

    But let me put your mind at ease ppgaz.. there can be no doubt that John Cole disagrees with and probably cringes over much I write. He is a moderate/lib ok? But because he’s not an extremist loon like so many here, you guys crucify him over stupid sh*t because he doesn’t follow your talking points. So much for leftist ‘tolerance’ I suppose

  414. 414
    The Other Steve says:

    However, just a couple of months back when Michelle Malkin was involved in a controversy, there were so many racist comments from the left that they were forced to delete them they were so vile. “Back to fucky sucky American navy man in Phillipines you brown whore” and similar type bile coming from the left on Balloon Juice threads. And there was quite a bit of it

    I gotta say… Huh?

    I’ve been reading Balloon Juice for quite a while, and I don’t recall any Malkin threads and I most certainly don’t recall any comments like that here.

    It’s curious. Frankly, I don’t think Ben Douchebag’s crime was being a racist. I most certainly could overlook any implication there. Certainly calling King any name at the time of her death was pretty contemptable and shows a deep lack of respect for the dead.

    But I’m absolutely baffled by these Darrell accusations. How can he show outrage for people who call him racist, when he’s so willing to call everybody else racist?

    Can you please give me some links to these supposed Malkin smears here at balloon juice? Thanks!

  415. 415
    Brian says:

    In more than numerous threads you have articulated bizarre, radical positions all in the name of supposed reasonability. The debates on abortion have been particularly mind numbing.

    But you never seem to remember what it is I’ve actually said that bothers you, or seems so “mind numbing”. If you’ll recall, my suggestion was to give it to the democratic process, which to you and others like you was summed up as cruel. Well, yesterday I saw that a backlash is being formed against South Dakota’s new abortion law, and the spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood said that she doesn’t want to take it to the courts to fight. Rather, she wants to take it to the voters, because she’s confident that her side would win. That sounds eerily familiar to what I said. But, good liberal that you are, couldn’t imagine such a thing, because the public just can’t be trusted with such things. An army of Ruth Ginsburgs are the only ones who can handle this truth.

    My positions turn out to be pretty reasonable and on-the-money after all. And, as for Ben, I haven’t been here to defend any plagiarism of his. You are typically mischaracterizing me to put me into some sterotype of conservatives that you hold, I suppose (just like what you’d do with Bill Bennett’s comments). Your anger is getting the best of you.

    You know, Dems are so quick to throw their smears of racism against Repubs.. it’s who they are. Yet it’s Dems who field outright racists such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for president.. Ever heard a peep of objection to those racists from Dem rank and file? No?

    The thing about the Left is that it redefined “racism”, and has literally removed any meaning from the word. It’s become a cliche, like “sexist”, or “homophobe”; any action on the part of a person or group that differs with long-held beliefs about the so-called rights of another group (minorities, women, Muslims……well, pretty much any group that is not white males or Christians) receives the appropriate label.

    Last night, here in SoCal, I saw footage of high school kids skipping out of high school to “protest” anti-immigration laws. What was their opposition to any law? Well, of course it’s RACIST. That’s what it is, so all of you who support it, now you know what you are and who you’re associated with. You’re just a descendant of the KKK, that’s what you are. The truth is that some fucking Latino leftists whose job is to rabble-rouse and agitate for the status quo, procured a ready-made protest march using kids who can’t even vote to protest something they don’t understand by doing something they’re happy to do (cut school) to fly a flag (Mexico’s) in the face of us “racists”. It’s the Chicano movement all over again. And they’re setting up to do it in downtown L.A. again today.

    It’s all political theater. Give opposing views a handy label, raise a sense of danger by flooding the streets and threatening to shut down the racist America, get loudmouthed spokepeople in front of the cameras (the proteges of Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan), and get it on TV. It’s all so canned, predictable, cliche, and pathetic. No debate of ideas welcome here, so move along.

    Sort of like debate with lefties on Balloon Juice.

    Wait. There are good Steely Dan albums?!!?

    Steely Dan’s inarguably one of the best rock bands ever. They had a subversive jazz influence to their music that was beautiful to admire. If you don’t like them, go back to your Poison collection.

  416. 416
    Par R says:

    I must take exception to the characterization of Steve and ppGaz as “slimy slugs.” That comment was very clearly an insult to all slugs in the world.

  417. 417
    Darrell says:

    I’ve been reading Balloon Juice for quite a while, and I don’t recall any Malkin threads and I most certainly don’t recall any comments like that here.

    It happened. There were so many racist comments from the left that Tim and John had to delete them. And they were ugly… really ugly. To my knowledge this has never happened, at least not to that extent, with conservative commenters. But you lefties are more tolerant, right?

  418. 418
    Steve says:

    Steve Says:

    It’s just a funny coincidence how in Darrell’s world, the only racists happen to be people who are racist against whites.

    Darrell Says:

    Did I ever say or infer that? No? Well then Steve, you certainly have a ‘solid’ point there. Next strawman please

    Yep, actually, the three people you brought up as examples of modern racists all just happen to be black people. Like I said, just a funny coincidence.

    Anyway, don’t miss the opportunity to take the quiz!

    Darrell, do you think there was a racist appeal in Reagan’s choice to kick off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, with an appeal to “states’ rights”?

    If you answer incorrectly, I’m afraid you just might not be qualified as an authority on the subject of racism.

  419. 419
    Brian says:

    If we are so fucking stupid Darrell what does that make you? Why the hell do you bother arguing with us if we are such fukcing nitwits?

    That’s a very good question. It was directed at Darrell, I know, but since I tend to be on his side of the argument, I’ll have to consider it for myself. I guess I’d have to ask a question in return:

    Have any minds ever been changed on this site? Or does it always remain in this uncivil tone that resembles a food fight?

  420. 420
    Blue Neponset says:

    No debate of ideas welcome here, so move along.

    Sort of like debate with lefties on Balloon Juice.

    So why do you do it then, Brian?

    I have asked Darrell and John pretty much the same question today and I haven’t gotten an answer from either yet. I have had more than enough of being blamed for the downfall of Balloon Juice. If we Lefties have made this blog such a fever swamp then John should clear us out. If we Lefties are too stupid or ignorant to put up a good argument then why do you, Darrell and John attempt to discuss anything with us?

    The only conclusion I can come up with is you like to complan about it. If you want to have a debate of ideas then you might want to look elsewhere because the comment section of Balloon Juice is apparantly no better tahn a liberal echo chamber.

  421. 421
    ppGaz says:

    But let me put your mind at ease ppgaz.. there can be no doubt that John Cole disagrees with and probably cringes over much I write. He is a moderate/lib ok? But because he’s not an extremist loon like so many here, you guys crucify him over stupid sh*t because he doesn’t follow your talking points. So much for leftist ‘tolerance’ I suppose

    Sorry, no dice. No comprendo. If he disagrees with and cringes at what you write, why doesn’t he say so? He is not exactly a wallflower, a shy person. He has written many a blurb decrying the sorry state of the GOP and the job they are doing, and yet here you are, defending them breezily, and he says nothing.

    But if we speak “lefty” — you know, a contrasting point of view — we get raw sewage for breakfast.

    Whassup with that, Darrell? What do you have on John? What don’t we know? Is your character just written by one of John’s classes as a project, as a foil for the comments section?

    It makes no sense. In that regard, it’s like you.

  422. 422
    capelza says:

    First off, so late in the game…I have come to realise that there is no “shame” in the bloggy world.

    Secondly…am trying to catch up reading all over, because I missed this whole kerfuffle over Augustine (who I didn’t know was this Ben boy until yesterday)….Red State is acting like an abused woman, taking back her abuser and vehemently attacking those who dare question him…he’s really sorry, he’ll never do it again…until the next time…rinse, repeat.

  423. 423
    Brian says:

    I saw these paragraphs from Mike Krempasky’s recent pice on Red State. I thought it adequately summed up the majority of voices here on Balloon Juice. Allow me to share it with you:

    Putting aside the charge for which Ben has been pilloried and you’re left with is a particular group of critics. Unlike Ben, there is far less hope for their redemption. You see – before they settled on the attacks on his writing – they spent three days proving that they are the lowest of the low. Charges of racism were born of poor reading comprehension. Threats of violence. Obscene commentary about his mother, his sister, his father. Loathesome, vile, and disgusting – their contempt for civil behavior surpassed only by the emptiness of their own souls. These are a people that see a man who gives up drinking in the middle of his life for the sake of his family, and respond by creating rumors of cocaine addiction. These are ignoramuses that think portraying an African-American politician as Sambo is appropriate, as long as the critics are liberal and the target is a Republican.

    Our critics can raise their glasses and toast to what they think is success – tearing down a flawed conservative. But therein lies their greatest weakness: destroying a conservative is not to destroy conservatism. And while they put all their energy and venom into this campaign, it is worth remembering that for all the noise – they have yet to present a real alternative to an America that rests on the foundation of freedom, free markets and family. Against that, the only answer they have is yet another personal attack.

    Like I said yesterday — you won a battle, but you’ll never win the war of ideas we’re winning. You have no ideas. You only have labels, epithets, insults, and cruelty. You literally have embraced hatred as a cause.

  424. 424
    Blue Neponset says:

    Have any minds ever been changed on this site?

    Yes, I have changed my mind about John. When I first stumbled upon B-J I figured he was no more than a cookie cutter conservative. I have come to find out he has a wide spectrum of view on many issues.

    I have also changed my mind about Darrell. I used to think he was just really damn annoying, but then I realized that without Darrell here I wouldn’t have any idea what the loyal Limbagh listerner thinks and that is a world view I am not familiar with.

    I haven’t changed my mind about you yet. I hope I do.

    Or does it always remain in this uncivil tone that resembles a food fight?

    The tone ebbs and flows like anything else. Also like jsut about anything else you reap what you sow. If you want a more civil discourse I suggest you start following the golden rule instead of throwing out insults and blanket dismissals.

  425. 425
    VidaLoca says:

    Darrell,

    where are the rest of the lefty whackjobs

    late to the party, but I’ll offer this w/r/t your question here:

    So if the Kennedy administration ordered wiretaps based on suspected communist ties, their suspicions must have been rooted in racism, right Steve?

    Red-baiting has been used against progressive movements in America ever since there were Reds, beginning at the end of WWI. One of the most successful practitioners of it was J. Edgar Hoover, who made a career out of gathering information against any group or individual who protested against political or economic conditions — of which, in the Depression, there were many. This, coupled with the dossiers he kept on politicians as well, built his career: it made him an asset to political leaders of both parties; although they tried to keep him at arm’s length they were both unable and unwilling to get rid of him.

    Hoover hated the civil rights movement because he thought it was subversive. He hated King because he was the leading figure in the movement and sought to discredit him by claiming that he was a Communist to anyone that would listen, though he (and nobody since him) was unable to prove it. It was not, however, for lack of trying.

    The Kennedys didn’t like Hoover but they didn’t want him spilling the information he had on them. Furthermore, their support of the CR movement and King was tepid at best: they didn’t need the Dixiecrat wing of the party fighting their reforms and the Dixiecrats were dead set against civil rights. So they (RFK specifically) underwrote Hoover’s spying on King and others.

    The southern white establishment would have called King a vegetarian if that would have helped break him; they called him a Communist because of the historical success of Red-baiting in suppressing social movements. He was no more a Communist than you are. Their problem was that their system of rule was fundamentally unjust; their goal was to create a distraction that would prevent close examination of it. Hence the historic tie between the claim of King’s Communism and the white southern power structure of the Jim Crow era.

    As for the Kennedys, they weren’t racists strictly speaking, they just wanted to run the country and if it meant keeping Jim Crow in place they were willing to compromise with Hoover on that point.

    If you’re interested, most of this is from Taylor Branch’s biography of King, which is a really good read on him and the Kennedys.

  426. 426
    Brian says:

    Red State is acting like an abused woman, taking back her abuser and vehemently attacking those who dare question him

    Ben’s taking a leave of absence, and Red State has some very sincere criticism of Ben’s actions. They expect him to have an extended stay in the wilderness.

    But to you, of course, no one can be redeemed if he’s a conservative. Permanent banishment from society is the only acceptable remedy.

  427. 427
    ppGaz says:

    Our critics can raise their glasses and toast to what they think is success

    Aw, shove it your dirtpipe, Brian. This is just boilerplate righty noise machine crap.

    What happened here is that a liar and plagiarist — not a “flawed conservative” but a dishonest defender of neocon and patently un-conservative government and policy, all in the name of partisan interest — got exposed and forced to own up. That’s it.

    “Flawed?” If you want a place where you can invent your own spinexicon and paint a rose parallel reality, this ain’t it. Nobody around here is falling for it. Can even one of you sorry bastards ever call a spade a spade?

    Besides John, I mean. At least he can. What’s your excuse?

  428. 428
    Steve says:

    Brian Says:

    Like I said yesterday—you won a battle, but you’ll never win the war of ideas we’re winning. You have no ideas. You only have labels, epithets, insults, and cruelty. You literally have embraced hatred as a cause.

    Yes, sponsor more gay marriage amendments, please. Since you brought up a post from RedState, here is a post I saw there myself, from one of their most frequent posters:

    I repeat: Should the entire American Left fall over dead tomorrow, I would rejoice, and order pizza to celebrate. They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human. I look forward to seeing each and every one in Hell.

    Now quit kidding yourself.

  429. 429
    ppGaz says:

    Yes, sponsor more gay marriage amendments, please

    Oh, let’s not forget flag burning, and zygote-pain legislation, and all the other great “ideas” that come from this bunch of fakes we have running the government.

  430. 430
    capelza says:

    Brian….maybe you aren’t reading the same Red State I am….

    And please, none of the crying puppy bullshit:

    But to you, of course, no one can be redeemed if he’s a conservative. Permanent banishment from society is the only acceptable remedy.

    I send my kids to their room when they try that tack on me…

    I have a lot of respect for the real conservatives, a few of whom had their loyalties questioned over there because they were truly questioning and wanted accountability. Don’t confuse conservative with wingnut. There is a world of difference.

  431. 431
    Brian says:

    The tone ebbs and flows like anything else. Also like jsut about anything else you reap what you sow. If you want a more civil discourse I suggest you start following the golden rule instead of throwing out insults and blanket dismissals.

    That’s not an answer to my question. Instaed, it is the canned defense of every lefty commenter here. “Stop me, before I kill again”. It’s my fault you’re uncivil. I keep my comments quite civil here, in casxe you never noticed. If I get testy with anyone, it’s in response to being attacked by another commenter. I’m not your rug to walk on, pal.

    I have also changed my mind about Darrell. I used to think he was just really damn annoying, but then I realized that without Darrell here I wouldn’t have any idea what the loyal Limbagh listerner thinks and that is a world view I am not familiar with.

    That might kindly be called a back-handed compliment of Darrell, rather than an answer to my question. I too appreciate Cole’s posts, and always have. I meant in the commenter community here are any minds changed in a positive manner.

    Does that help clarify things for you?

  432. 432
    Darrell says:

    Good post Vida. I’m curious though, is it fact that King did not have support from and/or real ties to communist organizations? Or was it 100% crap to discredit him?

    In the 60’s after the Cuban missile threat, there do seem to be legit concerns over communist ties at that time

  433. 433
    Steve says:

    I keep my comments quite civil here, in casxe you never noticed.

    Again, Brian, you can’t possibly be serious about this statement, right?

  434. 434
    Brian says:

    Aw, shove it your dirtpipe, Brian. This is just boilerplate righty noise machine crap.

    Blue Neponset, you were talking about insults and blanket dismissals? In your midst, here’s one perfect example. This guy takes the cake. It’s all he’s ever capable of, and he’s fairly representative of the commenters here, at least those on your side of the argument.

    He wouldn’t know a real conservative if it kicked him in the head, which may happen sooner rather than later.

  435. 435
    Brian says:

    Yes, sponsor more gay marriage amendments, please.

    Never did sponsor it, never would sponsor it. How is that amendment going, by the way?

    And you keep posting that quote from a RS commenter. So fucking what? Is that all you got? Are we all going to go on fishing expeditions for callous comments from other sites? What does it prove?

  436. 436
    Blue Neponset says:

    Does that help clarify things for you?

    No. You seem to have just accused me of not answering your questions. You certainly don’t have to believe me, but I did try to answer your questions.

  437. 437
    Brian says:

    I have a life. It’s a beautiful day here in L.A., and I’m going to go out and enjoy it. Maybe heckle pro-illegal immigrant Latino protesters in downtown. Or, open my water hose and watch the water from liberal San Francisco run out and into the drain. That always puts a smile on my face.

    Catch ya later.

  438. 438
    Steve says:

    What does it prove?

    Probably about the same thing as your argument that a bunch of blog comments demonstrate that conservatives have won the war of ideas.

  439. 439
    Darrell says:

    Loathesome, vile, and disgusting – their contempt for civil behavior surpassed only by the emptiness of their own souls. These are a people that see a man who gives up drinking in the middle of his life for the sake of his family, and respond by creating rumors of cocaine addiction. These are ignoramuses that think portraying an African-American politician as Sambo is appropriate, as long as the critics are liberal and the target is a Republican.

    Bullseye

  440. 440
    Brian says:

    No. You seem to have just accused me of not answering your questions. You certainly don’t have to believe me, but I did try to answer your questions.

    They weren’t answers in a sincere way. They were sarcastic.

  441. 441
    VidaLoca says:

    Brian,

    are any minds changed in a positive manner

    Speaking just for myself, if you mean fundamentally changed — um, no. However, my conversation with you the other day made me realize that not all people who identify themselves as conservative buy into the religious views of the fundamentalists. More generally, I’ve gotten the idea from hanging around here that there are some conservatives who still harbor some suspicions about the growth of statism in the way the government operates, which is a point where I think liberals are extremely weak.

    Two exmples, FWIW.

  442. 442
    Blue Neponset says:

    Blue Neponset, you were talking about insults and blanket dismissals? In your midst, here’s one perfect example. This guy takes the cake. It’s all he’s ever capable of, and he’s fairly representative of the commenters here, at least those on your side of the argument.

    If you don’t like the way ppGazz responds to you and you think he is representative of the rest of the Lefties here, again I ask, why do you come here?

  443. 443
    Blue Neponset says:

    They weren’t answers in a sincere way. They were sarcastic.

    LOL, I don’t know how you can read my mind from so far away but I think your mind reading device is on the blink because I did make a sincere effort to answer your questions.

    PS: This response is both sincere and sarcastic, but YMMV.

  444. 444
    Steve says:

    Anyone else surprised that Darrell has dodged the question?

    Darrell, do you think there was a racist appeal in Reagan’s choice to kick off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, with an appeal to “states’ rights”?

    If you answer incorrectly, I’m afraid you just might not be qualified as an authority on the subject of racism.

    Color me unsurprised, that’s for sure. Wouldn’t want a stray thought to pierce his bubble where all the racists he thinks of just happen to be black Democrats.

  445. 445
    ppGaz says:

    Are we all going to go on fishing expeditions for callous comments

    That’s your entire stock in trade, asshole.

  446. 446
    jg says:

    For example- is there ANYONE here who honestly thinks Ben Domenech is a racist?

    I do. I’m pretty confident of it too. Takes one to know one and all that. I’m from a racist family from a racist town and I grew up with racist friends. I know the code words.

  447. 447
    Laura says:

    But you never seem to remember what it is I’ve actually said that bothers you, or seems so “mind numbing”.

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but your acting as if rape is nothing to worry about is one. Your mocking of pregnant rape victims as merely “straw men” is another. Then there are the less offensive, yet stupeying posts, like your self-righteous “what gives you the right to lecture me” comment yesterday. Coming from one of the most arrogant and condescending commenters on this blog, that probably had most readers shaking their head.

  448. 448
    Ned Raggett says:

    Skimming most of these comments (and most of the rest all over the place on this matter) just puts me in mind of the final words of Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach”:

    “Ah, love, let us be true
    To one another! for the world, which seems
    To lie before us like a land of dreams,
    So various, so beautiful, so new,
    Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,

    Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
    And we are here as on a darkling plain
    Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
    Where ignorant armies clash by night.”

    I thoroughly ignored what little I heard about the Red America debates before yesterday because I had other things to worry about — not for lack of interest in political discussion (I lean left myself) but because a firestorm of insults was clearly not helping the discourse. To my mind all that matters in the end was that Domenech was demonstrably proven to be not merely a plagiarist but clearly absolutely terrible regarding how handle personal responsibility — for him to own up to the truth required a forcing of his hand via NRO, which is not a good sign — and in his choice of associates and fans at RedState, remarkably ill-served in not having a close enough friend to have told him earlier, not later, to not post his ridiculous, self-serving apologia, now notably scrubbed if not yet fully delinked from their main page.

    Robert A. George calls it from where I sit. To quote his conclusion:

    I will only say that I hope Mike [Krempasky] is correct that this is a “deviation” from Ben’s character. Much of it depends on whether is evidence of this more recently. It is possible that this was a phase that a young man lacking self-confidence did while his own writing voice was developing. Conversely and, sadly, looking at the extent of the swiping that is evident in the National Review Online movie reviews, I must say that this strikes one of the level of pathological behavior seen in Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair. These are people who will continue to do this until they get caught.

    But, let this be the last word for now.

  449. 449
    ppGaz says:

    Anyone else surprised that Darrell has dodged the question?

    Dodged your question … and mine.

    In my case, i’m trying to understand why Darrell tells us that John disagrees with — cringes at, even — Darrell’s posts. Why don’t we hear that from John?

    A lefty farts around here and John acts like the terrorists have defeated America. Darrell shits on logic and truth every day … and silence.

    Darrell defends the Potemkin Government at every turn, the very same one that John decries at almost every turn.

    And yet, you’d think that John and Darrell were just old Army buddies.

  450. 450
    82ndAbnVet says:

    While I read this blog fairly often I had never been to RedState.org until reading through this… RedState seems to be the perfect name for their blog as reading through the comments shows the place to be rampant in Stalinist group-think. Any posters straying off the reservation (i.e. not praising Ben with great praise) are immediately warned they are out of line by numerous posters and any further transgressions result in banning. So much for the free exchange of ideas… (the irony is rich though)

    …also noticed alot of tough-guys over there with Patton quotes in their signatures and whatnot. I could be wrong but I bet the closest any of them got to military service is playing paintball on the weekends or ‘Call of Duty’ in their mommies living-room LOL

    Btw, I tried to post over there, but they have a 6-day wait before you can post. Was hoping to inform Ben that he need not worry, that if he needs a job I here these people are looking: 1-800-GOARMY

  451. 451
    The Other Steve says:

    I do. I’m pretty confident of it too. Takes one to know one and all that. I’m from a racist family from a racist town and I grew up with racist friends. I know the code words.

    You may be right. I do find it rather surprising that he made any comments regarding Loretta Scott King.

    I think for most Americans, you fall into three camps:

    You loved the King family, really appreciated what they strived for and were motivated to comment, weap, mourn.

    You didn’t really know much, or have much of a connection. Perhaps you were too young like myself, or you just were never directly effected. On that day, we just pretty much made no comment. To say something nice would be false, to say something unnice would be pathetic.

    You hated the King family, which motivated you to say unnice things about her.

    I think most Americans fall into the second camp, a good many fall into the first. The ones who fall into the second, I really have to question their motivation. If it’s racism, that’s pathetic. If it’s just that you don’t want anybody to mourn a civil rights leader because of party politics, that’s also pathetic.

  452. 452
    Darrell says:

    Anyone else surprised that Darrell has dodged the question?

    Oh my, Steve whining like a little bitch demanding that I answer his off-topic test question when he says so.

    Well Steve, I wasn’t old enough to follow politics in 1980, but I’m sure, given Reagan’s legacy of racial discrimination and lynching of blacks, that only racism would explain his choice of venue. But I did some googling and found some interesting facts at that time. Let me ask you a related question – What do you think of Jimmah Carter’s far more despicable 1976 comment that Americans should be allowed to maintain the “ethnic purity” of their neighborhoods? Of course he gets a pass because he is a loyal Dem.. just like Jesse Jackson and Cynthia McKinney and the rest

    Oh, and after googling I found some interesting Dem responses to Reagan’s presidential kick-off in MS.. decide for yourself which is worse:

    Corretta Scott King “I am scared that if Ronald Reagan gets into office, we are going to see more of the Ku Klux Klan and a resurgence of the Nazi Party”

    UN Ambassador Andrew Young said Reagan’s remarks were “like a code word to me that it’s going to be all right to kill niggers when he’s President”

    And Steve carries on this noble Dem tradition of race smears on this very thread.

  453. 453
    Pooh says:

    John,

    Well done, the only thing this thread is missing is 45 posts from scs showing us how it’s logically impossible that Domenech plagarized.

    So, let’s sum up what has happened here:

    1. You made an ass of yourself in your original post, perhaps feeling guilty about the reaction to Thursday’s coming out party. Too bad we lefties ‘overplayed out hand’ by somehow thinking the calling CSK a commie or that aborting black babies is a good thing is indicative of less then perfect racial sensitivity.

    2. You made an ass of yourself by claiming that Jane Hamsher is not among the set of Jane Hamshers of the world. Draw me that Venn diagram, if you will.

    3. Jane (or someone pretending to be Jane) handed you your ass.

    4. You told me to blow you. (A high point to be sure)

    5. All the kewl kids showed up.

    6. ppGaz tossed a nutty. You took the bait. (Cole is an ass moment #4 by my count)

    but 450+ comments and who knows how many page viess later, your corporate masters may forgive you for your recent apostasy. Or maybe Balloon Juice is just implementing some sort of bizzaro-Pajaman “flypaper theory” to draw the lefties here and then lobotomize us by exposing us to the genius of Senator Cornyn, Brian’s reasonableness and the contact high we get just by reading one of Stormy’s posts.

    And nothing has changed. West Virginia still lost. Michael Moore is fat. Your comment section is a cesspool. Just another day in paradise.

  454. 454
    ChristieS says:

    Par R Says:

    Slide and a few others here have stated that conservatives are more likely than liberals to slander and hurl nasty remarks/adjectives at individuals with whom they may disagree. Well, Duncan Black/atrios, otherwise known as Tiny Meat…an appellation given him by an early girlfriend in apparent recognition that his manhood could not even satisfy a toy chihuahua…provides one basis for evaluating Slide’s theory. Following are a few verbatim excerpts drawn from Tiny Meat’s site by Dan Morgan last year:

    You know, I stopped reading this post after this first paragraph. The irony was just too much for me.

  455. 455
    The Other Steve says:

    But you never seem to remember what it is I’ve actually said that bothers you, or seems so “mind numbing”.

    Why should I keep a list? What possible motivation would I have to do that?

    I don’t care for you. I don’t think you are a particularly nice person, and you show no insight into life, politics or anything.

    Only whacknuts wallow in keeping a Hall of Shame list on people.

  456. 456
    VidaLoca says:

    Darrell,

    is it fact that King did not have support from and/or real ties to communist organizations?

    That’s really two questions. First to the question of support: the hook they used to smear King was the fact that Bayard Rustin, who was a Communist at least for a while, was a supporter of King’s and activist in the CR movement. King could have disowned Rustin but he wisely did not: he was leading a united front of a lot of disparate interests, and he wanted to practice united front politics. He saw the southern power structure and people like Hoover as his enemies, not the Communists.

    That gets to your question of ties. People who make a practice of Red-baiting will allege that any group that has any contact with any Communist has “Communist ties”, so it’s not a useful term IMO. I would say that the CR movement was a geniunely mass phenomenon that involved thousands of people from diverse walks of life for roughly a decade.

    Reading that, it sounds like I’m trying to be evasive. Let me go on to say that during the decades of the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s when they were hanging black people from trees in the south, the Communist Party to its everlasting credit was one of the very few (only to my knowledge) predominantly white organizations who took a consistent stand against that practice, a consistent stand against discrimination generally, and enforced that standard both internally and externally. A lot of tough-minded people who wanted to fight discrimination, both black and white, joined it or were in its orbit in those years. It would be unrealistic to think that many of them were not active in the CR movement — some as current members of the CPUSA, some as former members (see below).

    Or was it 100% crap to discredit him?

    Well, I’d say so of course but I’ll have to let you draw your own conclusions.

    In the 60’s after the Cuban missile threat, there do seem to be legit concerns over communist ties at that time

    Well … there were concerns before the Cuban missile crisis just like there were concerns after the Cuban missile crisis — whether they were legit or not I’ll again have to let you decide. The CPUSA was always a small organization to begin with (on the order of hundreds, possibly thousands) so you’d have to take that into consideration. Furthermore, two things basically broke it as an organization in the 1950’s: Khrushchev’s speech to the 20th CPSU congress that basically called Stalin a murdering bastard, and the l956 invasion of Hungary. Those two events led a lot of people to quit the Party.
    They were replaced (I’m serious here) by FBI agents.

  457. 457
    ppGaz says:

    Okay Pooh, I have ever only seen one other use of the phrase “toss a nutty,” and that was … by you, on this blog, in January.

    What is the origin of this phrase?

    And if you’re talking about my Bill Bennet-John Cole treatise from this morning … is that NOT the most cogent and elegant piece on this whole subthread?

    C’mon. I really should at least get POTD consideration for that item. Read the whole thing, as they say. It’s borderline classic material.

  458. 458
    ppGaz says:

    I’d like to call for a vote, too. The question on the floor is whether my 8:49 am is better than any post ever made by Brian? On any topic?

    Seriously. I really need this settled once and for all.

    Brian on his best day cannot wipe my shoes. That’s the fact of it, and my 8:49 am proves it.

    Hands?

  459. 459
    Darrell says:

    Vida, thanks for another informative post.. Although I know for a fact that Dems have an ugly tendency to smear those they disagree with as racists, I now see why some would take offense at calling King or his wife a ‘communist’.. which I agree looks to be just a way to discredit him. I thought (out of ignorance I admit) that he was a supporter of the communist party.. but it seems he allied with them for more noble reasons

  460. 460
    jg says:

    I’m not sure which of the three camps I’m in. As a kid I looked at MLKs birthday and thought we get a day off because a black man died, lets kill another. Then in high school I read Letter From a Birmingham Jail and my opinion on King changed. I’m a recovering racist now. Chuck D had a lot to do with it too even though he loves Farrakhan, an asshat IMO.

  461. 461
    VidaLoca says:

    Darrell,

    Agreed, the “Communist” label was intended as a means of discrediting King specifically and the whole CR movement by implication. I’d argue that it was the CPUSA who allied with King, though, not the opposite: the movement was a serious social force, the CP never anything more than another participant.

  462. 462
    Ancient Purple says:

    is there ANYONE here who honestly thinks Ben Domenech is a racist?

    I don’t know if he is a racist or not, John. But I do know that he is clearly one of the most ignorant people I have ever read. He got the “CSK is commie” from someone and I suspect it is a relative or close friend. He may not have known how loaded the term was, granted.

    However, that puts him in the camp of being stupid. A simple Google search or trip to the library would have given him some keen insight on to why calling CSK a communist was probably the dumbest idea he ever had.

    Then again, considering he is a plagiarist and deserves a good smackdown for several months, he probably just lifted the CSK as commie meme from someone else.

    In any event, he is a scumbag and deserves the fallout. Let him wander in the desert and then come back and spend many years building up his integrity again.

    Until then, I won’t trust him as far as I can throw him.

  463. 463
    Slide says:

    “Can’t we all just get along?”

  464. 464
    p.lukasiak says:

    For example- is there ANYONE here who honestly thinks Ben Domenech is a racist?

    absolutely.

    Quoting a racist diatribe approvingly is pretty clear evidence that BTB is a racist. Hell, Red State itself is full of racist rhetoric, code words, etc (which is why its pretty obvious that Cole doesn’t get it.)

    But the real kicker about BTB being a racist goes back to calling Coretta Scott King a Communist. Now, nobody has accused CSK of being a communist for years and years and years — but somehow, Box Turtle Ben comes up with the slur the day after her funeral. And I thinks its pretty obvious where he got the idea that CSK was a commie — from his southern-racist-home-schooling parents….

  465. 465
    Slide says:

    Off topic.. but this thread is in some desperate need to lighten up a tad. Maybe this will help:

    On the heels of the Cheney “Downtime Requirements” document obtained by The Smoking Gun, this reporter has come into possession of a top secret memo outlining the Top Ten demands that President Bush has during his hotel stays:

    10. All lights turned off — Bush prefers to stay in the dark.

    9. Four cartons of chocolate milk, and a package of Oreos, in honor of such Bush aides as Claude “The Fraud” Allen.

    8. Temperature set to 31 degrees — helps maintain Bush’s “brain freeze.”

    7. Two televisions, one equipped with an X-Box, one tuned to The Cartoon Channel.

    6. Wireless internet capacity, so he can track NSA surveillance of Helen Thomas.

    5. A swivel chair, so the President can do “whirlybirds.”

    4. For reading material, a comic book version of The King James Bible.

    3. For when he travels with Laura, a banner over the bed, reading: “MISSIONARY POSITION ACCOMPLISHED.”

    2. A “double-commode” in the bathroom, so that Bush can share intimate moments with Karl “Turd Blossom” Rove.

    1. A sign on the back of the hotel room door, providing a map for an “exit strategy.”

  466. 466
    p.lukasiak says:

    I’d like to call for a vote, too. The question on the floor is whether my 8:49 am is better than any post ever made by Brian? On any topic?

    ppgaz…

    the dump you took at 8:32am today is better than any post made by Brian….

  467. 467
    Pooh says:

    9. Four cartons of chocolate milk, and a package of Oreos, in honor of such Bush aides as Claude “The Fraud” Allen.

    Boo

  468. 468
    Pooh says:

    Sorry ppG,

    Davebo’s contribution locked up POTD several hours earlier.

  469. 469
    Laura says:

    I don’t know if he is a racist or not, John. But I do know that he is clearly one of the most ignorant people I have ever read. He got the “CSK is commie” from someone and I suspect it is a relative or close friend. He may not have known how loaded the term was, granted.

    No matter his ignorance, his intent was to insult her. The day after her funeral. While I thought it was offensive that so many on the right, people who never met CSK, thought they knew better than her friends and family on what was “appropriate” at her funeral, I don’t know that I read any other comments from people going at her directly. Ben did. Maybe he’s not a racist, but his attempt to ridicule a civil rights leader the day after she’s put to rest is insensitive and offensive at best.

  470. 470
    ppGaz says:

    the dump you took at 8:32am today is better than any post made by Brian….

    1) Not really the validation I was looking for, and …

    2) How do you know that?

  471. 471
    VidaLoca says:

    is there ANYONE here who honestly thinks Ben Domenech is a racist?

    His long screed that begins with this

    People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag.

    and goes on almost interminably does not reflect well on him. Either he’s a racist, or he’s able (farther on in the quote) to support black women having abortions because the benefits of their so doing outweigh the harm of the abortions themselves, or he’s doing a really messy job of channeling William Bennett. I saw somewhere the claim made that he’s just being “Swiftian”: the real Swift is spinning in his grave.

  472. 472
    Darrell says:

    John/Tim, how ’bout a thread on the Latino marches regarding immigration laws? They are pretty damn big marches if you watch the news. I’d like to hear your views.

    Tenemos derechos!! No somos animales!

  473. 473
    ppGaz says:

    Davebo’s contribution locked up POTD several hours earlier.

    Sure, a fine effort, but aren’t you giving too much weight to the “finger up the anus” reference?

    I’m just saying.

  474. 474
    ppGaz says:

    Besides, Davebo’s post was YESTERDAY. He cannot get PoTd for today.

    I declare myself the winner unless you got something better than a day-old post.

  475. 475
    Steve says:

    Oh my, Steve whining like a little bitch demanding that I answer his off-topic test question when he says so.

    Well Steve, I wasn’t old enough to follow politics in 1980, but I’m sure, given Reagan’s legacy of racial discrimination and lynching of blacks, that only racism would explain his choice of venue. But I did some googling and found some interesting facts at that time. Let me ask you a related question – What do you think of Jimmah Carter’s far more despicable 1976 comment that Americans should be allowed to maintain the “ethnic purity” of their neighborhoods? Of course he gets a pass because he is a loyal Dem.. just like Jesse Jackson and Cynthia McKinney and the rest

    Oh, and after googling I found some interesting Dem responses to Reagan’s presidential kick-off in MS.. decide for yourself which is worse:

    Corretta Scott King “I am scared that if Ronald Reagan gets into office, we are going to see more of the Ku Klux Klan and a resurgence of the Nazi Party”

    UN Ambassador Andrew Young said Reagan’s remarks were “like a code word to me that it’s going to be all right to kill niggers when he’s President”

    And Steve carries on this noble Dem tradition of race smears on this very thread.

    Thanks for this post, Darrell. Between this non-answer and your history of plagiarism, I think the issue of how seriously we should take you is settled once and for all.

  476. 476
    nyrev says:

    No matter his ignorance, his intent was to insult her. The day after her funeral.

    Actually, his intent was to knock the President for going to a civil rights leader’s funeral instead of cheerleading at the March for Life. The fact that it was utterly classless and made him look like a racist sexist who thinks that religious dogma should dictate federal law is just icing.

  477. 477
    ppGaz says:

    Okay, based on the deafening silence, it’s clear to me that John Cole is Darrell’s bitch.

    If anyone knows of another rational explanation, send it along.

  478. 478
    jg says:

    Okay, based on the deafening silence, it’s clear to me that John Cole is Darrell’s bitch.

    John Cole is Darrell.

  479. 479
    Pb says:

    VidaLoca,

    Just to be fair, Domenech didn’t actually write that, he just quoted it–the original author was Richard John Neuhaus, writing in First Things. And, unlike so many other writers Domenech has ‘quoted’, he even cited this one, and linked it!

  480. 480
    Pb says:

    John Cole is Darrell, Darrell is Cornyn, and Ben Domenech wrote their speeches… :)

  481. 481
    VidaLoca says:

    Pb,

    OK, point taken — would it be fair to infer that since he both cited and linked the original article that he approved of and/or largely agreed with it?

  482. 482
    Andrew says:

    In a vaguely related manner, this is the funniest fuckin’ post ever, from protein wisdom:

    If anybody—Anybody—touches my ass,
    I’m out of here.

    Seriously.

    Make a move toward my butt, and I’ll rip your fucking throat out.

    But rubbing my tummy is okay. Just stay away from my ass.
    Posted by Jeff’s Dog | permalink
    on 03/25 at 11:01 AM

  483. 483
    Sam Hutcheson says:

    People who make a practice of Red-baiting will allege that any group that has any contact with any Communist has “Communist ties”, so it’s not a useful term IMO. I would say that the CR movement was a geniunely mass phenomenon that involved thousands of people from diverse walks of life for roughly a decade.

    A useful analogy that might ring true across John’s readership is the smear-by-association sometimes employed (by either side) in modern politics. For example, are there wing nuts on the left? Yes. Does that mean Joe Biden is in bed with Cindy Sheehan? No. Or from the other side, does the fact that the Republican Party has a huge base within the Christian Reconstructionist movement mean that John Cole wants to re-write the Constitution according to Biblical Law? No.

    This is the sort of smear campaign that was going on with regard to MLK, Jr. Was the CPUSA a partner in the fight for civil rights? To their eternal credit, yes. Was MLK, Jr. a communist. Not at all. Was he a Stalinist? Not even remotely. Did that stop people who know longer could call him an “uppity nigger” in public from using the Communist slur? No, it did not.

    It’s more complex than it looks. I suspect that a home-schooled, monied, insulated 24 year old with an ego doesn’t know the history. That doesn’t remove him from the gravity of the history, though.

  484. 484
    Brian says:

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but your acting as if rape is nothing to worry about is one. Your mocking of pregnant rape victims as merely “straw men” is another. Then there are the less offensive, yet stupeying posts, like your self-righteous “what gives you the right to lecture me” comment yesterday. Coming from one of the most arrogant and condescending commenters on this blog, that probably had most readers shaking their head.

    Not a shred of thruth in that comment. Next…..

    Why should I keep a list? What possible motivation would I have to do that?

    Then why mention how vile my comments are when you can’t back it up? It’s because you’re also full of shit, like Laura. Next…..

    I’d like to call for a vote, too. The question on the floor is whether my 8:49 am is better than any post ever made by Brian? On any topic?

    Not better. You bring any topic to the floor, and I’ll clean your clock. You write a comment with more than two paragraphs and you think you’re Noam Chomsky.

    I’m glad I settled that one. When anyone, ANYONE, can engage us on the ideas honestly, get back to us. Till then, back to your food fight.

  485. 485
    Steve says:

    Okay, based on the deafening silence, it’s clear to me that John Cole is Darrell’s bitch.

    The argument from silence is always a good one.

    Repeat it every 30 seconds and you could be Jane Hamsher!

  486. 486
    Pooh says:

    I declare myself the winner unless you got something better than a day-old post.

    I declare you athe loser for your shameless pandering…

    (OOOOOOOOH!)

    Oh sorry, I just that’s that where we were at this stage.

  487. 487
    ppGaz says:

    Oh sorry, I just that’s that where we were at this stage.

    Stupid lefty! You’re about due for a cockslap.

  488. 488
    ppGaz says:

    Actually, his intent was to knock the President for going to a civil rights leader’s funeral instead of cheerleading at the March for Life. The fact that it was utterly classless and made him look like a racist sexist who thinks that religious dogma should dictate federal law is just icing.

    Hmm. I’ve noticed a trend in the Blogobamboozle world that we now live in …. bloggers are just like politicians.

    Supposedly coming from journalism and communications backgrounds, they constantly stir up storms of outrage and then claim to be misunderstood.

    I’ve seen more putative “misunderstanding” on this blog in on year than I’ve seen in real life in my previous 58 years.

    Are bloggers just blogging because they can’t make themselves understood, and here’s a chance to try to make up for it on a grand scale? Or wha ????

  489. 489
    Anderson says:

    Hamsher’s firebreathing-from-the-hip aside, John Cole has connections to RedState, & I’m going to be very disappointed not to see some commentary by him on their utter moral/ethical meltdown re: the plagiarism scandal.

    I admit to prejudices about RedState, due to its echo-chamber quality & the assholes who enjoy “blamming” dissenters. That went over the top in this Domenech thing–people who said “hey, but he really is a plagiarist, & now he’s lied about it” were punished for “personal attacks.”

    There is no reason to take RedState or its founders seriously in the future as “conservatives.” They’re hacks. Cole has his own blog, & I cannot imagine why he or anyone else with any self-respect would want to be associated with the likes of Thomas, Streiff, and the RS founders.

  490. 490
    Perry Como says:

    Perry Como says:

    Ben Domeonech will be seen as one of the greatest young thinkers of our time. Despite the vile spewings from the Left, he will emerge from this experience stronger than ever. A party that has no ideas can only offer up personal attacks.

    Brian says:

    Like I said yesterday—you won a battle, but you’ll never win the war of ideas we’re winning. You have no ideas. You only have labels, epithets, insults, and cruelty. You literally have embraced hatred as a cause.

    w00t!

  491. 491
    Helena Montana says:

    I can understand standing by a friend. Friends have stood by me when I was completely wrong. However, none of those friends would have disputed that I was completely wrong. I happen to think Ben Domenech IS a bigot as well as a compulsive and serial plagiarist. And if he really is a nice guy, that fact certainly isn’t borne out by his writings. Just my opinion. So go ahead and call me a commie–I find Coretta Scott King to be excellent company.

  492. 492
    Sam Hutcheson says:

    Are bloggers just blogging because they can’t make themselves understood, and here’s a chance to try to make up for it on a grand scale?

    A lot of the ‘misunderstandings’ in blogging can be directly attributed to the fact that most people don’t take into account the fact that writing is not speaking. Blogging is supposedly about the conversational air, but there is no inflection in the written word, no wryly arched eyebrow to convey sarcasm, no wild hand gestures to enhance meanings. This thread is a good example of two people, both who have demonstrated critical thinking skills in the past and both with relevant and non-trivial points to be made talking completely past one another, until things end up in the flame war above.

  493. 493
    VidaLoca says:

    Sam,

    I think you’re partly right, but this needs a little editing:

    both with relevant and non-trivial points to be made

    … and no lack of ego invested up front …

    talking completely past one another…

  494. 494
    Darrell says:

    People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag.

    Vida, please read the rest of what he wrote:

    What is morally odious is the cool and disinterested way in which the commentariat is discussing what might fairly be described as racial cleansing

    In other words, you are quoting a passage, then leaving out the part of that same passage which follows that declares such thinking “morally odious”

  495. 495
    MattM says:

    You know, I fully support Red State’s right to ban whoever the hell they want for whatever reasons they see fit (their house, and all that). But I don’t see how anyone will ever be able to take them serious as a “community” after the ruthless crackdown of those who dared to question Ben’s churlish initial response and his blatant lying. It’s the worst case of blog “echo chamber” I’ve ever seen.

  496. 496
    Darrell says:

    I happen to think Ben Domenech IS a bigot

    You do? On what basis do you think him to be a bigot? Like so many lefties, you offer no evidence, only smears

    So go ahead and call me a commie—I find Coretta Scott King to be excellent company

    Hey, if self flattery is what floats your boat, have at it

  497. 497
    John Cole says:

    First off, I am not Darrell or SCS, so cut the crap.

    Pooh- this comment from you is the type of stuff that makes this blog simply not worth it anymore:

    John,

    Well done, the only thing this thread is missing is 45 posts from scs showing us how it’s logically impossible that Domenech plagarized.

    So, let’s sum up what has happened here:

    1. You made an ass of yourself in your original post, perhaps feeling guilty about the reaction to Thursday’s coming out party. Too bad we lefties ‘overplayed out hand’ by somehow thinking the calling CSK a commie or that aborting black babies is a good thing is indicative of less then perfect racial sensitivity.

    I am not sure how pointing out that comments written by Blanton and a selectively edited satirical piece (albeit stupid) proves that Ben is a racist. I am not sure what kind of garbaghe you are trying to create with the overplayed our hand biut, and your continued insistence that either I or Bill Bennett want to aboret black babies betrays what a total foolish asshole you really are.

    2. You made an ass of yourself by claiming that Jane Hamsher is not among the set of Jane Hamshers of the world. Draw me that Venn diagram, if you will.

    If you continue to disagree with my clear explanations, and wish to insist that you know better what I meant when I wrote something, and then argue with me from your perspective of what I wrote rather than what I have clearly stated I wrote, I would ask you to just waste someone elses time on some other blog. I have explained what I meant repeatedly, to include editing the comment to make it more clear, and yet you continue to browbeat me and pretend I meant something else.

    Piss off.

    3. Jane (or someone pretending to be Jane) handed you your ass.

    If by handing my ass to me you mean making false charges, apologizing, and just generally being an asshole, Jane sure did. Other than that, she didn’t refute anything I said.

    4. You told me to blow you. (A high point to be sure)

    And this comment from you proves it was probably long overdue and richly deserved.

    Those of you who are cheering Jane’s smear of Ben, who may be a number of things, but aracist is not one of them, I hope you keep this in mind the next time you blow a gasket when someone on the right does something similar. I can;t wait until you all rush to the defense of Hindrocket when he calls a liberal a traitor with the same amount of evidence Jane has offered that Ben is racist.

    That should be fun to watch.

  498. 498
    nyrev says:

    In other words, you are quoting a passage, then leaving out the part of that same passage which follows that declares such thinking “morally odious”

    Darrell, imagine that you’re reading Crooks and Liars. Imaginary John Amato says, “Republicans are a waste of space and resources, and if we killed every registered Republican in the country we’d have removed a blot from the history of the human race. But killing people is just plain wrong.”

    Does the last sentence make imaginary Amato’s statement less offensive?

    In other words, people don’t think that the passage that you quoted is racist because it is advocating genocide. They think it’s racist because it’s identifying people of a certain class and race as worthy of genocide if only genocide weren’t “morally odious.”

  499. 499
    jg says:

    If you continue to disagree with my clear explanations, and wish to insist that you know better what I meant when I wrote something, and then argue with me from your perspective of what I wrote rather than what I have clearly stated I wrote, I would ask you to just waste someone elses time on some other blog. I have explained what I meant repeatedly, to include editing the comment to make it more clear, and yet you continue to browbeat me and pretend I meant something else.

    All you had to do was say ‘sorry I was a little ambiguous’ or something like that and this whole thing would have been the dead issue you think it should. A lot of people thought you were saying she in fact did make a shitstorm out of the willy pete story. The fact that you made the update shows you understand how we could misread it but instead of just saying sorry for the open ended statement you choose to attack the people who had misread you.

    I wonder if instead of repeating statements made by others and making it seems as though she was attributing them to Ben, if she had instead just said this is the thinking of the Ben Domenechs of the right would you have had a problem?

  500. 500
    ppGaz says:

    I think Darrell should go to work on Monday and say:

    “I think we’d solve a lot of communication problems around here if we laid off all the blacks and Hispanics and hired more white people. But hiring only white people would be wrong.”

    Darrell could then explain to his boss, and fellow workers, how he was just making a point about communication, and is not a racist, and didn’t want to offend anybody. He could explain these things as he was being handed his final check and shown the door.

    Because Darrell knows full well that in the real world, saying something odious to make a point, and then backtracking, is rarely acceptable, especially to the folks at the wrong end of the odious part.

    But see, in Blogoworld, as defined by Darrell and John Cole, we can actually defend Darrell’s proposed speech and attack anyone who criticizes it, because, you know, this is all about … uh, I mean, because we’re …. well, er, I mean, the thing is, it’s okay if you’re John, or Bill Bennett, or Darrell. Because they say so. That’s it, really. They just say so. See, that’s what counts, it’s what they say about it that counts.

    So, never mind.

  501. 501
    Darrell says:

    Darrell, imagine that you’re reading Crooks and Liars. Imaginary John Amato says, “Republicans are a waste of space and resources, and if we killed every registered Republican in the country we’d have removed a blot from the history of the human race. But killing people is just plain wrong.”

    nyrev, a more honest analogy would have ended with something like “it’s that type of thinking which is morally odious”.. but thanks for playing

    They think it’s racist because it’s identifying people of a certain class and race as worthy of genocide if only genocide weren’t “morally odious.”

    that’s not at all what he suggested by any honest reading, but it’s typical of your side to lie your asses off about it

  502. 502
    RonB says:

    You know, I think right about now would be a good time to review what Jane actually said-that the guy was a bigot. I don’t think it parsing words to say that there is a real difference between bigoted and racist. Racists belive in the superiority of their race over others; bigots, on the other hand, prejudge an ethnicity based on their narrow understanding of them. Neither are healthy, but racist is a far more serious charge.

    Would it not be more constructive to discuss how the word bigot applies to Domenech? I believe that John within the realm of reason when he insists the guy isn’t a racist, or at least it’s hard to deduce that from what he has said. At the same time, can we consider that Jane may be right when she labels him a bigot?

  503. 503
    ppGaz says:

    See, that’s the part I finally get. It’s what people say about things that counts. Not the things themselves.

    That’s the great lesson that the Darrells and Domenechs and Bill Bennetts and John Coles of the world get, and want to teach us:

    It’s only what they say about the thing that counts.

    It’s beautiful and elegant in its simplicity!

    If they say “I’m not a racist!” then that’s it! They’re not!

    See, that’s how it works. If they say “I meant no offense by my, uh, offensive speech … ” then that’s it! No offense should be taken!

    See, that’s how it works in Blogodonia, which is right next door to Republicania. You just say what you want to be true, and voila! It’s true!

    War fucked up? Say it’s a victory!

    Federal budget fucked up? Say it’s an improvement!

    Hurricane relief in the shitter? Say it’s going fine!

    Everything you say and do a complete baldfaced lie? Say you’re sincere!

    All the news is bad? Report the good parts!

    What’s your problem? No problem!

  504. 504
    Steve says:

    Yeah, well stated. It’s not what John Cole said, it’s what he meant to say. And since he knows better than anyone what he meant to say, fuck all y’all.

  505. 505
    Darrell says:

    At the same time, can we consider that Jane may be right when she labels him a bigot?

    On what basis would she be justified in calling call him a bigot?

    Please note Jane refers to Red State as “Red State racists”.. that characterization indicates such a balanced perspective on her part.. wouldn’t you agree?

  506. 506
    ppGaz says:

    It’s not what John Cole said, it’s what he meant to say.

    There ya go, Stevarino! Can I call you Stevarino?

    But serially, who are we to question whether Bill Bennett meant any offense with his offensive example? After all, only he knows for sure! We are bound to take his word for it! After all, while he appears to be a fat arrogant slob of a man who doesn’t hesitate to give moral and behavioral lectures to people he does not know, the truth is, he’s a very respected commentator who has earned the right to be taken abolutely at face value! He doesn’t have to explain anything! If we are confused by what he said, well, fuck us! We’re the problem!

    See, as John Cole can teach you (in his class, for a fee, I presume), if you don’t understand something I say, that’s your problem, pal! Fuck you!

  507. 507
    The Other Steve says:

    Those of you who are cheering Jane’s smear of Ben, who may be a number of things, but aracist is not one of them, I hope you keep this in mind the next time you blow a gasket when someone on the right does something similar. I can;t wait until you all rush to the defense of Hindrocket when he calls a liberal a traitor with the same amount of evidence Jane has offered that Ben is racist.

    So Jane is justified in using her hyperbole, because the right does it all the time.

    Anyway, the real problem is not Ben Douchebag, but rather the Washington Post in hiring him to begin with. So let’s get to the real issue here.

    Is Jim Brady mad?

  508. 508
    The Other Steve says:

    Please note Jane refers to Red State as “Red State racists”.. that characterization indicates such a balanced perspective on her part.. wouldn’t you agree?

    Is she wrong?

    We never really established that.

  509. 509
    John Cole says:

    PPGAZ- You would have a point, had I not explained what I meant over and over again. The initial confusion I accept was understandable, and I clarified. Now, you simply refuse to accept what I meant, and are just being a dick.

    Ron B.- She called him a bigot AND a racist. Repeatedly.

    JG-

    All you had to do was say ‘sorry I was a little ambiguous’ or something like that and this whole thing would have been the dead issue you think it should.

    I am sorry for any confusion- and I corrected the situation and edited the post. But I will not apologize for stating that Jane made WP claims- because I did not state that, as I have said repeatedly. That isn’t good enough for these guys.

  510. 510
    Steve says:

    I have to differ with some of my colleagues in that I don’t think Jane “pwned” John or whatever the kids are saying these days. All she did was show up and be angry and stuff. The reason she won is because she was right.

  511. 511
    ppGaz says:

    Now, you simply refuse to accept what I meant, and are just being a dick.

    Uh, right. I’m a dick because I “simply refuse to accept what { you } meant.”

    No, I’m a dick because I don’t agree with you. As is anyone else in the world who doesn’t agree with you and doesn’t kiss your ass while saying it.

    But the real point is, Bill Bennett is the real dick. Compared to you and me, he is the World’s Largest Penis, and you and I are little bellybutton penises.

    Why you defend that fat arrogant asshole is way beyond me, but I guess that’s why you own the blog.

  512. 512
    Darrell says:

    If they say “I’m not a racist!” then that’s it! They’re not!

    Tax cuts are ‘code’ for racists. Those who oppose affirmative action are modern day Bull Connors. The left tells us that so it must be true

  513. 513
    ppGaz says:

    Tax cuts are ‘code’ for racists

    Mwuh? That’s the worst non sequitur I’ve seen in eleven years.

  514. 514
    VidaLoca says:

    Darrell,

    Yeah, I know, I saw that —

    And this

    Of course, most of the commentaries steer away from a too-explicit reference to race, although everybody is aware of the astonishingly inordinate incidence of crimes committed by young male blacks and the equally inordinate incidence of abortions procured by black women. In one interview, Levitt said his findings had little or nothing to do with race; his research on the correlation between crime and unstable family situations was based on Scandinavian research. Well yes, but nobody to my knowledge has suggested that the problem of crime in the United States is significantly related to the problem of Swedish immigration.

    and this

    I notice that many other commentators make a point of saying that this discussion is not about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. It just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime. I do not question the research or logic of Levitt’s argument. If a specifiable group is inordinately responsible for a social problem, it follows that eliminating a large number of people belonging to that group will reduce the problem. It is hard to argue with that. What is morally odious is the cool and disinterested way in which the commentariat is discussing what might fairly be described as racial cleansing. It’s too bad about all those dead babies, but it is a kind of solution to the crime problem, if not a final solution.

    and this

    Having despaired of preparing young blacks to enter into the opportunities and responsibilities of American life, the society apparently decided to eliminate them before they had a chance to become a threat. The story of the Exodus plays a large and understandable part in black history: “Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, `When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him.’ But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live.” Today’s black leaders are more compliant, much to the satisfaction of those who think we would all be better off with fewer black people.

    Like I said, the first one here, and the one I cited that you mention in your post, sound pretty racist to me, and he’s swallowing Leavitt’s statistics without objection. The second one sounds more like William Bennett, and whether that means it’s racist too or just stupid we can leave to another day. “…killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime”? The last one just sounds like the height of paternalism, coming from a 24 year old well-to-do white boy, although he’s not distancing himself very far from the concept that black people are “a threat”.
    Now, Pb makes the fair point above that Ben didn’t write this all himself, he only quoted it at length, linked it, and made no commentary as to his own position. I’ll take it that that means he agrees with it.

    Am I being unfair? Am I quoting him selectively? Hell, you tell me: he certainly isn’t taking a critical position on that mishmosh beyond the “morally odious” statement that you cite above. What’s odious to him: the “racial cleansing” (and if that is what he’s saying I’ll at least give him credit for getting that right) or just that this anonymous commentariat is cool and disinterested?

    And I’m not trying to be snarky (well, OK, not too snarky) with that last point. To be frank I slapped that post up there yesterday afternoon, read it again today, read it again several times putting this together — I’m still having a hard time parsing it. What I can parse does not impress me.

    If he’d been a little more selective in his own quoting he’d probably be a happier fellow today. For me, at the moment, I think he got some ‘splainin to do. If you know of any venue where he’s attempted to do so (w/r/t this article) I’d be interested in reading it.

  515. 515
    Darrell says:

    Like I said, the first one here, and the one I cited that you mention in your post, sound pretty racist to me, and he’s swallowing Leavitt’s statistics without objection.

    Please elaborate specifically on how that “sounds” racist, as I don’t see it. As for swallowing Leavitt’s statistics without objection, it is statistical fact that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime in this country relative to their population. There may be a number of reasons for this, but it doesn’t change the FACT that it’s true. Nothing racist about it. Furthermore, he brings up the subject only for the purpose of denouncing the type of thinking that would advocate aborting of black babies to reduce crime.

    Am I being unfair?

    Well, you pretty much called him a racist (he “sounds” racist). You tell me

  516. 516
    nyrev says:

    that’s not at all what he suggested by any honest reading, but it’s typical of your side to lie your asses off about it

    That’s pretty rich coming from the guy who called Edward Cashman a liberal Democrat just the other day.

    So, will you tell me which part of saying that poor black people are a drag on society was ameliorated by also saying ethnic cleansing is wrong? Or you could just respond honestly to VidaLoca. You seem to be able to carry on a conversation with him without saying anything too self-incriminating.

  517. 517
    VidaLoca says:

    John,

    Man, you define a new kind of stubborn.

    Not that my saying this will help or even change anything much, but don’t you see that this

    For those of you interested, I am not claimng Jane hamsher stated WP wasa chemical weapon, etc. I am using her as an example of the type of partisan grenade tossers who made those claims. If you are really interested, read the long and tedious thread that follows and you will understand the update.

    doesn’t follow? How can Jane “be an example of the type of partisan grenade tossers who made those claims” when “Jane…[never] stated that WP was a chemical weapon”?
    What are you left with but guilt by association? I understand you were using her as an archtype but how can you hold that position once you admit that she’s not part of the type you’re -arching?

    Furthermore it seems to me that by refusing to give up on this position you prevented yourself from engaging her where she might have been vulnerable, which were her charges against Ben.

  518. 518
    Darrell says:

    That’s pretty rich coming from the guy who called Edward Cashman a liberal Democrat just the other day.

    Let’s see, Cashman doesn’t believe in punishment for a convicted child rapist, who raped a 7 seven year old repeatedly.. so he gives the guy a slap on the wrist (60 day sentence) with comments that anger against the rapist doesn’t solve anything and that punishment doesn’t make anything better

    Sorry but that has liberal mindset written all over it no matter how much you pretend otherwise

  519. 519
    VidaLoca says:

    Darrell,

    w/r/t Cashman — somebody pointed out in that discussion the other night that Cashman is in fact a conservative Republican.

    I mean, just sayin…

  520. 520
    Blue Neponset says:

    Sorry but that has liberal mindset written all over it no matter how much you pretend otherwise

    Darrell,

    Do you actually believe liberals are ok with letting a covicted child rapist go free?

  521. 521
    Darrell says:

    Well Vida, in light of his statements and actions vs a BJ post.. that certainly proves me wrong

  522. 522
    VidaLoca says:

    Darrell,

    Yeah — wasn’t trying to prove you wrong, just trying to mess with ya a little…

  523. 523
    Darrell says:

    Darrell,

    Do you actually believe liberals are ok with letting a covicted child rapist go free?

    Not in their neighborhood anyway. I think it’s fair to say that Libs do tend to embrace the “he was the victim of a bad childhood or whatever” type of excuse making for criminals.

  524. 524
    Laura says:

    Me:

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but your acting as if rape is nothing to worry about is one. Your mocking of pregnant rape victims as merely “straw men” is another. Then there are the less offensive, yet stupeying posts, like your self-righteous “what gives you the right to lecture me” comment yesterday. Coming from one of the most arrogant and condescending commenters on this blog, that probably had most readers shaking their head

    Brian:

    Not a shred of thruth in that comment. Next…..

    No? I just did quick Google search. In my hits, you didn’t call pregnant rape victims “straw men.” Nope, you preferred to call the rape victims who get pregnant “hypotheticals.” (Apologies for getting the term you used wrong.) But about that shred of truth:

    Who is this rape victim you’re so worried about? Talk about the tail wagging the dog… We can play these hypotheticals all day long.

    Slam dunk easy, isn’t it? Of course, let’s not forget that Illinois rape victim. (who is she again?)

    Every response I come up with only gets responded with more hypotheticals, more fear of what will happen to unknown and anonymous “victims”,

    No mocking there, move along people. To be fair, you weren’t aware that there are, in fact, about 38,000 rape victims impregnated by their attackers year. But your ignorance can’t excuse how dismissive you were of the victims, whether your thought there were only a few dozen instead of the many thousands. As far as arrogance goes, I’d give Godzilla the trophy, but with quips like this, you’re a solid second place:

    I’m certain I’m operating on a higher plane than you are, thanks to that response. You try and jump to my level, but you just…..can’t…..quite…..reach me.

    You’re the salt of the earth Brian. It sucks for you that Google exists.

    Back to Jane and John…

  525. 525
    RonB says:

    Ron B.- She called him a bigot AND a racist. Repeatedly.

    John, I certainly dont expect you to go look, but I did, and she said “Red State Racists” repeatedly, but there hasn’t been an instance where she called Ben a racist specifically. She pointedly used “bigot” in reference to him.

  526. 526
    RonB says:

    Darrell, how do you square these two statements by you:

    it is statistical fact that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime in this country relative to their population. There may be a number of reasons for this, but it doesn’t change the FACT that it’s true.

    OK, if I read you right, thats you acknowledging that there may be reasons for that. Then you say this:

    I think it’s fair to say that Libs do tend to embrace the “he was the victim of a bad childhood or whatever” type of excuse making for criminals.

    I’m confused. You will admit that there is the possibility that one’s situation causes them to do certain things, yet you shut the door minutes later and say “that’s something that libs think.”

  527. 527
    jg says:

    that’s not at all what he suggested by any honest reading

    What the hell is an honest reading? Is it a right wing strategy to use the words honest and dishonest all the time?

    I am sorry for any confusion- and I corrected the situation and edited the post. But I will not apologize for stating that Jane made WP claims- because I did not state that, as I have said repeatedly. That isn’t good enough for these guys.

    Good enought for me. But I still think your missing the point of what peopel are pissed about. Its not that tey think you smeared Jane by saying she was a troop hating lefty. Its that what you said can equate to ‘the John Coles of the right want to make this a religious country’. Its lumping you in with a cause you certainly weren’t apart of just because both of you are on the right. I think you would want to get your name removed from that. Its an absurd analogy but then I’m a lousy writer.

  528. 528
    BumperStickerist says:

    ppgaz,

    The scenarios laid out by both Ben and Bennett show the logical conclusion of a ‘utility of abortion argument’ couched in terms that “progressives” ought to be able to understand.

    The effectiveness of that argument, however, requires that “progressives” take a leap of analogical understanding that, apparently, none can.

    Basically, Bennett (and Ben) were saying “Be careful how you frame your argument because …..{ insert actuarially correct scenario that affects a “progressive” special interest group) could be involved.”

    So, I’d say that Ben and Bennett are guilty of the soft bigotry of low expectations (of progressives) rather than actual, you know, hating black folk.

    They were foolish enough to think that Lib/ Dem/ Progressives could follow the analogy. We can probably agree on that.

    .

    The flip side of the Swiftian satire is the Prog’s use of the Bonhoeffer line of reasoning. You know, the Lutheran pastor during WWII who wrote “First they came for the … then they casme for the .”

    Unfortunately, the “progressives” use that to point out that, logically, nothing can ever be done to ANYBODY because, in the view of the Jane Hamshers of the Left if not the Actual Jane Hamsher of the Left- “First they came for the child rapist, …. then, they came for my grandmother ….” so we must do nothing.

    piffle.

    Bennett’s no racist and, based on John’s characterization and the examples cited by the Prog/Lib/Dems, Ben isn’t either.

    .

  529. 529
    ppGaz says:

    Great rant, stickerman, but you are making it to the wrong person. I never argued that we can take Bennett to be a racist. I argued that we can take him to be a highly paid communicator who apparently is incapable of making himself understood on a simple point without resorting to grotesque analogies with unnecessary racial overtones.

    Why? Because he is a big fat pompous asshole who doesn’t care about anything or anybody but himself, and makes a living telling other people how morally superior he is.

    For THAT reason, and for the reason that he is a disgusting excuse for a human being and must be either taken to be (a) incompetant, since he can’t explain himself without a grotesque racially-tainted analogy, or (b) completely dishonest and guilty of deliberately inflammatory remarks to get publicity, he deserves no defense.

    The only reason he is getting a defense here is because Bennett’s homies — righties — want to defend him. If he was just “some dude” nobody would give a shit about him and we’d all declare him to be a goddammed fool.

    Back to you.

  530. 530
    Par R says:

    Poop, Slide, Steve, et.al., please just take the pipe and be done with it. God knows, you have nothing whatsoever to offer mankind.

  531. 531
    Sam Hutcheson says:

    As for swallowing Leavitt’s statistics without objection, it is statistical fact that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime in this country relative to their population. There may be a number of reasons for this, but it doesn’t change the FACT that it’s true.

    Actually, what we can accept as FACT is that African Americans are detained, prosecuted and convicted for crimes at a higher rate than other segments of the population. We can not infer from this as FACT that African Americans commit more crime than other folk. Stating that as FACT would require at the very least a general faith in the infallibility of the police, lawyers and courts.

  532. 532
    VidaLoca says:

    Darrell,

    Right out of the box, he says this and I take exception to it.

    People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag.

    He carries on with a few sentences of filler, then begins Levitt’s statistics:

    In recent years there has been a 30- to 50-percent drop in crime, and many explanations are offered: new policing methods, more than two million people behind bars, the drop-off in the use of crack, and on and on.

    which criminologists are willing to take as arguable hypotheses — but not Ben:

    But a careful analysis of the data, say Levitt and company, indicates that the biggest factor, far and away, is that the millions of young men most likely to commit crimes were killed early on.

    He has to distance himself from this, so another sentence or two of pro-life filler follow, then:

    The dramatic decline in crime began eighteen years after Roe v. Wade, and a few years earlier in those states that liberalized their abortion law. Of course, most of the commentaries steer away from a too-explicit reference to race,

    because they’re “politically correct”. Ben, however, is willing to go out on a limb:

    everybody is aware of the astonishingly inordinate incidence of crimes committed by young male blacks and the equally inordinate incidence of abortions procured by black women. In one interview, Levitt said his findings had little or nothing to do with race; his research on the correlation between crime and unstable family situations was based on Scandinavian research. Well yes, but nobody to my knowledge has suggested that the problem of crime in the United States is significantly related to the problem of Swedish immigration.

    So what is it related to, Ben?

    Levitt, like Donohue, is also careful to say that he is not a supporter of the unlimited abortion license.

    … because Levitt is politically correct, too… but not Ben:

    I notice that many other commentators make a point of saying that this discussion is not about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. It just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime.

    I do not question the research or logic of Levitt’s argument.

    of course not. If he did he wouldn’t be writing what he’s writing…

    If a specifiable group is inordinately responsible for a social problem, it follows that eliminating a large number of people belonging to that group will reduce the problem. It is hard to argue with that. What is morally odious is the cool and disinterested way in which the commentariat is discussing what might fairly be described as racial cleansing. It’s too bad about all those dead babies, but it is a kind of solution to the crime problem, if not a final solution.

    So what I’m left with from all of this is that he is contending that black people are a drag on society. He’s (paternalistically) contending that “we’ll” never spend enough money on “them” to make them non-poor. He’s contending that they’re high-incidence criminals. What’s the solution? Eliminate them! “It is hard to argue with that.” But now he’s got a conundrum on his hands — that would be ethnic cleansing and he can’t go there, it’s “morally odious” (though evidently by his own argument logical) to go down that road.

    IS he denouncing the idea of aborting black babies to reduce crime? If he were going to do that this would be the logical place. But no! Instead of taking a position he starts talking about “black leaders”:

    Meanwhile, those who style themselves black leaders, especially political leaders, are overwhelmingly in support of the unlimited abortion license, thus maintaining their distinction of being the only ethnic or racial leadership in history to actively collaborate in dramatically reducing the number of people they claim to lead. If they had been allowed to live, there would be about twenty million more blacks in America.

    Those dumb black leaders!

    White racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership.

    The leadership who, he claims, are taking the exact position that his logic above should lead him to support too!

    Jesse Jackson regularly declared that the war on poverty had been replaced by a war on the poor. There is more than a little to that. Having despaired of preparing young blacks to enter into the opportunities and responsibilities of American life, the society apparently decided to eliminate them before they had a chance to become a threat.

    “the society decided”? This, after using the first two thirds of his article to make the case that black people are a threat.

    The story of the Exodus plays a large and understandable part in black history: “Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, `When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him.’ But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live.”Today’s black leaders are more compliant, much to the satisfaction of those who think we would all be better off with fewer black people.

    After all that he’s built a case for ethnic cleansing, refused to own up to his own logic, and failed to distinguish himself from those who do indeed “think we would all be better off with fewer black people.”

  533. 533
    Steve says:

    Poop, Slide, Steve, et.al., please just take the pipe and be done with it. God knows, you have nothing whatsoever to offer mankind.

    Hahaha! What an awesome entry in the war of ideas. Brian?

    you’ll never win the war of ideas we’re winning. You have no ideas. You only have labels, epithets, insults, and cruelty. You literally have embraced hatred as a cause.

    Hahahahahaha!

  534. 534
    BumperStickerist says:

    Thanks for the reply, ppgaz.

    I think the need to resort to ‘grotesque analogies’ is unfortunate, but it’s not like the Left understands nuance. Subtlety is lost on the unsubtle. That applies to both sides, btw.

    However, I used the term ‘actuarially correct’ in my previous post. You can cite the grotesquenss of Bennett’s point, but that point remains actuarially-correct.

    For a less ‘explosive’ example of this, if you recall, the Japanese Minister of Education pointed out that Japan’s kids scored higher on some tests than the US kids. He then said ‘but then we don’t have blacks.’.

    Which is, you know, correct.

    And that fact highlights issues with public education and the need to close the gaps and such (and The Daily Howler is running good pieces on this, btw) Yet, the point remains.

    If you factor out the lowest performing group from the data set, the overall average of what’s left goes up.

    All together now: D’uh.

    The problem here is that none of the principals involved in these particular morality plays ACTUALLY FAVOR RACISM based on the evidence presented.

    If you think that Bennett is ‘racist’ because he proffered a utilitarian example (which you truncate, btw), to my mind you’re no better than a Femist who just got the vapors and swooned.

    So, if you do think either guy is racist, there’s a daybed over there, lie down, we’ll bring you some smelling salts and a cool drink in a bit.

    Join us once your delicate sensibilities allow.

    .

  535. 535
    BumperStickerist says:

    Though I’ll agree to any proposition that Ben is no Jonathan Swift and I have no problem with WaPo sacking his plagiarizing ass.

  536. 536
    ppGaz says:

    So, if you do think either guy is racist

    I haven’t claimed that “either guy” is a racist. In fact, if you look at my 8:49 am award-winning post this morning, which starts my participation in this subthread, I said that we cannot declare Bennett a racist on the basis of the grotesque rant. Neither can we declare him a non-racist on that basis.

    Nor have I made any statement at all about the infamous Ben and racism.

    If you spent as much time reading the relevant material as you do writing your long, useless posts, you’d know that.

  537. 537
    Steve says:

    Uh, if Japan had a bunch of black people, the country’s test scores would go down? Is that a serious argument?

  538. 538
    Krista says:

    My thoughts on this thread:

    Don’t know if Ben Domenich is a racist. I’d have to read his writings, and to be honest, I’m really not interested. If he was a proven serial plagiarist, that should have been enough to settle any argument as to whether or not he should have a career in journalism. Jane came in guns’a-blazin’, and frankly, scared the piss out of me, and probably raised John’s hackles to Level Red (I’ve colour-coded your hackles, John — hope you don’t mind terribly). John, that whole comment about “the Jane Hamshers of the blogosphere”, or whatever the hell it was you said, well…to say that Jane should not have taken offense IS a bit foolish. If I referred to “the John Coles” of the blogosphere, would you not assume that you were automatically included in that group?

    En tous cas
    , we only give you a hard time because we know that you’re a smart and decent guy, so it sometimes pains us to see you saying or doing things that we think do not do justice to your intelligence and decency. I know we sometimes heap all over you — it’s quite easy to do in the relative anonymity of a blog, isn’t it? At any rate, if we thought you were a complete asshole and a waste of time, we’d not be here. And, if you thought that we were complete assholes, and a waste of time, well…we’d not be here.

    Brian…

    Not a shred of thruth in that comment. Next…..

    There was a shred of truth, actually. I very clearly remember how distressed I was at your attitude the day you and I had the discussion about abortion laws. I distinctly remember that your basic opinion was that abortion laws should be left up to the voters in the individual states, and I remember that you seemed to show very little concern for any women who live in very right-wing or religious states, who would be pretty much guaranteed to lose their right to choose, or for women who would lose their right to choose, pending their individual state getting pro-choice legislation passed. I brought up hypotheticals about rape or incest, and you summarily dismissed them, even though we both know perfectly well that those hypotheticals actually DO happen, and more often than we probably know. You may not have used the word “strawman”, but you indicated quite clearly that that is what you thought of the rape/incest argument.

    Sorry for the Al Maviva-ish length of this post — I’ve been away all day.

  539. 539
    Krista says:

    Laura – thank you for doing the legwork regarding Brian’s comment — I would have, but can barely keep my eyes open right now.

  540. 540
    DougJ says:

    Of course, plagriasim is a touchy issue with Senator Darrell Cornyn.

  541. 541
    ppGaz says:

    you’re no better than a Femist

    I have always held iron workers in the highest regard.

  542. 542
    VidaLoca says:

    John,

    En tous cas, we only give you a hard time because we know that you’re a smart and decent guy, so it sometimes pains us to see you saying or doing things that we think do not do justice to your intelligence and decency. I know we sometimes heap all over you—it’s quite easy to do in the relative anonymity of a blog, isn’t it? At any rate, if we thought you were a complete asshole and a waste of time, we’d not be here. And, if you thought that we were complete assholes, and a waste of time, well…we’d not be here.

    what she said.

  543. 543
    Brian says:

    There was a shred of truth, actually

    You’re right, there was a shred. Just a shred. Let’s see what I recall: that you’re unwilling to let voters handle this issue; you don’t trust anyone else but judges; you operate on hypotheticals alone to make your arguments; you quote statistics about rape that may be falsified charges; you belittled my abilities as a father and a husband for my position on the topic; you say that I have no concern for women, which is a scurrilous thing to say and is nowhere near the truth of who I am. And you say that I’m arrogant?

    Pretend we’re talking about illegal immigration. Some can rightfully say that illegal immigrants come here to California, and can easily get access to an automobile or a weapon. These aliens cause violent crimes with weapons and kill citizens when drunk driving (this is leaving aside a terrible gang problem involving illegal Latinos). This really happens, and there are statistics to support it. So, it would then be correct to say that illegal aliens cause violent crimes, and therefore someone could get killed if we allow them into the country. It’s true, but it’s also not the way to create laws to create them around what might happen, just like it might happen that women would get pregnant from a rape. The bigger issue is what you make the laws around; regarding immigration, it could be protecting and respecting state sovereignty, or upholding the rule of law, or the lack of interest of the aliens in becoming assimilated into American society, or the lack of budgetary resources available to handle them.

    This macro approach to abortion or illegal immigration is what I was after, but it was easier for you to engage the debate on the micro, the hypothetical, or the low blow accusation that I don’t care, that I’m an insensitive freeper, or that you’re sorry for my wife and kids being related to me, because I’m obviously cruel and crass. That was all you had to offer, and it’s all you ever have to offer.

    Thank you for pulling up that quote that I forgot. I’ll say it again here — I’m operating at a higher plane than you are, and you just….can’t…..reach…..me. You could if you tried, but you won’t.

  544. 544
    ppGaz says:

    This really happens, and there are statistics to support it

    Then you won’t mind supporting it. These aliens have these accidents at a higher rate than that of the general population, and commit violent crimes at a higher rate than that of the general population? “Leaving aside” those gangs you mentioned that you were leaving aside?

    Illegal aliens can “easily get” access to automobiles? More “easily” than the access gained by the general population? How do people there get “access” to automobiles, exactly?

    A lot of interesting assertions in your post. Can you provide evidence for them?

  545. 545
    Pooh says:

    John, at least I got your attention…

    I am not sure what kind of garbaghe you are trying to create with the overplayed our hand biut, and your continued insistence that either I or Bill Bennett want to aboret black babies betrays what a total foolish asshole you really are.

    The ‘overplayed hand’ bit is in direct reference to something you wrote about a month ago (ironically, using Jane as “the Left” again) complaining about why you could never vote Dem because the Jane Hamshers of the world (this time, Jane Hamsher included) were so mean. I honestly don’t remember what the thread was about, but I do remember that ppgaz lost his mind (which doesn’t narrow it down much, to be sure).

    As to the other bit, I don’t think I even implied that I though you were in any way racist or bigotted, I was alluding to Jane’s proffered evidence of Ben’s alleged bigotry. I can’t really judge because before this whole incident, I was unfamiliar with any of Domenech’s work, but with what Jane and others have presented, it’s a colorable claim. It may be an incorrect claim, but it’s not as if the charges were constructed out of whole cloth.

    On the other hand, if I in any way gave the impression that I was ascribing any of Ben’s views, or Bill Bennet’s views or whomever’s views to you, I sincerely apologize, that was not my intent. The only thing I was accusing you of was obtuseness in relation to the “Jane Hamshers of the world” construction.

    As to me being an asshole you should have told off long ago, well, I’ll accept the first part, because it’s largely true when I post here (hardly making me unique, IMO). The telling off is completely up to you. I will say that I spend time here because I genuinely like and respect you, and feel that you have an interesting voice when you choose to use it. I probably should make that point more explicitly. That said, I think sometimes you aren’t nearly as clear as you think you are being, and that is the cause of a lot of the friction between you and your lefty-groupies.

    Regards

  546. 546
    Pooh says:

    Oh yeah, and since Krista represents the best angels (I hope) of my nature

    En tous cas, we only give you a hard time because we know that you’re a smart and decent guy, so it sometimes pains us to see you saying or doing things that we think do not do justice to your intelligence and decency. I know we sometimes heap all over you—it’s quite easy to do in the relative anonymity of a blog, isn’t it? At any rate, if we thought you were a complete asshole and a waste of time, we’d not be here. And, if you thought that we were complete assholes, and a waste of time, well…we’d not be here.

    What she said.

  547. 547
    Steve says:

    The ‘overplayed hand’ bit is in direct reference to something you wrote about a month ago (ironically, using Jane as “the Left” again) complaining about why you could never vote Dem because the Jane Hamshers of the world (this time, Jane Hamsher included) were so mean. I honestly don’t remember what the thread was about, but I do remember that ppgaz lost his mind (which doesn’t narrow it down much, to be sure).

    I assume you were directing this question at me?

    Behold!

    And the left once again is going to overplay their hand… [snip] For those counting, that is Jane Hamsher, in just a few sentence, with a smear, a factless assertion, a misrepresentation of the ‘stamp’ Cheney didn’t have, followed by yet another wild assertion. They have Cheney in a possibly compromising position, yet are going to blow it because of their overeagerness and their hate. Again.

    In response to the predictable retorts that Jane Hamsher is not, in fact, the official spokesperson of the Left, John stuck to his guns (arguably a bad metaphor in this context):

    Just wait, Blue. It is only a matter of time before Dean pipes up, and Pete Stark screams something from the floor of the house and so on.

    Just wait.

    And again:

    All I said was that you guys are going to overplay your hand again. I can see it coming. Jane’s statement is but the beginning.

    And again:

    CHENEY shot a man in the face hunting, may have been drunk, may have avoided the police for 18 hours to cover that up, and you guys are going to come out the political losers because you are going to overplay your hand and make wild overstatements. Jane’s was just an example of what will soon be coming.

    And again:

    we know what happens next- some Democrat will take the bait and go crazy in front of a camera.

    Watch.

    A particularly priceless one:

    I am just teling you whbat is going to happen. I can see it now- by tonight or tomorrow, there will be Democratic strategists/talking heads going on the shows claiming he as drunk, and really going over the top, testing to see if it is safe for actual elected Democrats to move forward with the accusations. Within a week, someone will suggest this is grounds for impeachment.

    I think Rumsfeld was more accurate than this about Iraq.

  548. 548

    […] The truth about Ben Domenech and race is as John Cole has said.  In the time I’ve known and read Domenech’s works online, he’s never advanced arguments that reasonable people would call racist, and he has consistently opposed the nativist paleoconservative and racial essentialist quarters of the right, also known as the Evilcons.  Here’s Domenech taking to task Evilcon Lawrence Auster: I am pro-immigration, because I want as many people as possible to become Americans. I want them to buy into the values that entails. I want them to enjoy the blessings of liberty that all of us do today. […]

  549. 549
    Slide says:

    Well, after 500+ comments here I think a general consensus regarding Cole is emerging. Cole is very independednt, not a knee jerk anything. Cole is a libertarian at heart and hates the intrusiveness of this peculiar brand of “conservatism” that the Bushies represnt. But on the negative side of the ledger, Cole can be a flaming asshole at times. But whats worse is that when cole is called out on his assholedness, he digs in and defends the undefensible with more assholedness. The post that started this thread was not one of your finest moments Professor. I suggest you move on to cat blogging or some such thing for a while.

  550. 550
    Brian says:

    ppGaz,

    I wouldn’t mind supporting evidence to support the assertions. I really wouldn’t. But the post was meant as a response to an entirely separate issue – abortion, and my comment about immigration was to highlight another area where we can let our emotions get us carried away when shaping laws.

    When John posts about the immigration issue, then we can get into this. But today I can guarantee you that there are plenty of illegal immigrants on our roads here in Los Angeles. They get them cars with whatever cash they get from their jobs, used cars from any number of sources, and drive them without license or insurance. In terms of getting a car thru the legal process, sure it’s difficult. But they’re ignoring the legal process just being here, so why would they observe a legal process getting an autmobile, or a weapon?

  551. 551
    Blue Neponset says:

    But they’re ignoring the legal process just being here, so why would they observe a legal process getting an autmobile, or a weapon?

    …or fissable material? What do you have to say about that Mr. ppGazz? Illegal immigrants have no respect for our immigration laws how can you be so stupid as to think that they will abide by our nuclear fuel regulations? Damn liberals are all the same you have no appreciation for the laws of our country.

  552. 552
    ppGaz says:

    Brian, I understood that. But the immigration issue is one of my pet peeves wrt to the facts and the assumptions people make …. there is a lot of tossing around of bad information out there. So I was just making a point at the expense of your post.

    No biggie. Thanks for the reply.

    PS- Yes, this is really me ;-)

  553. 553
    ppGaz says:

    Blue, good point.

    Most Mexican illegals come here for one reason: To get work and make money to support their families. They are not interested in crime or nuclear weapons. I’d wager most of them have never even seen a picture of a nuclear weapon.

    The real border problem is that anybody and anything can get into the US from either Canada or Mexico. Not that most of the illegal entrants are jobseekers.

    Immigration is a subject that is ideal for the data cherry-pickers. One of my favorite cherries is this one: The last time I looked, ttotal immigration into the US, illegal and legal combined, has been pretty steady in terms of its percentage of the total US population for something like a hundred years.

    I’m too lazy to look that one up for you, but it’s out there somewhere.

  554. 554
    Laura says:

    that you’re unwilling to let voters handle this issue;

    You’re right. I don’t think complete strangers, voters with different values, different beliefs, different home lives and different life circumstances, should have a say in what a woman across town or across state does with her body. Apparently, you think that’s radical.

    And you say that I’m arrogant?

    I’ve got lots of company. You offended a lot of people that day Brian. We can only form an opinion of you from these boards, so if our opinions are wrong, you have something to do with it. I told you I had friends who had been raped, but you still took a mocking tone in discussing victims, as if they’re just talking points to you, and fake ones at that. Real women are raped every day. Even if you think the numbers are exaggerated, I can’t fathom why you think even one victim deserves your ridicule as a mere hypothetical. I know you’re not so naive to think that real women weren’t raped in Illinois the day you made those quips. I’m not going to go back and forth with you. And I don’t want to continue to hijack this thread by discussing rape or abortion. I’m sure we’ll have plenty more opportunities for that. I only responded to you because you didn’t seem to grasp why some people find your posts mind numbing. Now you know my reasons.

  555. 555
    ppGaz says:

    that you’re unwilling to let voters handle this issue;

    You’re right. I don’t think complete strangers, voters with different values, different beliefs, different home lives and different life circumstances, should have a say in what a woman across town or across state does with her body. Apparently, you think that’s radical.

    Excellent answer, and the right answer.

    The fact is, people in general are not going to lie down for having those kinds of aspects of their lives governed by other people, in this country.

  556. 556
    Laura says:

    The fact is, people in general are not going to lie down for having those kinds of aspects of their lives governed by other people, in this country.

    Yep. The 29% drop in the governor of South Dakota’s net approval rate backs this up. The same for how Americans overwhelmingly disapproved of Congress and the President intervening in the Schaivo case, no matter their political persuasion. Individuals and families have to make these kinds of personal and difficult decisions every day. Even if they, in theory, are opposed to abortion, they get uncomfortable when they realize that somebody else (politians or voters) is attempting to make that decision for them.

  557. 557
    Laura says:

    politians = politicians

    Sometimes, I wish John would have an edit option, but then, people would be able to remove their embarrassing posts, and that would ruin all the fun.

  558. 558
    Laura says:

    Laura – thank you for doing the legwork regarding Brian’s comment—I would have, but can barely keep my eyes open right now.

    No problem. John’s archive search doesn’t work very well, but Google found that day of posts in its first try.

  559. 559
    Laura says:

    Actually, what we can accept as FACT is that African Americans are detained, prosecuted and convicted for crimes at a higher rate than other segments of the population. We can not infer from this as FACT that African Americans commit more crime than other folk. Stating that as FACT would require at the very least a general faith in the infallibility of the police, lawyers and courts.

    A while ago, I read a study that said if any race were profiled by police, their crime rate as a group would rise dramatically. I think that’s pretty much common sense. African Americans clearly are profiled, and even when their crimes and criminal histories are equal, their sentences are harsher and longer than their white peers. According to the Center for Disease Control, a higher percentage of white and hispanic teens drink than black teens. And teens who drink are more likely to try drugs. You’d think that would be reflected in arrest rates. If, when I was in college in the ’80’s, police profiled pretty white guys wearing khakis, polo shirts and penny loafers, people might have a different impression of what a drug dealer looks like and a segment of our prison population would look rather preppy.

  560. 560
    ppGaz says:

    Laura et al, if this has already been seen here, my apologies. But it deeply addresses the race-crime fact sheet:

    The article is grounded in the the RedState flap but it explores the facts extensively.

    Tip o’the hat to Steve for the link.

  561. 561
    JimAllen says:

    Thanks for putting that link up, ppGaz, and thanks to Steve for finding it. Pity that John can’t write like that. You’d think a college professor would know how to back up an argument with something approaching, you know, facts. And not a single mention of Cindy Sheehan, either.

  562. 562
    Brian says:

    Laura, you might be interested to know that a Planned Parenthood leader wants to take the South Dakota law to the voters, rather than to the Supreme Court. If I was at work, I would be able to find the link in my history folder to send you.

    Would someone in her position favoring voters having a say in abortion sway you from your position, since you clearly think I am an unqualified and arrogant paternalistic jerk?

    Anyone can make the case you are making: that the fear of certain behavior focused on individuals makes for good laws. I don’t think that this is a good societal approach. If as many innocent drivers are killed every year, or might be killed every year, by drunk drivers, then we should have the Supreme Court decide to put complete restraint on alcohol consumption. Yes, the choice to drink is the drinker’s, but we must constrain consumption to protect the innocents, right?

    Of course not. We determine risk/benefits when crafting laws, and I trust that Americans are in favor of abortion with limits and with exceptions for rape and incest. Although, to be fair, I believe that such an exception would lead to more false accusations of rape. Again — risks and benefits. I cannot,a dn will not, allow myself to be held captive only to sheer emotion when crafting laws that affect everyone. Here in CA many years ago, we came up with a 3-strikes law that has turned out to be disastrous, and it came about after an innocent girl was brutally murdered. From that awful event came so much emotion that an equally awful law was passed. I hope you’re starting to get my point now, or am I still just a terrible man, husband, and father?

    ppGaz, I do hope that we get the chance to air out our differences, if any, on immigration. There is a lot of misinformation out there, as with any hot-button issue, but being a citizen of L.A., I can accurately state that illegals commit murder and other felonies. Just a couple weeks ago, one ran down and killed a sheriff in the San Bernardino area east of L.A., then split. He was eventually caught, fortuantely, but that is a drop in the bucket. LAPD cannot arrest anyone on suspicion of being illegal alien, they must first commit a crime. It’s bizarre, but true, and an example of the powerful Latino community here in SoCal, dating back to the Chicano era of the Sixties.

  563. 563
    nyrev says:

    Well Vida, in light of his statements and actions vs a BJ post.. that certainly proves me wrong

    Yes. The word of the Republican who appointed him, his record (with the exception of this particular stupidity) as a conservative judge, and his life-long alliance with the Republican party counts more than Darrell’s insistance that everyone he dislikes is a “leftist.” But I’m sure that if you close your eyes and clap hard enough that judge will switch party affiliations just for you!

  564. 564
    The Other Steve says:

    Of course not. We determine risk/benefits when crafting laws, and I trust that Americans are in favor of abortion with limits and with exceptions for rape and incest. Although, to be fair, I believe that such an exception would lead to more false accusations of rape.

    Which is why it’s better to just leave the decision up to the person instead of trying to make a stupid law that’s chock full of exceptions for this, and exceptions for that, until you can’t enforce it.

    But then you don’t really care, because you are a statist who wants to enforce your will on everybody who disagrees with you, instead of just letting people live and let live.

  565. 565
    Brian says:

    But then you don’t really care, because you are a statist who wants to enforce your will on everybody who disagrees with you, instead of just letting people live and let live.

    Why do I even bother, when this is the type of unserious response I get? It’s this kind of comment that makes me wonder if anyone here is capable of a serious discussion about anything.

  566. 566
    Blue Neponset says:

    Why do I even bother, when this is the type of unserious response I get?

    I have been wondering that too. I suspect you must get some benefit from it because you keep doing it.

  567. 567
    Sam Hutcheson says:

    Why do I even bother, when this is the type of unserious response I get? It’s this kind of comment that makes me wonder if anyone here is capable of a serious discussion about anything.

    If you can’t find the makings of a serious discussion, you’re not looking very hard. What about his response is unserious? The fact that he clearly doesn’t think you’re interested in open dialogue? If so, I’ll try the hand, at least briefly.

    Why should the state, in any form, be in the business of legislating decisions as personal as abortion?

  568. 568
    Brian says:

    If you can’t find the makings of a serious discussion, you’re not looking very hard. What about his response is unserious? The fact that he clearly doesn’t think you’re interested in open dialogue? If so, I’ll try the hand, at least briefly.

    Why should the state, in any form, be in the business of legislating decisions as personal as abortion?

    First, his response was unserious because it didn’t engage the point(s) I made, only dismissed them by calling me a statist. It’s not a response at all, but a dismissal because the guy’s bereft of ideas and can’t craft a response. He’s part of the echo chamber I see here daily, and I’m pretty much out of gas at this site, sicne I see heatledly rhetorical posts from Tim and less of the more sensible stuff from John, which is what originally attracted me to the site.

    Now, to engage your question about abortion, I’d like to make clear that laws, whether they be to penalize murder to prevent smoking, are morally based. So, please refrain from saying that I’m trying to shove my morals down the throats of unwilling citizens. All laws are moral to a certain extent, society’s morals, determined through active debate by who?….well, the voting citizens, who certain commenters here have disdain for.

    We are not talking about a personal decision of whether a woman wants to shave her armpits or not. That is a personal decision. Abortion is not a personal decision, as it involves the woman and, yes, an unborn child. At what point it becomes a “child” should be left to another debate. But it is most definitely a child at some point, and let’s say for this discussion that this occurs around the third trimester. Should abortion be illegal at this point, but legal before then? This is where it cannot simply be left to “personal choice”, the cliche that’s been rammed into eveyone’s brain the past several decades. It is not that simple, and must be fought out at the public level to determine what should be settled law on the issue.

    Americans have shown in polls dating back 15 years that abortion is the taking of a human life. Also, Americans are pretty much settled that abortion should be legal, but are uncomfortable with abortion of demand, an all-or-nothing approach under the guise of “choice”. We need to settle this for the sake of society by taking it to voters and out of courts.

    The idea often floated is that abortion protects a woman’s health, but women are dameged, both physically and psychologically, by abortion, such as infertility, damaged reproductive organs, infection, or the increased risk of breast cancer. Abortion harms women as much as the unborn.

    But, any attempt to penalize women for such a common procedure would be met with contempt by the general population. Abortion’s a necessary evil in our society, but there’s a need to see it for what it really is, understanding what the real effects are to women, the unborn, and society at large, so that sound decisions and laws can be crafted to allow abortion but under certain restrictions. Even European countries, the ones liberals proudly point to for their social welfare policies, have tighter restrictions than we do.

    I hope this answers your question. We won’t return to back alley abortions, nor do I advocate doing so (anyhow, this was largely a myth put out by the pro-abortion lobby), and I believe that most Americans would agree.

  569. 569
    Skip says:

    I was actually at a dinner is DC where Bill Bennett was given the “St. Thomas More” award for, er, moral courage or something like that. “Crazed Papist Prize” maybe.
    These days our chubby Tartuffe is proudest of his “moral clarity” meme, though that took a bit of a hit when Pope Benedict deplored the Danish cartoons as “offensive, provocative and a strange way to illustrate the blessing of free speech.”
    Bill Bennett and GW Bush are the only guys I know who can strut sitting down.

  570. 570
    Sam Hutcheson says:

    Abortion is not a personal decision, as it involves the woman and, yes, an unborn child. At what point it becomes a “child” should be left to another debate. But it is most definitely a child at some point, and let’s say for this discussion that this occurs around the third trimester.

    Could you provide for me a rough estimate of the percentage of abortions in the United States that occur after the third trimester?

  571. 571
    Brian says:

    Could you provide for me a rough estimate of the percentage of abortions in the United States that occur after the third trimester?

    Why? That’s all you take out of the entire comment, a curiosity as to how many abortions occur in the last trimester, even though I was using it as a jumping off point for discussion?

    I don’t get what you’re going for here, so instead of demarcation lines like “trimester”, let’s use “viability”, since this is a term that is embraced by the Supreme Court. Viability can occur in the second or third trimester, so if you’re hung up on that terminology, then you now have two trimesters to work with.

  572. 572

    Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish

    Looks like Domenech is gone, and at least for now, WAPO’s experiment in bringing a rabbid dog into the house is over. I never posted on the whole Domenech thing because: a.) I rarely read the WAPO anymore. b.) Who…

  573. 573
    Slide says:

    Looks like Jane is getting the last word on her little disagreement with John:

    I had a dustup with John Cole over on his site the other day. Normally I don’t take blog spats onto FDL (it’s a waste of time) but weirdly Glenn Greenwald’s mom saw it, emailed Glenn and Glenn emailed me laughing. Cole had written a smear job grounded on several outright fabrications, notably that the “Jane Hamshers of the left” routinely called soldiers war criminals for using white phosphorous weapons, and that I had attributed comments to Ben Domenech that he never made.

    I’ve never written about white phosphorous, nor have I ever called soldiers war criminals. Cole’s defense? “The Jane Hamsher’s of the left” does not include me. No, I’m not kidding. I hounded him quite relentlessly for proof and eventually he found some equally contorted logic to try and squirm out from underneath the Domenech accusation (which was just as patently untrue), but not before even his own commenters had turned on him. He eventually scurried away to sulk in Dick Cheney’s bunker.

    If you want to read more you can here..

  574. 574
    Ezert says:

    Abortion is not a personal decision

    I guess I’m thankful most or many in this country still have a libertarian view of some things. They don’t have to agree with it, or approve of it to have it remain legal. I won’t argue with Brian’s opinion. He’s entitled to it. However, as Pat Moynihan said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.

    The idea often floated is that abortion protects a woman’s health, but women are dameged, both physically and psychologically, by abortion, such as infertility, damaged reproductive organs, infection, or the increased risk of breast cancer.infertility,

    http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/ate.....05237.html

    There remains a false perception that a therapeutic abortion, as it is called, can be harmful to health, but this is in fact is not the case. In times gone by before therapeutic abortions were legal, operations were performed outside the law by backstreet abortionists using unsterilised equipment and dangerous techniques.

    Complications were common after such procedures ranging from pelvic infection to infertility and even death on many occasions. However this is no longer the case. Remember too that the anti-abortionists sometimes used to deliberately frighten women by saying that they might never be able to have a baby again in order to discourage them from having an abortion. These people may have been genuine in their ethical convictions, but they were less than truthful or properly researched about the medical facts.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/h.....usat_x.htm

    At a government-sponsored workshop ending Wednesday, researchers concluded that scientific evidence does not support the notion that having an abortion increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer later in life.

  575. 575
    Joe says:

    John was wrong to say “Jane Hamshers of the Left…” with regard to the White Phosphorus issue. He added an Update and clarified that he did not actually mean her. Fine.

    But John wasn’t wrong to accuse Jane of trying to smear Ben as a racist. Now certainly from my perspective Ben is a fucking George W. Bush loving, plagiarizing, jackass. But accusing someone of being a racist is something much more serious. YOu don’t accuse someone of being a racist without some good solid evidence to back it up.

    And what has Jane given us? That he called Corretta a Communist? Now, maybe I missed something the last time I read the definition of “racist”, but it would seem that calling someone a Communist has nothing to do with race at all. Am I missing something?

    Furthermore, the following quote made by Ben is perfectly logical, not racist:

    “It just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime. I do not question the research or logic of Levitt’s argument. If a specifiable group is inordinately responsible for a social problem, it follows that eliminating a large number of people belonging to that group will reduce the problem.”

    That statement is as mathematically true as it would be to say that National IQ would go up if we got rid of all the George W. Bush supporters.

    Its math not racism. Racism means that you believe some race(s) are superior to others. Citing crime as a problem in black communities is not racist. Its measurable fact. Fucking word police on the left and the right piss me off.

  576. 576
    Brian says:

    Yes, I’m entitled to my opinion (thank you for so graciously giving it to me), and I am not making up facts. Regardless, I am not sure what your opinion proves, even with your supporting links. I approve of abortion, but like most Americans I, and every single adult female I know, believe that abortion on demand is not a good thing. Prior to birth, there is an unborn child that deserves some protection from the law and from society. Where do you stand, or do you have any principles at all?

    I took my stats from the CDC, the Gallup organization, and the book “Women’s Health After Abortion”. But sure, these aren’t nearly as good as USA Today and some U.K. web-doctor site. When you’re groping for facts, it’s always best to have such rich sources of credibility at your side, pal.

  577. 577
    Ryan says:

    Wow, John Cole must be feeling like a first rate fool. I love to make fun of Ann Coulter and expose her hypocrisy as frequently as possible on my website, but I never say anything like “the Ann Coulters of the right” and try to attribute something that she actually didn’t do to her by implication. That’s sinking pretty low.

    Jane H. – LOVE the chutzpa. You really made Cole make a real fool of himself on his own website. People actually read this thing? Wow.

  578. 578
  579. 579
    Punchy says:

    Wow, skipping to the bottom of this and seeing that somewhere, somehow this went from The Hamster vs. John “Don’t call me Juan” Cole to ABORTION is disturbing and unfortunate. Time for a new thread.

    Me likey more Ham/Co theatrics…

  580. 580
    neil says:

    Hi there, Firedoglake commenters! I know you’re anxious to get flaming, but I’m afraid nobody is minding the blog these days.

    While you’re waiting, though, I suggest you gain an appreciation for John Cole’s style of invective with the recent post The Right and Individual Rights, and then Keeping the Crazies in Check. And you might want to follow that up with, well, anything in the Republican Stupidity category. Aw, hell, let’s throw in general stupidity too.

  581. 581
    rilkefan says:

    My god, who can keep up with 500+ comment threads?

  582. 582
    Brian says:

    My god, who can keep up with 500+ comment threads?

    True. But the way this blog’s being run lately, with one or two posts a day, usually by pinko Tim, there’s not as much landscape to comment on.

  583. 583
    Pope Ratzo says:

    Ben’s taking a leave of absence, and Red State has some very sincere criticism of Ben’s actions. They expect him to have an extended stay in the wilderness.

    That simply is not true. I watched RedState live as they banned anyone who criticized Young Ben. ONE writer there said something about “wandering in the wilderness” but nearly every post blamed the people who pointed out Li’l Ben’s shortcomings and crimes. If you can find (and link) to a single post that critizes Ben in any length without going after his accusers, I’ll bend over and apologize.

  584. 584
    Sam Hutcheson says:

    Why? That’s all you take out of the entire comment, a curiosity as to how many abortions occur in the last trimester, even though I was using it as a jumping off point for discussion?

    I was just a bit confused as to where you were going with that point. You started out by saying it was pointless to debate the point where “life” proper begins, but then you through in the bit about third trimesters as if you’re going to use that as a defining point. In the case that you were, I figured it worthwhile to point out that third trimester abortions are _already_ extremely rare, have to have special circumstances driving them, and are defined as such under current law (Roe.) Being that that is the case, and that your statement seems to say “pre-third trimester abortions are okay”, I wonder why we would need to bounce the question to referedum instead of going with settled law as it currently stands.

    I don’t get what you’re going for here, so instead of demarcation lines like “trimester”, let’s use “viability”, since this is a term that is embraced by the Supreme Court. Viability can occur in the second or third trimester, so if you’re hung up on that terminology, then you now have two trimesters to work with.

    No, again, my question is basically, if we’re going to legislate “viability” abortion laws in the states, why bother? That’s existing law as is, via Roe. Take into consideration the fact that termination of pregnancy is only getting earlier and earlier and you really have an abortion problem that will be gone in a couple of decades. Put morning after contraceptives on the market and you’re there even faster.

  585. 585

    I love how Jane mentioned John’s own commentators turning on him. GASP! That never happens!

  586. 586
    Brian is a boob says:

    Nuff said.

  587. 587
    Mr Blifil says:

    Um…Viablitiy never occurs in the second trimester. The demarcation of trimesters is not arbitrary, trimesters relate to overall milestones in fetal development as much as they do to discreet 3 month periods in time. The number of third trimester abortions? Well if you are talking about terminating a living fetus, as opposed to one that has died already, the number would amount to approximately ZERO. NO abortions are performed in the third trimester. The latest procedures usually occur around week 22. In dire emergencies, week 26 is as late as any doctor will go. After week 26 you are usually talking about either fetal death, where D&X is required to eliminate the risk of toxic shock from necrotic tissue, or emergencies so rare that they cannot in good conscience be mentioned in the abortion debate. I know it’s off topic a bit, but the idea of third trimester abortion is a right wind canard, nothing more.

  588. 588
    DougJ says:

    I can’t believe the moonbats are going on like this while we’re at war. If the Islamofascists are reading this thread, you can bet that they are laughing at us. This may strike some as extreme, but I sometimes think that Atrios, Jane Hamher, and some of the other on the loony left are acting on orders from Al Qaeda. This sort of division is exactly what the terrorists are trying to sow.

  589. 589
    Geek, Esq. says:

    I like and respect JC, but to claim that it’s clear that Jane Hamsher isn’t one of the Jane Hamsher’s of this world is really a classic.

    As far as the other stuff, yeah Jane Hamsher tried, implicitly, to tie Blanton’s vile racism around Domenech’s neck. Boo hoo. If someone posted stuff degrading Jews like that at Kos, they’d get strung up and troll-rated out of existence. At Benji’s Redstate, the guy is treated like a brave truth-teller.

    The only other thing I know is that I am incapable of giving a flying fuck about Bill Bennett right now. I can only deal with one hypocritical, lying, honorless Republican moralist at a time! (Talking about Domenech, not JC, just to be CLEAR).

  590. 590
    CS says:

    Dougy

    “This sort of division is exactly what the terrorists are trying to sow.”

    Actually, this sort of division is exactly what the Republicans have been sowing. But you were close.

  591. 591
    Alaskan_Pete says:

    Long time listener, first time poster. Two points for Cole:

    1. When you made the ridiculous claim that the “Jane Hamshers” does not include Jane herself, you jumped the shark in this little kerfluffle.

    2. Your intransigence WRT 1. above, in the face of many many commenters indicating that what you wrote was not interpreted by any casual or reasonable observer to mean what you claimed you intended………well, let’s just say you look like a whiny ass titty baby afraid to admit a minor screwup. How hard is it to clarify your remark by changing it, rather than engaging in these “It was perfectly clear, I know what I meant” shenanigans. It was not clear, in fact you claims that “Jane Hamshers of the left” would not indeed include Jane, is an embarrasment to your credibility.

    I used to read you with the assumption that you were indeed a reasonable observer. But you rev’ed er up, popped the clutch and launched off that ramp right over the shark pit. Congrats, you’ve sold out integrity for the sake of partisan ideology. Well done, sir, well done indeed. As if there were a shortage of hacks. Jeebus.

  592. 592

    Yeah, but Geek, his defense was actually pretty plausible. If he said something about what the “Ann Coulters of the world” said and Ann Coulter came over here and started saying “Hey–I never said THAT” she’d look silly. Especially if she launched herself into a fury over a comment John made in a thread, and not in a proper post.

    The problem John’s having is that the blog-reading public does not consider Jane a left-wing version of Ann Coulter–you can’t talk about the Jane Hamshers of the world like you would the Ann Coulters of the world. “Ann Coulter” could mean “partisan grenade-thrower” or “typical right-wing lunatic” or any number of negative things. Jane’s just not enough of a public figure for “Jane Hamsher” to mean much more than “Jane Hamsher.” (For most of us. I completely follow the point John’s making, though.)

    But really–I’m just sympathetic with John about this. Jane clearly has no idea who he is. I mean, she actually wrote, regarding John, “He eventually scurried away to sulk in Dick Cheney’s bunker.” Oh my! Getting John on a Dick Cheney joke! And John’s such a rabid Republican! What a burn!

  593. 593
    ImJohnGalt says:

    but not before even his own commenters had turned on him

    So it’s clear that Jane hasn’t spent any time here before. Why disagreement has to be read as “betrayal”, however, is beyond me.

    I may be silly, but it always strikes me as prudent to lurk a while on a new blog before commenting, if only to get a general feel for the place. If you’re not going to lurk, at least take a quick peek at the archives so you won’t (for example) crow at how John’s commenters disagreed with him when that’s pretty much like saying the sky is blue.

    Still, this blog has rapidly climbed up my list of blogs to read in the morning, as much for the comments as the front-pagers.

  594. 594
    Ken says:

    Death to America v.2006, hell it’s as least as fucked up as Windows 3.1 or USSR v1989. Worst that could happen is XP and/or Russia under Putin.

    Cole, Hamsher, Coulter, Bush, Malkin, Jesse Jackson, Nancy Grace, Larry King, Tim Russert. You won’t be missed! Honest.

  595. 595
    AA says:

    This man doesn’t understand why the phrase “the Jane Hamshers of the left” includes Jane Hamsher (in English, lest we forget). He doesn’t understand that!
    And he thinks you’re stupid if you do. Ah the John Coles of this world! The Coles you will always have with you. One wants to like him but I think this is not really on. Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish.

  596. 596
    Deep Thoreau says:

    I sure am glad that they “changed the tone”.

  597. 597
    Ken says:

    Note to the Secret Service and all such other agencies that watch these matters, that was supposed to be humour. I don’t really have any plan to destroy the USA or even harm any one of it’s citizens except of course an evil desire to fling a cream pie at Anne Coulter but hey, who doesn’t?

  598. 598
    Alaskan_Pete says:

    The rub is, both parties have fanatics on the far end of their ideological spectrum. But most parties in power govern from the middle for the most part….until now. I was a registered Repub at one time, of the libertarian wing.

    But now I ask, which party’s extremists are worse and I have to conclude that the GOP’s extremists are worse BECAUSE THEY CONTROL THE PARTY. The christianists and authoritarian corporatists have co-opted the party and isolated the fiscal conservative, small govt, stay outta my business and everyone else’s libertarians.

    I don’t care if gay people get married or doctors assist people ending their life, or women have choice. It’s none of my business or yours either, and certainly no business of the government. I care that the goverment works well in the few areas we need it….defense, education, health care, crisis/disaster management.

    I started voting for the Dems in 96 and will continue to do so because the extremist elements that people choose to characterize the Dem party have small influence in the party. Meanwhile the Repubs are busying sucking off Dobson/Falwell and GE, MBNA, Enron, Exxon, etc etc, while building pork bridges to nowhere in my own state and handing out nobids to their cronies.

    Am I, my wife, or our kids worse off if the two homos down the street get married? Well, no. It doesn’t affect me in the slightest. Meanwhile, the government can tell my doctors what my medical options should be? Or tell my wife she can’t have an abortion after being raped? WTF kind of authoritarian assholes are running this party these days? The hypocrisy is stunning…Gingrich, my own rep at the time as I hail from GA, pushing impeachment for sexual dalliances while serving his wife divorce papers on while in the hospital for cancer so he could come out of hiding with his mistress? I’m glad I live a long way away from all these peeping tom, dysfunctional lunatics. Try enforcing that shit up here and you better bring some heavy iron, skippy.

  599. 599
    DougJ says:

    Actually, this sort of division is exactly what the Republicans have been sowing

    That’s right, CS — it was the GOP that knocked down those towers, the GOP that beheads journalists. Jesus, how much of the moonbat Kool-Aid did you drink?

  600. 600
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Can we get a DougJ parody quota per thread? I much prefer the non-parody DougJ posts. Some of your more recent efforts are weak tea from a strong leaf [with apologies to whoever recently posted the same phrase here recently – I’m not plagiarizing, I just can’t remember who said it].

    Or are you ramping up your efforts to fool incoming FDL’ers?

  601. 601
    ding7777 says:

    This was a post critical of Jane Hamsher, linking to Jane Hamsher’s blog, but in no way should someone conclude that
    the “Jane Hamshers of the Left” meant Jane Hamsher. Is that your story?

  602. 602
    burro says:

    Man that’s a hellacious thread. Never seen anything like it before. My grandpa told me ’bout threads like that but I never seen one.

    But now I’m going to go back and hang out with the Jane Hamsher’s of the Left. Maybe Jane will be there. Or someone like her. Whatever. Good Luck.

  603. 603
    Dick Tuck says:

    This shouldn’t be all that hard. Don Augustine dismissed Mrs. King, because he claimed she was a communist. Either he’s a racist that hates the fact that African-Americans can vote or he’s a complete idiot, who doesn’t understand J Edgarr’s plans to dismiss civil rights as a commie plot.

    So he’s either a racist or a racist enabler.

  604. 604
    Ezert says:

    Brian, your book Women’s Health After Abortion” is written by anti-choicers, sponsored by an anti-choice organization and intended to be nothing other than an anti-abortion book. It’s not an unbiased source.
    My USA Today story is about the National Cancer Instittue stating there is no evidence linking breast cancer and abortion. I have reputable medical sites, not planned parenthood or pro-choice organizations, saying the “side-effects” anti-choicers tout are not at all scientifically proven, many unproven.

    Where do you stand, or do you have any principles at all?

    Well, aren’t you one of those posters above lecturing people about how they are attacking others? Now you’re questioning if I have any principles? It’s not like you even know me. I have principles. My principles say neither you, the government or any other busybody gets to tell others what they can do with their bodies.

  605. 605
    tomboy says:

    Just wondering…

    Who are the Jane Hamshers of the left if Jane Hamsher is not a Jane Hamsher of the left?

  606. 606
    DougJ says:

    Or are you ramping up your efforts to fool incoming FDL’ers?

    Yes — I don’t get a virgin audience very often.

  607. 607
    A Hermit says:

    It all depends on what the meaning of “is” is…

    What a pathetic display of hackery, typical of the John Coles of this world…

  608. 608
    Hee says:

    Well now, we have all been warned about how cognitive dissonance will make our heads explode. We have just witnessed a sputtering fuse. Some time soon, John will either explode, or wake up from a really bad dream in which his head spins around and spews pea soup.

    I stopped reading John because he keeps alternating back and forth between reason and rage. The rage got boring and John seems to believe Jeff Goldstein makes sense, which defies reason. (and makes John’s rage seem fake).

    Before Reagan, we used to lock up bi-polar people against their will. Some of these people became bloggers and/or much worse (e.g. Kyle Huff) John should get himself some help and the rest of us should hope he stays home and never goes to gun shows. I am not qualified to say how we should treat these people, but I am sure we can do more.than we are.

    Loophole is a good name for a dog owned by a lawyer. Loopholes in the gun laws allow people like Kyle to be much more deadly than they have any right to be.

    Before you spew snot out of your blowholes; I own several guns. I use them to kill food. That last dot was a period.

  609. 609
    Hee says:

    Well now, we have all been warned about how cognitive dissonance will make our heads explode. We have just witnessed a sputtering fuse. Some time soon, John will either explode, or wake up from a really bad dream in which his head spins around and spews pea soup.

    I stopped reading John because he keeps alternating back and forth between reason and rage. The rage got boring and John seems to believe Jeff Goldstein makes sense, which defies reason. (and makes John’s rage seem fake).

    Before Reagan, we used to lock up bi-polar people against their will. Some of these people became bloggers and/or much worse (e.g. Kyle Huff) John should get himself some help and the rest of us should hope he stays home and never goes to gun shows. I am not qualified to say how we should treat these people, but I am sure we can do more.than we are.

    Loophole is a good name for a dog owned by a lawyer. Loopholes in the gun laws allow people like Kyle to be much more deadly than they have any right to be.

    Before you spew snot out of your blowholes; I own several guns. I use them to kill food. That last dot was a period.

  610. 610
  611. 611
    Earl says:

    John Cole, your lie’s are as transparent as Ben’s plagiarism. Very weak John, very weak. It seems to run this way with you wingers.

  612. 612
    Pachacutec says:

    I just want to thank you.

    I’m so honored to be labelled as one of the “Jane Hamshers” of the left.

    I may even have commented in some WP diaries over at kos when the story broke.

    Ben is still a racist, and RedState is still a racist fever swamp.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish

    Looks like Domenech is gone, and at least for now, WAPO’s experiment in bringing a rabbid dog into the house is over. I never posted on the whole Domenech thing because: a.) I rarely read the WAPO anymore. b.) Who…

  2. […] The truth about Ben Domenech and race is as John Cole has said.  In the time I’ve known and read Domenech’s works online, he’s never advanced arguments that reasonable people would call racist, and he has consistently opposed the nativist paleoconservative and racial essentialist quarters of the right, also known as the Evilcons.  Here’s Domenech taking to task Evilcon Lawrence Auster: I am pro-immigration, because I want as many people as possible to become Americans. I want them to buy into the values that entails. I want them to enjoy the blessings of liberty that all of us do today. […]

Comments are closed.