The Digitial Lynch Mob

Richard Cohen gets a taste of what it is like to cross the Eschaton knuckle-dragger crew:

Two weeks ago I wrote about Al Gore’s new movie on global warming. I liked the film. In response, I instantly got more than 1,000 e-mails, most of them praising Gore, some calling him the usual names and some concluding there was no such thing as global warming, if only because Gore said there was. I put the messages aside for a slow day, when I would answer them. Then I wrote about Stephen Colbert and his unfunny performance at the White House correspondents’ dinner.

Kapow! Within a day, I got more than 2,000 e-mails. A day later, I got 1,000 more. By the fourth day, the number had reached 3,499 — a figure that does not include the usual offers of nubile Russian women or loot from African dictators. The Colbert messages began with Patrick Manley (“You wouldn’t know funny if it slapped you in the face”) and ended with Ron (“Colbert ROCKS, you MURDER”) who was so proud of his thought that he copied countless others. Ron, you’re a genius.

***

The hatred is back. I know it’s only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations. I can appreciate some of it. Institution after institution failed America — the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have. Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies. If that’s going to be the case, then Iraq is a war its critics will lose twice — once because they couldn’t stop it and once more at the polls.

The reactions were immediate and predictable:

Richard Cohen got 2,000 mean e-mails and this signals the end of the Democratic party. I’ll leave you to figure out why that should follow. In case Cohen hasn’t noticed nobody on the fucking planet likes squishy faux liberal courtiers. There’s no political downside to hating Richard Cohen.

There is, apparently, no ‘political downside’ to being an asshole, so many on the left and the right will continue to urge people to behave like one. Something upsets you- get ten thousand people to fire off vulgar e-mails. Really- it convinces people your position is right. [/sarcasm]

At any rate, there is a certain segment of the online left (and right, for that matter) who think that the key to electoral victory is to keep a certain segment of the population in a frothing rage. Any perceived slight must immediately be met with an email campaign and a ‘Wanker of the day” post that can be linked by the entire “spittle-flecked monitor” wing of the Democratic party, and that will ensure that the evil NEOCONS are kicked out of office in November.

And within an hour of posting this, I will have several people calling me an asshole for not realizing that the country is going to hell and that THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE MAD AS HELL!






326 replies
  1. 1
    Doug says:

    I might be mistaking correlation for causation, but I think it bears noting that frothing, raging jerks have been winning elections since 1994. Because, as we are told, “at least they stand for something.” Being nuanced has gotten the Democrats their lunch handed to them.

  2. 2
    tBone says:

    And within an hour of posting this, I will have several people calling me an asshole for not realizing that the country is going to hell and theat THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE MAD AS HELL!

    Which is exactly why you posted it.

    What, no Cindy Sheehan news today?

  3. 3
    Davebo says:

    Ahh Poor Richard.

    I’m sure he can take some solace from Michelle Maulkin.

    Nasty emails… whoopie!

    The only thing more pathetic than allegedly professional writers complaining about the email they get is Jeff Goldstien in the closet with his dog.

    This is what we waited over a week for? Geez, it’s obviously a slow Cindy Sheehan day.

  4. 4
    Doug says:

    But probably more to the point in this case is that the Republicans have been far more effective in “working the refs” in the past decade. The left-wing digital lynch mob is one way of trying to level the playing field. The country would no doubt be better off if both sides cut it out. But only if *both* sides cut it out.

  5. 5
    Davebo says:

    tbone beat me to it.

  6. 6
    SomeCallMeTim says:

    1. If you can show me one staunch Republican who has been convinced by the sheer ineptitude of the current Administration to vote for Democrats, I’ll find more convincing your implicit argument that we should be trying to politely convince people on the other side to vote our way.

    2. Being dicks hasn’t hurt the Republicans at all. Rush Limbaugh remains a huge figure in the Republican Party. So do the crazed theocrats. Regenery (publisher of Unfit for Command, Men in Black, etc.) is a money-making machine. Nothing succeeds like success. Of course some Democrats are going to ape the Republicans. We want to be successful, too. Welcome to America, John.

  7. 7
    Faux News says:

    I thought Clarence Thomas had the copyright for “Digital Lynching” and/or “Digital Lynch Mob”. Kind of like “Let’s Roll” by the grieving widow Mrs. Beamer.

    I’m sure RedState.com is all over this. I think I will go see what the Kool Aid drinkers are up to over there.

    Signed,

    Tofu Hot Dog

  8. 8
    Brian says:

    I am glad you linked this story. True, the Right has its version of the Kossacks. LGF, for instance. But the ratio of moonbat to wingnut sites is about 10:1. The Left is so riddled with rage that it’s difficult to imagine how that can be turned into political capital that wins elections. I guess we’ll see in a few months, but the results don’t look good for sane Democrats, who only get vilified by their Angry Left for straying off the message of hate.

    I loved this from Cohen’s piece:

    When I guilelessly clicked on the name, I would get a bucket of raw, untreated and disease-laden verbal sewage right in the face

    That is a perfect description of certain commenters on this very site. And when I have the temerity to point it out, I get more of the same. Angry Left, indeed.

  9. 9
    Jill says:

    Well, let’s take John’s advice and instead of getting mad it’s time we get even! Right, John?

    I say let’s impeach the president and we’ll call it even!

  10. 10
    Krista says:

    The country would no doubt be better off if both sides cut it out. But only if both sides cut it out.

    Good point. The only difficulty with wanting to tune out the nutbar fringes of both sides, is that it’s all so subjective. Who decides what constitues the nutbar fringe of the right? Is Pat Roberts on the nutbar fringe, or are his attitudes shared by more people than we’d realize? Is Howard Dean on the nutbar fringe? Depends on who you talk to, really. Unfortunately, political discourse is now ruled by whoever has the snappiest sound bite, and it winds up resembling nothing so much as a nap-deprived preschool. And I’m sure it’s been like this ever since politics existed.

  11. 11
    Brian says:

    I’m sure RedState.com is all over this. I think I will go see what the Kool Aid drinkers are up to over there.

    Well, why don’t you give us an update on this. How are the Kool-Aid drinkers treating this story? Well? WELL??

    So much for your assumptions.

  12. 12
    Rob says:

    from Kos; a better thought out response:

    The whole “angry left” myth is a copout, an escape-hatch for those who are confronted by fact and choose to respond by attacking the messenger rather than the message. It’s a cowardly tactic that originated on the radical right (see Malkin and the “moonbats”); lately, we have seen its use on the rise in the traditional media. It is, indeed, a pathetic diversionary tactic. Instead of addressing the substance of the critique, those who use the easy-out “angry left” defense avoid addressing the true issue at hand.

  13. 13
    Brian says:

    I say let’s impeach the president and we’ll call it even!

    So, that’s what the anger’s about? Getting even over Clinton? The 2000 election?

    Whatever. Won’t happen. Get some professional help.

  14. 14
    Ancient Purple says:

    Question: How come Cohen never actually rebutts any criticism of his claim that Colbert was unfunny?

    Or was asking that question just me being angry?

  15. 15
    Perry Como says:

    True, the Right has its version of the Kossacks. LGF, for instance. But the ratio of moonbat to wingnut sites is about 10:1.

    The Left tends to be more tech savvy. The Right has a ratio of about 100:1 with wingnuts in radio.

    I’d say it would be nice to see both sides stop it, but then my shares in Orville Redenbacher would drop.

  16. 16
    Faux News says:

    So much for your assumptions

    Is this where you tell me to “suck a donkey’s penis” like you usually say to “Lihbruls”?

    By the way, great post on RedState.com today on why Jimmy Carter SHOULD have been impeached! Tomorrow it will be on why FDR should have been impeached.

    Feel free to join them Brian and imbibe with the KCN Kool Aid.

    Reminder: You are no scs and never will be…

  17. 17
    Jason Robertson says:

    All this started in the 1990’s with the GOP’s frothing rage toward Slick Willie. The left is only following that winning example.

  18. 18
    Marcus Wellby says:

    At any rate, there is a certain segment of the online left (and right, for that matter) who think that the key to electoral victory is to keep a certain segment of the population in a frothing rage.

    Something you would never ever hear on the wonderful world of talk radio.

    I’d wager that most sports writters get more hate mail in one day than Cohen will in his entire career. This baby needs to grow some thicker skin or get a new line of work.

  19. 19
    VidaLoca says:

    Cohen’s problem is that he writes BS like this

    I can appreciate some of it. Institution after institution failed America—the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have.

    that seeks, through its passive-voice construction, to avoid facing the fact that as part of “the press” he bears some personal responsibility for the press’ refusal to do its job in critiquing, overseeing, investigating and exposing the most disastrous political regime in the country’s history. Instread he’s wailing that Colbert isn’t funny. No — Colbert bitch-slapped Cohen, and Cohen’s in denial. “Institution after institution failed America” — give me a break.

    Memo to Cohen: re your email. You’re getting exactly the respect you deserve.

  20. 20

    What’d Richard Cohen say to bring on the deluge?

    I’ll point to another example of right-wing idiocy, and I’ve emailed this guy before…

    John Dickerson

    Now what outraged me about his article? It wasn’t actually the opinion, I thought that was pretty braindead. Nor was it the unflattering picture, as I thought that was pretty juvenile. Naw, it was the misrepresentation of facts.

    Pelosi outlined her plans if the Democrats take control of the House. She started promisingly, vowing quick action to raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures, and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls.

    My understanding of what Pelosi has said, is that they intend on granting the Medicare department the authority to negotiate bulk discounts.

    This is rolling back parts?

    Everybody get’s their own opinion. But you don’t get your own facts. I don’t even know if it’s a worthwhile measure. But Dickerson doesn’t even discuss that. No, he mischaracterizes it like a 5 year old debate school flunkie.

  21. 21
    Jill says:

    Cohen, et al, are pissed b/c with email every reader has an easy way to give instant input to columnists and reporters. Gone are the days of writing, stamping and mailing a letter to the editor.

    Brian, thanks for the concern…

  22. 22

    I’d wager that most sports writters get more hate mail in one day than Cohen will in his entire career. This baby needs to grow some thicker skin or get a new line of work.

    I gotta agree. If Cohen is going to get paid money to spew his bullshit on the Op-Ed page, he ought to get a thicker skin when people spew bullshit back at him.

  23. 23
    tBone says:

    [When I guilelessly clicked on the name, I would get a bucket of raw, untreated and disease-laden verbal sewage right in the face]

    That is a perfect description of certain commenters on this very site. And when I have the temerity to point it out, I get more of the same. Angry Left, indeed.

    You’re right, Brian. Your post asking Tim how Kos’ ass smelled demonstrated how reasonable you are compared to the howling moonbats on this site.

  24. 24
    Brian says:

    Rob,

    You think that this is a well-thought-out response from Kos:

    The whole “angry left” myth is a copout, an escape-hatch for those who are confronted by fact and choose to respond by attacking the messenger rather than the message

    How exactly does a writer of Cohen’s caliber respond to this:

    Colbert ROCKS, you MURDER

    Or this:

    You wouldn’t know funny if it slapped you in the face

    That is about as substantive as the “thoughts” get. And it’s ALL OVER THE INTERNET. Why should he respond to it favorably? All the guy did originally was criticize Colbert. He’s a fucking comedian!! But it was as though Cohen was critical of an Angry Left God-figure, and therefore was blasphemous of him to do so, so he had to be treated like the Danish cartoonists.

    The Angry Left is more similar to the Islamic radicals than they are to any sane American political opposition trying to gain political clout through a genuine exchange of ideas. What ideas or thoughts do you offer?

  25. 25
    Brian says:

    Your post asking Tim how Kos’ ass smelled demonstrated how reasonable you are compared to the howling moonbats on this site.

    That’s all you’ve got on me, and you know it. That’s why you bring it up every time you post to me, that very same example. Take your ball and go home now.

  26. 26
    neil says:

    Anyone who would call this a ‘Digital Lynch Mob’ is obviously too thin-skinned to make it in the newspaper business. Please, don’t you realize that Richard Cohen is the only man in America qualified to express his political opinions? That’s why they pay him the big bucks, people.

    And where did you get the idea that you could email the author with your reactions? Just because they provide you with his email address? That’s the equivalent of throwing a rock at somebody’s head, you disgusting radical. There is simply no distinction to be made between reacting to a column and physically assaulting a stranger. None.

  27. 27
    Perry Como says:

    The Atrios’ of the Angry Left are like the Zarqawi’s of the Islamists, chopping off the heads of rational debate.

  28. 28
    tBone says:

    I’ll point to another example of right-wing idiocy, and I’ve emailed this guy before…

    Other Steve – I don’t always agree with John Dickerson, but I’ve never gotten the impression that he’s particularly right-wing. I don’t see that line you quoted as being all that inaccurate – they plan to “roll back” the parts of the law that don’t allow negotiation with prescription drug companies, aren’t they?

  29. 29

    You think that this is a well-thought-out response from Kos:

    Didn’t georgia10 write that and not kos?

    How exactly does a writer of Cohen’s caliber respond to this:

    Cohen’s caliber? Probably with…

    I know you are, but what am I?

    Colbert ROCKS, you MURDER

    Where did this come from anyway? It’s not in georgia’s post.

    That is about as substantive as the “thoughts” get. And it’s ALL OVER THE INTERNET. Why should he respond to it favorably? All the guy did originally was criticize Colbert. He’s a fucking comedian!! But it was as though Cohen was critical of an Angry Left God-figure, and therefore was blasphemous of him to do so, so he had to be treated like the Danish cartoonists.

    So why are you so ANGRY about this, Brian?

  30. 30
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Great, so Cohen has 3000 hate-filled e-mails, and the most corrosive he can find to exemplify the fever-swamp is “You wouldn’t know funny if it slapped you in the face?”

    Christ, that’s an opinion, not vitriol.

    But keep telling yourself that just because a journalist didn’t have a fainting couch and spilled his latte when he fell that this tolls the death of the Democratic party.

    Seriously, doesn’t anyone see any irony in the fact that he’s writing about e-mails he received to a post that he thought was relatively innocuous? Aren’t the e-mails no big thing either? What a wanker. Guess he must’ve had writer’s block or something. Clearly there’s nothing more important to write about. [koff]Hayden/Goss/Twatergate[koff]

  31. 31
    neil says:

    When I guilelessly clicked on the name, I would get a bucket of raw, untreated and disease-laden verbal sewage right in the face

    Perhaps someone should throw a real bucket of untreated disease-laden sewage in Cohen’s face so he would learn the difference.

  32. 32

    Being out of the country means I miss a few things. When, for instance, did the left decide it hated The Washington Post as much as the right hates The New York Times? Is this loathing of the Post a necessary part of the fringe left’s attempt to mold itself into a mirror-image of the fringe right?

    If the left is gonna copy the right’s ideas they might, y’know, at least try copying ideas that are good for the country instead of regurgitating the tactics that have left the American body politic diseased and deranged.

    John, you asshole, this sad state of affairs is clearly all your fault for not posting more.

  33. 33
    Brian says:

    Feel free to join them Brian and imbibe with the KCN Kool Aid.

    You’re the one who said he was heading over to see what the RedStaters are doing today on this story. Well, how did it go? I really wanted an update.

    There’s not one? Oh well. I guess that Jimmy Carter post will have to suffice as a rage-generator.

    More rationalizations for sociopathic politital behavior. More apologies for hate (from the “Repub’s are the party of hate” crowd). More twisted logic to support some warped sense of free speech. What a clueless bunch you are.

  34. 34
    tBone says:

    That’s why you bring it up every time you post to me, that very same example.

    Sorry, I’m too lazy to go back and cull the rest of your greatest hits. If you want a new example, take some time off from compiling your ppGaz list and put together one of your own material.

  35. 35
    Brian says:

    TOS,

    Commenter Rob posted that georgia10’s post was from Kos, so yes, it was from Kos. You’re splitting hairs.

    And the other comment “Colbert ROCKS….” was from the WaPo pice which you obviously haven’t bothered to read, thereby demonstrating another sad aspect of the Left: their willingness to opine like experts on thisngs they know absolutely nothing about, and have not the urge to know about. Hate used in the place of genuine thought.

  36. 36

    Other Steve – I don’t always agree with John Dickerson, but I’ve never gotten the impression that he’s particularly right-wing. I don’t see that line you quoted as being all that inaccurate – they plan to “roll back” the parts of the law that don’t allow negotiation with prescription drug companies, aren’t they?

    If he’s spewing the right-wing talking points, he’s a right-wing shill. Maybe he’s too much in DC, I don’t really care.

    The last time I sent him a letter was when he claimed that the only credible people criticizing Bush were Republicans. everybody else was a Bush Hater.

    The term ‘rolling back’ has a negative connontation. What Pelosi says they want to do is strengthening the program. He used ‘rolling back’ purposefully because it sounds negative.

    I learned this from my Republican friends complaining about left wing bias.

    I used to be of the opinion that the bias was primarily pro-status quo. Regardless, it serves my purposes to claim they are right-wing shills, so that is what i’m going to do.

  37. 37
    Brian says:

    This’ll be a short thread, I can see. You can only defend the indefensible so much, and a few dozen responses pretty much uses up what little steam you have. Better to reserve it for things you can REALLY get angry about, which is just about anything, as you have shown.

  38. 38

    Commenter Rob posted that georgia10’s post was from Kos, so yes, it was from Kos. You’re splitting hairs.

    This post? That’s clearly georgia10. Where are you getting this Kos stuff?

    And the other comment “Colbert ROCKS….” was from the WaPo pice which you obviously haven’t bothered to read, thereby demonstrating another sad aspect of the Left: their willingness to opine like experts on thisngs they know absolutely nothing about, and have not the urge to know about. Hate used in the place of genuine thought.

    Because I don’t give a shit what Cohen has to say, never read his columns… Never sent him an email, and make a comment that maybe he ought to get a thicker skin…

    Somehow this displays the sad state of affairs of the Left.

    Talk about moonbatville…

  39. 39

    This’ll be a short thread, I can see. You can only defend the indefensible so much, and a few dozen responses pretty much uses up what little steam you have. Better to reserve it for things you can REALLY get angry about, which is just about anything, as you have shown.

    Shorter Brian:

    Honestly, I have no defense for whining. So I’m leaving to drink myself into a stupor so I don’t have to remember that I voted for Bush and am deeply sorry of that.

    While you are drowning in your sorrows, Brian, why don’t you read this wingnut commentators take.

  40. 40
    neil says:

    Richard Cohen himself would never insult those who he disagrees with:

    The evidence [Powell] presented to the United Nations — some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail — had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn’t accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool — or possibly a Frenchman — could conclude otherwise.

    Richard Cohen, February 6, 2003

    Cohen will always rise to defend decorum in political arguments:

    “Liar” is a word rarely used in Washington. This is not because the town lacks liars but because the word is so unambiguous — so lacking in customary fudge — that its use was long ago forbidden by, of course, consensus. So it was particularly shocking, not to mention refreshing, to hear Richard Perle on Sunday call Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) a liar to his face.

    Richard Cohen, February 25, 2003

    Ok, Ok, but surely Cohen isn’t a …. hypocrite?

    Having rounded up his usual suspects, O’Reilly ended a segment about Hamilton [College] by providing the name of the college’s president, Joan Hinde Stewart, her e-mail address and the school’s phone number. Then, blood dripping from his evil heart, he asked his deranged viewers to “keep your comments respectable.”

    The school caved. Stewart reported getting 6,000 or so messages, and I know, because I get them all the time, that many of them were vile and obscene and even threatening. But this is the true cost of free speech.

    Richard Cohen, February 3, 2005

  41. 41
    ImJohnGalt says:

    I’m not sure that’s true, Brian. We’ve had really long threads here in which you have defended the actions of the current administration, which are pretty much textbook definitions of the word indefensible.

  42. 42
    Sojourner says:

    Send your thanks to Atwater (may he not rest in peace), Gingrich, and Rove. Their divisive strategy for winning elections has brought us to this sorry state of affairs.

  43. 43
    ImJohnGalt says:

    And by the way, where are the grammar-nazis? The title of this post offends me. “Digitial”?

    Oh, and always nice to juxtapose a post about so-called lefty whining with a “lynch mob”. You damned republicans are so much better at framing the issues to appeal to your base.

  44. 44
    Jill says:

    Angry emails are sooo very indefensible, maybe even more indefensible than the current administration, right Brian?

  45. 45
    Otto Man says:

    thereby demonstrating another sad aspect of the Left: their willingness to opine like experts on thisngs they know absolutely nothing about, and have not the urge to know about. Hate used in the place of genuine thought.

    You misspelled “the Right” as “the Left” for some reason. Other than that, well said.

    I did read Cohen’s two pieces on L’Affair Colbert, and I like how both times he’s managed to avoid the substance of the comedian’s critique and instead focused on the style. Colbert was rude, and now the emailers were rude. And now poor Richard has his hanky clutched tearfully to his eyelashes.

    He never addresses the substance of Colbert’s criticisms — much like all the other apologists on the right — because he simply can’t. It’s easy to say that Colbert “crossed a line” with his roast when you ignore all the lines Bush has crossed. Bush’s jokes about no WMDs in Iraq was hysterical, right? And turning this country into a theocratic dictatorship is even better yet.

    Stop it. Please. He’s killing us here.

  46. 46
    Steve says:

    The term ‘rolling back’ has a negative connontation. What Pelosi says they want to do is strengthening the program. He used ‘rolling back’ purposefully because it sounds negative.

    I don’t really think so. The Democrats often talk in terms of rolling back the offensive parts of Republican legislation. To take an obvious example, the Democrats don’t want to raise taxes; they just want to roll back some of the Republican tax cuts.

    It’s a positive frame; instead of implying “the Republicans passed a good law, and we are going to build on it,” they say “the Republicans passed a bad law, and we are going to undo it.” I think you’re drawing the wrong assumption here.

  47. 47
    tBone says:

    The term ‘rolling back’ has a negative connontation. What Pelosi says they want to do is strengthening the program. He used ‘rolling back’ purposefully because it sounds negative.

    The program has been such a clusterfuck that I don’t think the average person would attach any negative connotations to parts of it being “rolled back” rather than “straightened out.”

    Dickerson does have that annoying habit of confusing “balance” with “giving equal weight to truth and bullshit talking points,” I’ll give you that.

  48. 48
    Otto Man says:

    You can only defend the indefensible so much

    Really? The president sure does a great job of it.

    “Harriet Miers is the most qualified person for the Supreme Court.”

    “You’re doin’ a heckuva job, Brownie.”

    “I’m the decider! And I’ll decide if Donald Rumsfeld should stay or go!”

    “What mistakes have I made? I can’t think of any.”

  49. 49
    Sherard says:

    And within an hour of posting this, I will have several people calling me an asshole for not realizing that the country is going to hell and that THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE MAD AS HELL!

    Yeah. And the most interesting thing is that one of them posts on this blog more often than you do. Ironic, that.

  50. 50
    Andrei says:

    At any rate, there is a certain segment of the online left (and right, for that matter)…

    This post might have been more credible had you left out the paranthentical. As such, it’s just par for the course it would seem.

  51. 51
    Zifnab says:

    Again, I don’t see what’s so horrible about a rallied up Democratic base. When Howard Dean was elected DNC chairman, Rush Limbaugh bemoaned the beginning of the end for the Democratic Party. When DeLay got indited, he tried to use the attack on him to rally Texas against those partisan Democrats. When Feingold proposed censoring the President, Republicans thought they could fire up the base by crying “Impeachment” and “The Criminalization of Politics”.

    Every time the Republicans have been tragically wrong. So when a partisan whiner like Cohen starts crying over how the Democrats are diggin their own graves by speaking out and giving a damn, I think we should do what we’ve been doing for the past 3 years and not listen to him. The left has tried to be unified, they’ve belayed their concerns, sat down and shut up and let the noble Republicans run the country with their bullshit rhetoric and hate speech. Now people are pissed off, and that’s a good thing.

  52. 52
    Sherard says:

    Wow, great approach guys. Cohen is “too think-skinned”. Frothing lefty rage ? Move along, nothing to see here.

    Gotcha.

    My favorite comment so far, though, has to be the one where frothing rage = winning elections. Strange, but I’m pretty sure the anti-war frothing lunatics were opposed to Bush in 2004 and lost big time. If the moonbats that inhabit these comments think otherwise, I find that pretty amusing as the results are likely to be duplicated until the frothing rage is replaced by something approaching reason. Then again, they do like to label themselves, ironically, the “reality” based community. Good one.

  53. 53
    Punchy says:

    And by the way, where are the grammar-nazis? The title of this post offends me. “Digitial”?

    More like spelling-nazis. Anyways, here’s what I never could figure out. Some blog, right or left, will instruct its minions to email the crap out of some journalist, newspaper, etc.. And so they send 5, 10, 15K emails. Do they REALLY think those emails are getting read? What’s the point? No one’s reading more than 2 or 3 before deleting the whole inbox, right?

  54. 54

    It’s a positive frame; instead of implying “the Republicans passed a good law, and we are going to build on it,” they say “the Republicans passed a bad law, and we are going to undo it.” I think you’re drawing the wrong assumption here.

    Point taken. He’s still an asshole, though.

  55. 55
    Sherard says:

    Zifnab, just classic, I say. CLASSIC.

    Every time the Republicans have been tragically wrong.

    I’m assuming, “wrong” in your opinion. Otherwise, you could point to actual results where Democrats “beat” Republicans.

    Now people are pissed off, and that’s a good thing.

    Oh, NOW they are pissed. Right. And in in 2004, they were all just okee dokee with Bush I guess. The pissed off frothing rage didn’t work in 2004 and it is not going to work any more this year or in 2008. Now, certainly, there are others that “disapprove”, but they are the ones whose approval is transitory, and can be swayed one way or the other. Those people are not frothing with rage and I have a tip for you, you are winning them over with YOUR frothing rage. But, keep on with the rage if you think that works. By all means.

  56. 56
    les says:

    Why doesn’t anyone, including Cohen, address the following, which seems to me to be the heart of the deal:

    The nature of the modern medium ensures that any critique by internet users–conservative and liberal alike–will be massive, unfiltered, and instantaneous. And it will always be effortless to cherry-pick intense or inappropriate comments or emails and use them to dismiss an entire dissenting view as nothing more than the angry rants of a disillusioned group.

    Or are we supposed to believe, with Cohen and (apprently) John, that every e-mail was like the two horible examples of “sewage” we’re given? Not a single message raised any reasonable point worth a response? Or is it just too hard?

  57. 57
    Sojourner says:

    Then again, they do like to label themselves, ironically, the “reality” based community. Good one.

    OMG. I can’t believe that anyone on the whacko right would seriously challenge the left’s reality-based designation considering the left has been consistently correct about this administration and its incompetence.

    Give it up, babe!

  58. 58

    Strange, but I’m pretty sure the anti-war frothing lunatics were opposed to Bush in 2004 and lost big time.

    An “incumbent” won by the narrowest of margins in like forever is a “big time” win?

    Your definition of success and failure is odd. No wonder your President’s approval is at 31% and nobody likes you.

  59. 59

    Sherard,

    I sense anger. Why are you so angry?

    Didn’t Bush win in 2004? Why are you so concerned with what the moonbat lefties have to say?

  60. 60
    neil says:

    les, he does admit that he didn’t read all the messages. But he’s also fairly clear on the point that no mere reader is capable of making a good argument to him.

  61. 61

    Wasn’t Bush’s win a validation of the love for your Fearless Leader? I don’t understand. Why are you so all concerned with what a bunch of Bush Haters have to say?

  62. 62
    ppGaz says:

    In 18 months, the basic mantra of the right shifted from “We won, get over it” to “You lefties are so angry.”

    Has the right actually got anything more than the taunts you’d hear at the local high school boys’ bathroom?

    The government of this country is in shambles, and the 25-year Republican hegemony is in danger of becoming a six-year clusterfuck, and this is the best you can do?

    The left is so riddled with rage

    The reason why I implore John and Tim to do something about this absurdly embarassing Darrell-Brian-Par material is that it’s the right that is being embarassed here. The right has no useful representation any more in this layer of blogovillia.

    It’s all “You just hate Bush” and “You have no new ideas” and these repeated, useless taunts.

    Well, here’s an idea: When your government is in the toilet, fire it and get a new government. That’s the main purpose of HAVING a constitutional process for changing governments, isn’t it? To provide the people with the means to peacefully overthrow the dunderheads.

    So, let’s overthrow them. If there’s a Cole or a Brian or a Darrell over there doing the schoolboy taunt thing, then to hell with them. We’re playing with live ammo here.

    Sure, we could collaborate on the best way to proceed from here, in the best of all possible worlds. But that’s the point of decrying the Darrell-Brian-Par thing ….. you can’t collaborate with them. They just want to keep defending the people who go us into this shitpile in the first place.

    Uh, sorry …. that ship has sailed. Game over.

  63. 63
    Perry Como says:

    An “incumbent” won by the narrowest of margins in like forever is a “big time” win?

    Bush had a mandate after the 2004 election.

    A MANdate.

    Let me reiterate, a Man Date.

    Jeff Gannon, clean up on aisle 4.

  64. 64
    Steve says:

    I can’t even bring myself to get worked up over this discussion. Just make sure to clip and save this crap for when we have a Democrat in the White House again, please.

  65. 65
    neil says:

    Cohen has certainly based a lot of columns on the nasty email he gets.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....Dec22.html

  66. 66
    Punchy says:

    thought Clarence Thomas had the copyright for “Digital Lynching” and/or “Digital Lynch Mob”.

    No, that’s Lench Mob, copyrighted by Ice Cube. And if Lunch Mob is copyrighted, since it involves food, I’m betting Limbaugh owns it.

  67. 67
    DonkeyKong says:

    Let me understand this. Because Dick Cohen got some testy emails, the american public will rise up to smite the Democrats, liberals and antiwar types.

    Un-fucking-believable.

    Apparently, a steady diet of crabcakes, chardonney and cocktail chatter can make you insane.

  68. 68
    Andrei says:

    This post might have been more credible had you left out the paranthentical.

    Not that it matters, but I meant left off the paranthesis… need coffee still.

  69. 69
    ImJohnGalt says:

    neil, the funniest part of that story you linked:

    What struck me about the e-mails was how none of these writers paid any attention to what I had to say. Instead, they preferred to deal with a caricature — someone who belonged to a movement, a conspiracy, and was taking orders in the service of some vast, nefarious cause. E-mails are the drive-by shootings of the common man. The face of the victim is never seen.

    The mind boggles.

  70. 70
    Mike in SLO says:

    The angry left is doing what the angry right did in the 90’s. After all, it worked for them.

  71. 71
    Ryan S. says:

    I have a feeling that most of those emails came not from true left leaning people, but from the legions of rabid college-aged Stephan Colbert fans. Who would have sent them to anyone who would Anything disparaging about him.

  72. 72
    slickdpdx says:

    ppG urging meaningful discussion and decrying taunting is one of the funnier comments i’ve read anywhere today

  73. 73
    Al Maviva says:

    Neil says:

    Perhaps someone should throw a real bucket of untreated disease-laden sewage in Cohen’s face so he would learn the difference.

    Hey, that’d show Cohen how wrong he is about the left being angry, Neil. Guess you win that argument.

  74. 74
    Ryan S. says:

    would SAY Anything …. is what i meant

  75. 75
    Al Maviva says:

    Oh, I’ll save y’all some time and just auto-pen Meta-responses to my comment to Neil for everybody from this point on:

    Andru: Liar, Liar, Logical fallacies on fire!

    Deep Purple: But you still haven’t answered my question about the Bush family being behind the designated hitter rule, and the infiltration of ex-Nazis into the National League. You lose.

    Slid: Shorter Al Maviva: “I have nothing to say so I make up bullshit about other people’s arguments. Then I make up meta bullshit about other people’s ad hominems. Then I make up meta meta bullshit about other people descent into profanity over my meta bullshit over their ad hominems…”

    Curseda: Yet another attempt to defend the indefensible.

    The Other Other, Secondary Alternate Steve: Conservatives are basically evil because they all generalize about libruls.

    Brain: I tried to be rational, but now I’m just going to blockquote 53 inane things PPGAZ just said, conclusively demonstrating that he is nuts. Because none of you suspected that before.

    PPGAZ: &$#%^! Plus, *%^@ Republican (%&# and (^%&@ing %*#@ers!

    Tim: Ducks float. What else float. Witches. So if a Republican goes swimming and floats, what is he? A corrupt, warmongering murderous bastard. That’s right! This should be entertaining. I’m cool with it. Here, have a beer.

    Jon Kohl: Oh, I get so tired of the incivility, hurtfulness, and the name calling you pack of stupid *$%*&sucking *(%$^4-buckets.

  76. 76
    yet another jeff says:

    If the Cohen’s argument was that Colbert wasn’t funny, isn’t “you wouldn’t know funny if it slapped you in the face” an apt reply? Hell, if he found it to be “frothing rage” it further proves that he wouldn’t know funny. That’s classic stuff, it killed in the Catskills.

    I don’t know, but I think that if he isn’t laughing when someone says “Colbert ROCKS, you MURDER” or “You wouldn’t know funny if it slapped you in the face.” then he truly doesn’t know funny as it is already slapping him in the face.

    “you MURDER”…brilliant and absurdist.

    BTW, when exactly did The Right start categorizing everything The Left did as a symptom of rabies?

  77. 77
    Andrew says:

    Hey, that’d show Cohen how wrong he is about the left being angry, Neil. Guess you win that argument.

    I have to give al credit for two things here:
    1) Somehow restraining himself from writing 2000-3000 words on the subject, and
    2) succesfully framing the debate to be about the “angry-left.”

    The real question is, why the fuck shouldn’t we be angry? I’m angry that the Bush administration has let a city die, killed about 50,000 innocent civilians in Iraq, and run up deficits that my grandkids will be paying off to their Chinese overlords.

    If we can’t get angry now, when can we? I, for one, refuse to take in the ass like some sort of Whitehouse reporter.

  78. 78
    Krista says:

    I have a feeling that most of those emails came not from true left leaning people, but from the legions of rabid college-aged Stephan Colbert fans. Who would have sent them to anyone who would Anything disparaging about him.

    I have a feeling you’re right, and that those e-mails were more about their love for Colbert than their concern for the direction in which the country is heading. At any rate…a “lynch mob”? I mean…really? Has anybody died from this? Have families or livelihoods been ruined? It’s just a bunch of pissy emails clogging up somebody’s inbox. The left may be Angry ™, but the right certainly seems to have cornered the market on Melodramatically Persecuted ™.

  79. 79
    Parahalo says:

    Eschaton crew are not smart people who think they are in a position to be smart, but, if you try to take that away, you find they are the same as MSM in the early days acting like modern dems wanting money and power.

    So, when it comes to sensing and following coups, maybe they should listen a little instead of destroying what was in power to have them taken out of power and feeding on the the corpse like a maggot of who they did’nt like like someone else to get ahead of a game everybody else already had figured out like the persons in the country they are trying to effect by not affecting and keeping quiet until what they really wanted to happen happens and then claiming they were as right as the persons who arranged the coup, not tht those were locals in that country being used by some other country that Eschaton wants a job from or, at the least, something special(they are).

    Well, I guess they allow comments now, but that’s because…………….

  80. 80
    Ryan S. says:

    BTW, when exactly did The Right start categorizing everything The Left did as a symptom of rabies?

    Since they found out they couldn’t run government any better then the left.

  81. 81
    Andrew says:

    Oh crap, strike that first point. Al must have accidentally hit submit before his rant was finished.

  82. 82
    Davebo says:

    Cohen, like Cole but to a greater extent, has no choice but to reprint hate mail from readers.

    He has to deflect the fact that he (and Cole) are partially responsible for one of the biggest bonehead foreign policy ideas since the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

    Frankly I find it hilarious that John is complaining about faux outrage in a piece who’s only real point is to create a faux outrage to deflect from the very real outrage generated by their past boneheaded decisions.

  83. 83
    Al Maviva says:

    Hey, if you feel that way, then go throw some sewage, Andrew. Please. Be my guest. Be as angry as you like. Whatever makes you feel better. And keep using gays as a metaphor in your commentary on Republicans. That scores points too. Very impressive. Like Neil, you just won both of those arguments. I’m convinced.

  84. 84
    NMitrea says:

    Just read this too understand why Cohen felt it was rude and why he shouldn’t have – http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20060509.html

  85. 85
    tBone says:

    Who would have ever suspected that Al Maviva, King of the Absurdly Long Post, would turn in an excellent Cliff’s Notes version of an entire thread? Nice work, Al.

  86. 86
    LITBMueller says:

    The really interesting part of the “who’s angrier” debate is that its the right that more often turns their righteous indignation into action (at least in the past 10-15 years).

    I mean, its not the “moonbats” who are forming militias and gathering on the border with Mexico, or gathering outside a hospice to demand that a woman be kept on life support even though her cerebral cortex had turned to mush, or staging “Brooks Brothers Riots” to stop an election recount in Florida, or protesting at abortion clinics, or dressing up as a ninja and torching a porno shop in order to serve God.

    I guess this can be seen in two ways: (1) that there is a difference between anonymous drive-by emailing and lashing out in public, and (2) perhaps the left would be more successful politically if they turned their anger and “frothing” into some form of organized (and civilized) political action.

  87. 87
    Al Maviva says:

    I’m sorry, Andrew. I’ll try to keep things in a format you can follow. No more than ten words per sentence. No more than two syllables (sill-uh-bulls) per word. No more than ten short sentences. Is this paragraph okay? It has a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 2.5. That is a bit high for you. But if you try hard, you can do it! I will try to find a crayon font if that is easier for you.

  88. 88
    tBone says:

    And keep using gays as a metaphor in your commentary on Republicans.

    I think Andrew was using prison rape as a metaphor in his commentary on the Washington press corps, Al.

  89. 89
    John S. says:

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Wake me up when someone has anything interesting to say.

  90. 90
    ppGaz says:

    ppG urging meaningful discussion and decrying taunting

    I don’t see where I’ve urged anything called “meaningful discussion,” especially here. The name of the blog is a metaphor for Hot Air, not discussion.

    What I’m urging is that the right take some responsbility for its commentariat. If stupid taunts and “lefties are poopyheads” are all you have, then you might as well give it up. This is a lefty blogsite now.

    My approach to this has always been the same, which is basically “respond in kind.” That’s all I do, and it’s a tactic that works almost all the time. There is no faster or surer way to piss off your adversary and throw him off stride than to respond in kind … just mirror back his own rhetoric and bullshit. Try it on Brian sometime and see what happens. You can get him to go meltdown in 36 hours or less every time.

    The GOP era of struts and chest-beating is over. The GOP has failed, its government has failed, and it’s blog representation has failed. If you want something useful going forward, you are going to have to come up with something better than Brian and Darrell and their idiotic taunts. I can out-taunt them all day and all night, and have, and will again, and neutralize them completely. They are the ones without the ideas and the vision at this point, not us. We have a clear vision: The government is fired. It failed, the people are sick of it, and it is fired.

    Sit around here and defend it for old times’ sake?

    Why? To what purpose? To what effect?

    Cut the crap, fellas. This party is over. Been over for a long time. We’re just fuckin with ya at this point.

  91. 91
    canuckistani says:

    I’m an angry lefty (a moderate liberal in canadian terms), but I am also disgusted by the ad-hominem attacks on both sides.
    I present this comic for your consideration:
    Penny Arcade

  92. 92
    Bone-In RibEye says:

    I still haven’t seen the Colbert routine but it is sooooo entertaining watching the right trip over themselves trying to outdo each other in the game of shitting on the Colbert routine. Makes me feel we have a chance to boot these ‘republicans’ from office and get this country moving again.

  93. 93
    Andrew says:

    I think Andrew was using prison rape as a metaphor in his commentary on the Washington press corps, Al.

    Well, just Jeff Gannon. But I totally love Prison Break! Wentworth Miller is so dreamy! And T-bag would soooo make David Gregory his bitch.

  94. 94
    ppGaz says:

    but I am also disgusted by the ad-hominem attacks on both sides.

    So, you would choose to hang around (a) a blog whose name is a metaphor for “Hot Air” …. and (b) a blog where the principal owner has been know to post entire series of articles explicitly “just to piss off” commenters ……………………

    …..why?

  95. 95
    Andrew says:

    Cut the crap, fellas. This party is over. Been over for a long time. We’re just fuckin with ya at this point.

    Actually, I think we should start planning for the internment of Christians as the final solution to the War on Christmas.

  96. 96
    ppGaz says:

    I think we should start planning for the internment of Christians

    Well, we have a lot of the most troublesome ones confined to Colorado now. That’s a start.

  97. 97
    fwiffo says:

    Richard Cohen, Joe Klein and the like strike me as truly remarkable weenies. Golly gee, they got hate mail because they wasted paper on their dingbat opinions. My God, think of the children!

    I once had the temerity to post on my web page that I don’t like the Beatles. I’m not talking about some major blog here – it’s my personal vanity page where I play around with web design and occasionally post random junk. It doesn’t even have blogging software, and I don’t know if I’m even linked from anywhere. You wouldn’t believe the volume of hate mail I recieved.

    Ya know what I did? I rolled my eyes and ignored them. For one particularly persistent person who decided it was a good idea to send me multiple megabytes of articles explaining how wrong I was, I blacklisted them.

    Seriously, if an inbox full of idiotic crap is such a disaster for these people, perhaps they ought to get a real job and find out what actual hardship is like.

  98. 98
    Ancient Purple says:

    Great post, Al.

    However, I noticed that you still can’t comment without having at least 10 paragraphs.

  99. 99
    Alexandra says:

    How does he know he got three thousand angry hate emails? It sounds as if he opened about three of them. What a crybaby.

  100. 100
    dave says:

    Proof that Colbert wasn’t funny–

    NOBODY IN THE ROOM WAS LAUGHING.

    is that so hard to figure out? Saying he wasn’t funny isn’t the same as saying his comments weren’t biting and incisive and risky and provocative and sharp and spot-on and all that crap.. but if they were funny, wouldn’t the room have been falling apart with laughter?

    IT WASN’T.

    Funny is about the comic making his audience laugh. He didn’t. End of story.

  101. 101
    Bone-In RibEye says:

    You don’t like the Beatles? Why not?

  102. 102
    Pb says:

    Al Maviva,

    Nice try, but you forgot to caricature your inevitable response:

    Isnt it amazing how your ideas on the Caliphate point on the war indicates a viewpoint neutrality that might reasonably be viewed regionally as just another Zionist oppression of the former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO still gives him legitimate security concerns, and he might view Russia as well served by anything diverting U.S. attention from Europe. So the negotiations with the Republican Party, a couple apparently good Supreme Court choices notwithstanding. If yall didnt have such blinders on about conservatives (and right leaning libertarians) youd see the huge gap between these fat, sleek rent-seekers and the federal bureaucracy.

    yeah, I guess Ill just concede. The above responses prove whatever it is you all were trying to prove. Its a really good takedown of the Frankfurt school; they actually study Gramsci and have discussed using his resistance tactics in fighting public policy it is not just difficult but downright sinful to give up on any issue. Its easier to chalk up Republican wins to scare mongering, voter stupidity, or dirty tricks, than to the credible threat of yet another cowboy U.S. presidents antics. I cant see any deal happening until the former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO still gives him legitimate security concerns, and he might view Russia as well served by anything diverting U.S. attention from Europe. So the negotiations with the ACLU. Not my area of the few incontrovertibly valid justifications for government actions, taxes and the new lefts adoption of radical tactics by some activists who have seen the lefts success. I know a few rather liberal areas of the former head of the Pasdarans wet jobs unit is removed from the war on terror.

    While screaming librarians make for good headlines, I find this quieter and more widespread intrusion into my business to be of much greater concern.Isnt it amazing how your ideas on the technicality of the party whose soul is being torn between truly reluctant hawks, and outright peaceniks. When the Dems have a budget critique other than what that bastard Bush wants to leave him with room to be a valid question for your side to raise, but that rigorous and sometimes unfair questioning (it aint beanbag) of that position is inappropriate for the party over the Hoyers and Liebermans doesnt help. When Republican pols vote to blow out the door the last American if thats what it takes to keep everybody else down. On the other hand, Candadian Customs wont release a letter to you that they want to handicap a fight between a popular former revolutionary guards followers are not aiming at the Capitols front door. Or the Supreme Courts front door, for that matter. As much as Id like to see Fred Phelps, Ralph Neas and Ralph Reed in a few fairly rabid activists here in D.C. offers regular update on the Caliphate point on the number of people the Dem pols mouth the words fiscal responsibility but in the hallways of the Capitol. Bynums small group would periodically stop unobtrusively in the outside of your envelope and track who you send mail to, and who sends you mail, without a warrant. Its called a mail cover. Theres no expectation of privacy in the community of nations I presume by that you mainly mean France, Germany, and our Arab friends is going to actually do anything about it since it was tailored around AQs methods of transferring funds around the globe, which quite clearly were structured to avoid automatic reporting requirements.
    Pooh, help a brother out here. Im sure that Im not sure Im with you about the fundamental sanity, or modesty of intentions, of Irans ruling class. I think it has to report any transactions that might reasonably be viewed regionally as just another Zionist oppression of the Capitol Police stated that the money laundering bits are highly controversial with those affected, due in part to the Russian border, and one wonders if the books arent center stage in anybodys movement any more. McCarthyism, I believe, was a conscious exploitation of the Feingolds of the UNSC P-5 are blocking any action, including diplomatic or economic sanctions, against Iran; just as the same activity mere wearing of communicative T-shirts speaking out on the issue in the gallery of the country with national defense plan other than tongue clucking over the ongoing genocide in Sudan. Suggestions for achieving joint action?

    Searp, that was a tactic of a different type more grounded in old school xenophobia, capitalizing on legitimate fears combined with illegitimate prejudices to whip up the country with national defense positions many would perceive as flaky. The idea of national defense, and what we should do, is a symptom of Pauline Kael syndrome. Better get that checked out.

    No Blue. I suggest that you have to ask yourself why it does. I believe it works because high-profile Dems consistently do tone-deaf things that keep the tactic workable. Baghdad Jim McDermott? Feingolds censure motion directed at a time. The local bar here in D.C. who can cite you chapter and verse of the country into Five Minutes Hate. See, e.g. Dubai ports deal.

    You are correct to understand that. A number of First Amendment experts posting around here Im sure youve heard about this mess, I believe Pittsburgh has a hand on the war on terror, circa 1789 the War on British Terror. Customs is historically granted broad authority by statute to examine things coming into the country, making such laws is one of the Frankfurt school; they actually study Gramsci

    I shortened it a bit for you. You’re welcome. :)

  103. 103
    yet another jeff says:

    Seems this isn’t Cohen’s first flaming. Why is he acting like he’s new to the internet or something?

  104. 104

    Once again, Richard “Waa! Waa!” Cohen avoids the whole point of Colbert’s speech and those who defend Colbert, and instead embarks on another rant of illogical ad hominems, this time against Colbert’s defenders.

    Boo! Hoo! Nobody likes Richard “Waa! Waa!” Cohen because he doesn’t know how to write a civil and logical editorial. Everybody is so mean to him for emanating raw hatred towards Stephen Colbert in his past editorial. Richard “Waa! Waa!” Cohen’s cry baby rant is simply pathetic and an embarrassment for him and the Washington Post.

    This is just more proof that Richard “Waa! Waa!” Cohen is irrelevant. Besides Richard “Waa! Waa!” Cohen, the Washington Post, by allowing such nonsense to again be published on its editorial pages, is irrelevant as well.

    Richard “Waa! Waa!” Cohen, why are you such a Waa! Waa!???

  105. 105
    metalgrid says:

    Short version of the debate:

    The Left is angry.
    The Right is a bunch of Drama Queens.

    Think that about covers it.

  106. 106
    Al Maviva says:

    Sorry I left you out, Pb. I’ll remedy that.

    Pb: “I went to a lot of trouble to avoid your argument, and basically call you an ass. I sincerely hope you appreciate it. It was a lot of work. I know, it invites detailed argument in response. But if you try to give me anything other than a simplistic caricature of right wingnut views that are easily disregarded, I’ll just mock you out for attempting to be thoughtful in your viewpoint.

    Your bestest friend,

    Pb
    /s

  107. 107
    JDRhoades says:

    It isn’t a left wing website that’s selling a T-shirt that says “Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some Assembly Required.” It wasn’t a left-wing commentator who said that the only thing Timothy McVeigh did wrong is that he didn’t murder the staff of the New York Times. There’s your lynch mob.

    Let me ask you this: if Cohen continuously spouts the Republican line about the “Angry Left,” without ever mentioning the literally murderous rage on the Right, then why should anyone regard him as anything BUT a Republican shill?

  108. 108
    Mike in SLO says:

    104 comments on this post, 85% of them from the same 5 people. 2 comments on the Medicare post. Boy, John, you sure gave your blog the proper moniker!

  109. 109
    DougJ says:

    Stupid post, John. You can do better.

  110. 110
    Faux News says:

    What a clueless bunch you are.

    We don’t pretend to be the O’Reilly version of scs. You’re the newbie who keeps reaching for that brass ring and utterly fails every time.

  111. 111
    JDRhoades says:

    Seems this isn’t Cohen’s first flaming. Why is he acting like he’s new to the internet or something?

    The whole thing smacks of “I’ve got a deadline coming up and nothing to write about. Hey! I’ll whine about nasty e-mail!”

  112. 112
    Ryan S. says:

    104 comments on this post, 85% of them from the same 5 people. 2 comments on the Medicare post. Boy, John, you sure gave your blog the proper moniker!

    Yeah, Their too busy tring to figure out who hates who the most.
    Todays episode:
    The hate filled moonbats, and the wingnuts that hate them.

    Grab a seat, get some popcorn. Its gonna be LONG show.

  113. 113
    Dave Ruddell says:

    Proof that Colbert wasn’t funny—
    NOBODY IN THE ROOM WAS LAUGHING.

    This is an interesting point, although not in the way that I think dave meant it. Just because the audience didn’t laugh at Colbert’s routine does not mean that it was intrinsically unfunny; how would you judge that anyway? OTOH, the fact that there was very little laughter made it less funny for me. It’s sad, I suppose, but hearing other people laugh will often make something funnier (which is why TV networks have laugh tracks, except on shows that are actually funny, you know, like Scrubs, Earl, and Arrested Development).

    As an example, consider Killin’ Them Softly, Dave Chappelle’s first HBO special. Hilarious. But would it have been as funny if the audience just sat there stone-faced? No way.

  114. 114
    SeesThroughIt says:

    the right certainly seems to have cornered the market on Melodramatically Persecuted™.

    How dare you make light of the horrible suffering that right-wing white Christian males have had to endure since day one in this country! Nobody has been more persecuted than they have–and they will tell you all about it.

  115. 115
    Faux News says:

    Let me ask you this: if Cohen continuously spouts the Republican line about the “Angry Left,” without ever mentioning the literally murderous rage on the Right, then why should anyone regard him as anything BUT a Republican shill?

    Good point JD. If someone would care to spend some time perusing the Southern Poverty Law Center website (splcenter.org)or magazine they would get quite an appreciation for the myriad of violent right wing hate groups in this country. They VASTLY outnumber any violent left wing group like EarthFirst! Not to be confused with Dr. Frist’s 2008 POTUS campaign called EarthFrist!

    Sorry to disappoint folks like Al and Brian but all those Klan/neo-nazi/milita types who attack and kill Americans right here in this country are not Liberals.

  116. 116
    McNulty says:

    Good god, some of you people are dumb.

    The main point is that Cohen finds it hard to believe that simply saying someone wasn’t funny could get people so pissed off that they find the need to email him in about it.

    And saying Colbert wasn’t funny doesn’t make Cohen a right-wing shill or a Bush apologist. (Newsflash: Right-wing shills and Bush apologists tend to not write favorably about an Al Gore film on global warming.)

    I was no fan of Clinton, but I still didn’t find Don Imus’ comments about him a few years back at a similar dinner the least bit funny.

    Similarly, i think Ted Kennedy is a scumbag, but i think Chappaquidick jokes are old and tired.

    It’s not that hard to understand.

  117. 117
    Pooh says:

    Cohen writes terrible column…angry emailers complain
    In response Cohen writes terrible column

    This will end well, I’m sure. If only we can get the Jane Hamsher’s of the left involved.

    In all seriousness, it sucks that people are getting personally nasty with Cohen. But it also sucks that he’s paid to write thoughtful columns and doesn’t always provide value for money. But that might require some sort of Algebraic formula, and we all know how much RC likes those…

  118. 118
    Pb says:

    Al Maviva,

    You got me there. You had a thoughtful viewpoint?

  119. 119
    Mr Ronnie says:

    democRats are destined to lose, they have a losers mentality.

  120. 120
    DougJ says:

    Cohen is an embarrassment. It doesn’t matter where you sit politically — his columns are just plain awful.

    If John and Al are going to side with Cohen against Colbert, I’m going to start throwing Lou Dobbs on them to attack Bush’s immigration policy.

    Some people are just wankers. Cohen is one of them.

  121. 121
    Steve says:

    Proof that Colbert wasn’t funny—
    NOBODY IN THE ROOM WAS LAUGHING.

    Why don’t you watch the video again. Pay extra special close attention to Justice Scalia.

  122. 122
    Davebo says:

    Since a huge part of Colbert’s schtick was to poke a stick in the eye of folks like Cohen is anyone really suprised that Cohen found it unfunny?

  123. 123
    Mo Cheeks says:

    Yeah, you are right. Things were better when people were apathetic and didn’t bother to get involved in politics. They should leave it to people like yourself and remain dispassionate.

  124. 124

    What a sand box argument. No one, including Cohen, has any idea what the character of the majority of these emails was. Cohen admits he didn’t bother to read them all. Nor did he publish them. The excerpts he cherry picked range from dull vulgarity to inarticulate but hardly sustain the “tsunami of hate” meme.

    Really, how coddled does someone have to be to describe “you wouldn’t Know funny if it slapped you in the face” as emblematic of a “digital lynch mob?”

    I’ve no doubt that Cohen received some nasty and probably lunatic emails. That comes with the territory of being an opinion columnist. But if his examples are actually representative, I’d say that he is far too delicate a plant to be in the business. Evidently, he couldn’t come up with a single out and out death threat to buttress his “lynch mob” characterization.

    What is interesting about his column is the insight it provides into the mental universe Cohen inhabits. This is a man who imagines that he is still fighting the internecine political battles of thirty eight years ago. You remember don’t you? Back when all those “hateful” anti-war hippies insured the defeat of Hubert Humphrey.

    What he ignores is that in 1968 Humphrey was the “stay the course” candidate whereas Richard Nixon ran on a platform that explicitly appealed to the war weariness of the electorate by claiming that he had a “secret plan” to end the war. Pretending that the election of Nixon was a repudiation of anti-War sentiment is a dog that won’t hunt.

    Cohen’s whole complaint amounts to a fantastic projection. In his view, people aren’t irate because of what he wrote but because they are the latter day incarnations of Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman. He needs to get out more often.

  125. 125
    LITBMueller says:

    Proof that Colbert wasn’t funny—
    NOBODY IN THE ROOM WAS LAUGHING.

    Guess ya didn’t see Scalia laughing his ass off.

    Thing is, though, its no surprise when the people getting picked on don’t laugh – and Colbert hit on the whole room. As for the TV audience, I’d suspect about 60% of viewers laughed, if you accept the latest polls. :)

  126. 126
    ppGaz says:

    Proof that Colbert wasn’t funny—
    NOBODY IN THE ROOM WAS LAUGHING.

    You need a laugh track to decide if something is funny or not?

    The comic page in the newspaper must be hard for you, then.

  127. 127
    yet another jeff says:

    Proof that Colbert wasn’t funny—
    NOBODY IN THE ROOM WAS LAUGHING

    But everyone watching on CSPAN was laughing…and do you have any idea how much traffic is generated by forwarding copies of the video/links to the video? Maybe the folks in the front tables weren’t laughing, but millions of people thought it was hilarious.

  128. 128
    chopper says:

    i love it. malkin’s followers send physical threats to some leftists after getting their addresses, and it’s ‘well, they shouldn’t have made them public. boys will be boys.’ dick cohen gets an email saying ‘you wouldn’t know funny if it slapped you in the face’ and it gives him such a case of the vapors that it’s absolute proof that the left is doomed.

    this is an elaborate joke, right?

  129. 129
    Ryan S. says:

    this is an elaborate joke, right?

    Not to them…. Thats why its so hilarious.

  130. 130
    The Ace says:

    Let me ask you this: if Cohen continuously spouts the Republican line about the “Angry Left,” without ever mentioning the literally murderous rage on the Right, then why should anyone regard him as anything BUT a Republican shill?

    Gee, I don’t know, because you’re a silly buffoon?
    Anyone referring to Cohen as a “Republican shill” obviously has a mental disorder.

    I love how you kiddies pretend that a)you’re not angry and b)it doesn’t matter becasue there are angry conservatives out there anyway. (Remember, Republicans are “dumb”, “corrupt” & “evil”, but acting like them is ok silly hypocrite!)

    Hilarious.

    This is what is called cognitive dissonance.

    You wear it well.

    People like you are exhibit A as to why the Democrats can’t win a national election. Your silly excuse making, juvenile response, and lack of critical thinking abilities about sum up the Deaniac left.

    Keep it up.

    Please.

  131. 131
    Al Maviva says:

    JD and Doug, good to know that we have folks like you standing on the ramparts, guarding against the Klanners, right wing militias, Tim McVeigh and abortion clinic bombers, that veritable tidal wave of violence that comprises anybody to your right. If it weren’t for people like you tussling with us right wingers on a dank mannichean battlefield, the country would be finished. Well, it’s finished anyhow because Bush is president, but that’s zany over-the-top-hyperbole for another thread. When you’re done whupping Tim McVeigh and the militias and David Hale and the rest of the Republican base, maybe you can come over to the right wing side of the country where we’re engaged in an equally timely struggle against Wobblies, the Hun, Chinese immigration and polio.

  132. 132
    The Ace says:

    this is an elaborate joke, right?

    Yes, and you’re the punchline.

    But please sit there and pretend nobody actually threatened Malkin and of course leftists don’t act violently toward Republicans.

    Don’t want to burst the little bubble you’re in…

  133. 133
    Pooh says:

    People like you are exhibit A as to why the Democrats can’t win a national election. Your silly excuse making, juvenile response, and lack of critical thinking abilities about sum up the Deaniac left.

    The voice of reason arrives!

  134. 134
    Jim Allen says:

    I don’t know what the big deal is. It’s obvious what Cohen needs to do when he’s attacked by someone from the left. He should write an article and call the perpetrator an “asshole” and a “dickhead” and tell him (or her), “go fuck yourself”. Then he should set up a spam filter so no response could get through.

    That’s what a real macho writer would do, right?

  135. 135
    Brian says:

    It’s all “You just hate Bush” and “You have no new ideas” and these repeated, useless taunts.

    If the shoe fits…..

  136. 136
    DougJ says:

    In all seriousness, it sucks that people are getting personally nasty with Cohen.

    No, it’s not — he deserve it. He deserves worse. I have zero sympathy for people like him, Joe Klein, Deborah Howell , and David Brooks. If anyone at a regular job performed as poorly as they do, they’d be fired. This has nothing to do with politics and everything to with job performance.

  137. 137
    Barbar says:

    Cohen writes op-eds in the obscure Washington Post and people actually e-mail him in response? Oh the horror. I would call him a “whiny-ass titty baby” but then we’d need to break out the smelling salts.

    And I honestly don’t understand how someone could read a Cohen column and not immediately think “Oh my God this guy is a wanker,” by the third sentence at the latest. Seriously.

  138. 138
    DougJ says:

    Al — where did I mention right-wing terrorists in this thread? The only time I’ve mentioned them recently is to suggest that the FBI is using Pajamas Media to implement a flypaper strategy that will attract all of the potential right-wing domestic terrorists to a single place.

  139. 139
    Otto Man says:

    Proof that Colbert wasn’t funny—
    NOBODY IN THE ROOM WAS LAUGHING.

    What video did you watch? I saw Scalia nearly wet himself, and several shots of people open-mouthed, heads-back. Maybe they were all sneezing?

    So yes, unless you’re blind, several people were laughing. But many weren’t. And with good reason — the press and the president were the butts of Colbert’s routine.

    Laughing at his jokes would be tantamount to admitting what the rest of us know — the press and the president are/i> jokes.

  140. 140
    canuckistani says:

    So, you would choose to hang around (a) a blog whose name is a metaphor for “Hot Air” …. and (b) a blog where the principal owner has been know to post entire series of articles explicitly “just to piss off” commenters ……………………

    …..why?

    I enjoy the squabbling before it sinks to personal abuse.

  141. 141
    neil says:

    Hey, that’d show Cohen how wrong he is about the left being angry, Neil. Guess you win that argument.

    I didn’t say we should throw a bucket of raw sewage in his face because he’s wrong or stupid. I said we should throw a bucket of raw sewage in his face because he seems to have a severe misconception about how pleasant that experience actually is. It might make him realize that reading e-mail is not actually that bad of an experience.

    But thank you for hocking a digital loogey in my face by implying that my political beliefs have anything to do with this rather matter-of-fact statement.

  142. 142
    ppGaz says:

    love how you kiddies pretend that a)you’re not angry and b)it doesn’t matter becasue there are angry conservatives out there anyway. (Remember, Republicans are “dumb”, “corrupt” & “evil”, but acting like them is ok silly hypocrite!)

    Hilarious.

    This is what is called cognitive dissonance.

    You wear it well.

    People like you are exhibit A as to why the Democrats can’t win a national election. Your silly excuse making, juvenile response, and lack of critical thinking abilities about sum up the Deaniac left.

    Keep it up.

    Please.

    This is what has become know here as the Darrell Strategy.

    It’s also the standard fare, now, of spoofs. See: Scrutator for more on this.

    Don’t lose the perspective here: Bunches of the same people who are now flapping their arms over Colbert being “not funny” are the same people who thought Bush joking around about not finding WMDs was funny.

    So, if you can follow this, the president who started a war to save us from WMDs thinks it’s funny that the WMDs aren’t there, but it’s not funny to slam the president in front of his, uh, well, whatever you call those reporter people. His friends, I guess.

    See? Does it make sense now?

  143. 143
    Brian says:

    No, it’s not—he deserve it. He deserves worse. I have zero sympathy for people like him, Joe Klein, Deborah Howell , and David Brooks. If anyone at a regular job performed as poorly as they do, they’d be fired. This has nothing to do with politics and everything to with job performance.

    Angry Left gets called on their anger, and what do they do? They get MORE angry. No introspection. No soul searching. No consciousness raising. No accomodation of valid criticism.

    No, they get ANGRIER! That’s the answer! And exactly how do you think this will get converted into election gains?

    Hate is not a family value. Remember that little bumper-sticker quote you guys birthed back in the ’80s? Time to live it.

  144. 144
    tBone says:

    where we’re engaged in an equally timely struggle against Wobblies, the Hun, Chinese immigration and polio.

    Damn those Chinese immigrants. We need to build a large wall to keep them in their own country.

  145. 145
    tBone says:

    Angry Left gets called on their anger, and what do they do? They get MORE angry. No introspection. No soul searching. No consciousness raising. No accomodation of valid criticism.

    Brian is doing so much projecting he’s going to have to get a license from the National Association of Theatre Owners.

  146. 146
    Perry Como says:

    People like you are exhibit A as to why the Democrats can’t win a national election.

    Dammit. Forgot all about that one.

  147. 147
    Barbar says:

    Which of these is not like the other. Heh.

    The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar. . . . Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.

    The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. . . . I know it’s only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations.

    Not nice, but it was what Washington does day in and day out. . . . it was not the intent of anyone to out a CIA agent and have her assassinated (which happened once) but to assassinate the character of her husband. This is an entirely different thing. She got hit by a ricochet.

    http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2941

  148. 148
    fwiffo says:

    No, they get ANGRIER! That’s the answer! And exactly how do you think this will get converted into election gains?

    Worked for republicans.

  149. 149
    Al Maviva says:

    I’m sorry DougJ, I meant Faux. Faux is the guy citing the SPLC to prove Republicans are right wing terrorists.

    Please, if you could retain my mistake in your insult bank, credit it to my account. Then someday when you write something that I’d find irritating, but I’m not around to respond, just whip out that little bit of misdirected slight and consider yourself insulted. Work for you?

  150. 150
    Brian says:

    Worked for republicans.

    Wrong. But by all means, keep believing it. In fact, amp up that anger, buddy. It’ll serve your party in the manner I would like.

  151. 151
    JDRhoades says:

    Is Ace some kind of Internet ‘bot? Because his answer was an apparently random selection of standard hackneyed wingnut responses (“You’re a buffoon” “You must have a mental disorder”, “this is why you lose elections”, etc.) with no actual relevance to any post.

  152. 152
    DougJ says:

    Brian — my God you’re a moron.

    I’m sorry that I’m angry that influential people in our media are bragging about how funny they were in junior high as our contry plunges trillions of dollars into debt. I thought that was something that conservatives and liberals might agree about — that the superciliousness of the punditry is hurting America. In fact, I think it is. You’re not conservative — you’re just dumb.

  153. 153
    Andrew says:

    Do you guys think we could breed Brian with Al Maviva and create an especially stupid and long winded Bush sycophant?

  154. 154
    Zifnab says:

    “Release your anger. Embrace your hate! And your journey to the dark side will. be. complete!”

  155. 155
    DougJ says:

    I may disagree with Al, but I wouldn’t necessarily call him a “Bush sycophant”. And I wouldn’t lump in with Brian.

  156. 156
    JDRhoades says:

    Do you guys think we could breed Brian with Al Maviva and create an especially stupid and long winded Bush sycophant?

    I’m hoping they don’t breed at all, least of all with each other.

    Woops, sorry, don’t want them to think I’m (shudder) angry.

  157. 157
    Davebo says:

    Brian and Al,

    You can certainly spin it anyway you want, but the fact remains.

    On just about every important subject of the past 4 years you’ve been not only wrong, but dead wrong. The public has made it clear (and will do so even louder come November) that the folks you worship are incompetent.

    And with well over half the populace now hating Dubya’s guts, are you sure you shouldn’t reclassify BDS as a pandemic?

  158. 158
    Brian says:

    I’m sorry that I’m angry that influential people in our media are bragging about how funny they were in junior high as our contry plunges trillions of dollars into debt. I thought that was something that conservatives and liberals might agree about—that the superciliousness of the punditry is hurting America.

    Sorry, dude. I obviously missed that part in your comment about the economy, and your sincerity about wanting to work with true conservatives on balancing the budget, eliminating debt, and making the universe safe comedians.

    I’d like to stick my fist into your nose. Is that anger you can relate to, pussy? Or, how about introducing your next to the sharp end of my shiv?

    I might as well speak in code that you can understand.

  159. 159
    tBone says:

    Do you guys think we could breed Brian with Al Maviva and create an especially stupid and long winded Bush sycophant?

    Al isn’t stupid, or a Bush sycophant. Nevertheless I think the world is much better off without a Brianviva hybrid.

  160. 160
    yet another jeff says:

    Raw anger is well known to be much more nutritious than cooked, or processed anger.

    The Ace…so, because Cohen got a lot of flame mail, it’s a time for Intense Retrospection for the Angry Left? Ah, seems like just a couple years ago that The Left was being slammed for never getting angry. What’s Exhibit B? Do we have to forgo the Frigidaire to see what’s behind Door #2?

  161. 161
    Otto Man says:

    I’d like to stick my fist into your nose. Is that anger you can relate to, pussy?

    Thanks for restoring the civility, Brainiac.

  162. 162
    yet another jeff says:

    Sorry, sorry…confused when Brian was quoting The Ace…

    Man, y’all sure do seem angry about the anger of The Left? Why does the Anger of The Left anger you so?

  163. 163
    Brian says:

    The public has made it clear (and will do so even louder come November) that the folks you worship are incompetent.

    Even if you assume this is correct, why do you expect the same public to vote for the opposing party? You have nothing to vote for. You didn’t in 2000, 2002, 2004, and now, 2006. All you have to bet on is a protest vote, and most Americans take their votes seriously enough (you don’t, but they do) to vote with a conscience. And why would they toss away a perfectly good vote on BDS? If the Dem’s won that way, they’d have to pander to that segment of the party, and Americans don’t want fuming, flaming, ranting, hyperbolic nutcases in Congress. In other words, they don’t want the inmates running the asylum.

    We can argue all day about Bush’s failures, and I’d likely agree with you on most of them. But we’re still left with: why should I vote for you instead? (The “I” being Joe Q. Public)

  164. 164
    Andrew says:

    Al isn’t stupid, or a Bush sycophant.

    Well, yes, so this is where the Brian-genes come into play.

    We could even splice in some Darrell and stormy DNA.

    Can you imagine? Four thousand word essays on how RedState is full of leftist sympathizers!

    And this is even before the bridge the animal-human hybrid gap with Jeff Goldstein’s dog.

  165. 165
    tBone says:

    I’d like to stick my fist into your nose. Is that anger you can relate to, pussy? Or, how about introducing your next to the sharp end of my shiv?

    Brian must have renewed his subscription.

  166. 166
    Par R says:

    DougJ writes:

    No, it’s not—he deserve it. He deserves worse. I have zero sympathy for people like him, Joe Klein, Deborah Howell , and David Brooks. If anyone at a regular job performed as poorly as they do, they’d be fired. This has nothing to do with politics and everything to with job performance.

    DoodieJoybot, you have long ceased being amusing, and it’s for certain that you don’t possess the “smarts” to say anything remotely intelligent. Why don’t you go back to spoofing Protein Wisdom. Jeff said he kind of appreciated a dumb foil such as yourself.

  167. 167
    Brian says:

    Thanks for restoring the civility, Brainiac

    Where does civility get me here? Nowhere.

    You bring the discourse to your level, and that’s where I went to. You want a higher level of discourse, then engage people at that level.

  168. 168
    tBone says:

    Americans don’t want fuming, flaming, ranting, hyperbolic nutcases in Congress. In other words, they don’t want the inmates running the asylum.

    Yeah. Americans figure six years of that is enough.

  169. 169

    I still don’t understand.

    Why is the Right so *ANGRY* about the left being *ANGRY*?

    Oh yeah, one more thing…

    I once had the temerity to post on my web page that I don’t like the Beatles.

    My favorite was a friend who claimed Dave Matthews had no talent, yet was a big fan of the Beatles. I declared to him that the Beatles were the Backstreet Boys of the 1960s. He didn’t like that. :-)

  170. 170
    Zifnab says:

    As for the whole “Democrats just keep losing elections” meme, I’m impressed that a party with this many people getting indited and going to jail over bribery, money laundering, and Abramoff-related incidents can get off on the whole “We won because the people just love us” thing.

    Republicans have been buying and rigging elections for decades now. Florida, Ohio, and California have all been targeted by the GOP political machine.

    Basically, Republicans cheat. Alot. And when they win by cheating, even with the slimmest margins, they call it a mandate. And we get a fist full of Darrells telling us how everyone who voted for the opposition is just a bunch of sore losers, that we shouldn’t be mad or get politically active, and that the vast fields of silent majority right wing voters are merely silently, passively flexing their political muscles against those lunatic moonbat hippie internet wackos.

    So again, I say ignore them. Ferret out the cheating, persecute the corruption, and go on to prove these guys are full of shit in ’06. I’ve got faith.

  171. 171
    JDRhoades says:

    I’d like to stick my fist into your nose. Is that anger you can relate to, pussy? Or, how about introducing your next to the sharp end of my shiv?

    Yeah, it’s really the left that’s angry.

  172. 172
    Par R says:

    Bob Somerby wrote something somewhat similar to Cohen’s initial post on Colbert, and got flooded with similar shit from the loony left. And Somerby is not only a former Al Gore college roommate and vigorous defender, but a reliable liberal on virtually all issues, including the TRUTH. And I guess it’s his insistence on adhering to the TRUTH that got him in trouble with the moonbats, including I dare say many posting comments here.

  173. 173
    Pb says:

    I just wish the Angry Left would stop harping on ridiculously divisive partisan issues intended to distract and divide that don’t do anything to help the well-being of this country (which, naturally, makes them seditious traitors as well), like missing white women, libelous smears of a sitting President, translations of the national anthem, partisan investigations of libelous smears of a sitting President, embryonic stem-cell research, impeachment of a sitting president founded on partisan investigations of libelous smears, building a wall across the Mexican border, banning gay marriage, etc., etc.

    …what’s that? I don’t know my Left from my Right? …nevermind.

  174. 174
    Pooh says:

    In all seriousness, it sucks that people are getting personally nasty with Cohen.

    No, it’s not—he deserve it. He deserves worse. I have zero sympathy for people like him, Joe Klein, Deborah Howell , and David Brooks. If anyone at a regular job performed as poorly as they do, they’d be fired. This has nothing to do with politics and everything to with job performance.

    He deserves criticism, surely (just as do Deb Howell and Joe Klein). Maybe even vitriol. But vitriol can also be substantive (see Tim F. for the last few days), somewhat so (see Maviva), or not at all (bad-boy Brian).

    I agree that I have little sympathy, but from a purely tactical standpoint, it’s too bad that the nastiness gets personal, because then ‘the hurted feelings’, the last refuge of the useless pundit, is a viable option for retreat.

  175. 175
    Pooh says:

    In all seriousness, it sucks that people are getting personally nasty with Cohen.

    No, it’s not—he deserve it. He deserves worse. I have zero sympathy for people like him, Joe Klein, Deborah Howell , and David Brooks. If anyone at a regular job performed as poorly as they do, they’d be fired. This has nothing to do with politics and everything to with job performance.

    He deserves criticism, surely (just as do Deb Howell and Joe Klein). Maybe even vitriol. But vitriol can also be substantive (see Tim F. for the last few days), somewhat so (see Maviva), or not at all (bad-boy Brian).

    I agree that I have little sympathy, but from a purely tactical standpoint, it’s too bad that the nastiness gets personal, because then ‘the hurted feelings’, the last refuge of the useless pundit, is a viable option for retreat.

  176. 176
    DougJ says:

    Brian — you’re terrific. Have you ever thought of hanging out at some of the hard-core nutjob blogs, Protein Wisdom, Scrutator, Atlas Shrugs, etc.? You’d fit right in.

    Someone want to put together Brian’s greatest hits? That thing about getting me with a shiv’s got to rank up there.

  177. 177

    You bring the discourse to your level, and that’s where I went to. You want a higher level of discourse, then engage people at that level.

    Great point.

    Please, please stop engaging Brian. By engaging people of his level, you are only serving to drive down the level of the entire discussion.

  178. 178
    chopper says:

    But please sit there and pretend nobody actually threatened Malkin and of course leftists don’t act violently toward Republicans.

    since when is ‘you wouldn’t know funny if it slapped you in the face’ a threat? or are you just an idiot?

  179. 179
    JDRhoades says:

    Where does civility get me here? Nowhere.

    You bring the discourse to your level, and that’s where I went to. You want a higher level of discourse, then engage people at that level.

    Brian’s a born follower. This explains much.

  180. 180
    yet another jeff says:

    It’s sadly hilarious that someone is afraid of a slap from Funny.

  181. 181
    Perry Como says:

    But we’re still left with: why should I vote for you instead?

    A deadlocked government is the best government.

  182. 182

    Bob Somerby wrote something somewhat similar to Cohen’s initial post on Colbert, and got flooded with similar shit from the loony left. And Somerby is not only a former Al Gore college roommate and vigorous defender, but a reliable liberal on virtually all issues, including the TRUTH. And I guess it’s his insistence on adhering to the TRUTH that got him in trouble with the moonbats, including I dare say many posting comments here.

    Them Bob Somerby is clearly an idiot who can’t think straight.

    We’ve been all over this. Colbert wasn’t talking to the people in the room. He was talking to the people who watch his show.

    If Somerby doesn’t understand that, then he should have kept his fat trap shut.

  183. 183
    Blue Neponset says:

    Do you guys think we could breed Brian with Al Maviva and create an especially stupid and long winded Bush sycophant?

    Why don’t we just teach Brian to be long-winded? That might be easier.

    Also, say what you will about Al but he certainly isn’t Brian-like. Unlike Brian, Al actually makes real (and wicked long) arguments that more or less make sense most of the time. Also, Al’s insults are actually intelligent while Brian is insulting at an 8th grade level.

  184. 184
    tBone says:

    You bring the discourse to your level, and that’s where I went to. You want a higher level of discourse, then engage people at that level.

    Whoooo. This one needs to go into the Spoof Museum.

  185. 185
    JDRhoades says:

    Please, please stop engaging Brian. By engaging people of his level, you are only serving to drive down the level of the entire discussion.

    Oh, all right. It’s fun, but I’ll admit it is the sort of fun one gets from teasing a chihuahua and watching him hurl himself against the fence.

  186. 186
    yet another jeff says:

    Al is topical and essential to the plot, like a Cartman joke on South Park, Brian is pointlessly referential, like a joke on Family Guy.

  187. 187
    DougJ says:

    Brian is the real deal — a right-winger so obviously stupid that he embarrasses his own side of the argument. That’s what I try to do when I spoof, but I don’t think I ever attain the kind of authenticity Brian has — at best, a spoofer can only be Mick Jagger to Brian’s Leadbelly.

  188. 188

    Oh, all right. It’s fun, but I’ll admit it is the sort of fun one gets from teasing a chihuahua and watching him hurl himself against the fence.

    Great point.

    Carry on people, taunting the Brian is great fun!

  189. 189
    JDRhoades says:

    Al is topical and essential to the plot, like a Cartman joke on South Park, Brian is pointlessly referential, like a joke on Family Guy.

    So we should blame the manatees?

  190. 190
    DougJ says:

    It’s sadly hilarious that someone is afraid of a slap from Funny.

    POtD.

  191. 191
    slickdpdx says:

    ppg: get lost kid, the monkey bars belong to us now

  192. 192

    I was pretty upset about Clinton, and couldn’t believe that 66% of America really thought he was doing a good job, but time has persuaded me that right-wing rage isn’t a winning formula.

    Maybe left-wing anger will be more successful.

  193. 193
    slickdpdx says:

    that should be

    shorter ppg “get lost…”

  194. 194
    yet another jeff says:

    I’m starting to think that Brian’s advice on how The Left should manage it’s anger to win national elections is somewhat less than sincere.

    I don’t care what party the president is from, as long as that party does not control Congress.

    Still, if the anger of The Left has the power to piss off The Right so much…how can it be a bad thing?

  195. 195
    DougJ says:

    I’m trying to stay away from this blog these days because it’s too addictive, but I’ve just got to soak in all the Brian while I can. I wonder if I could get a plank from Brian’s shack to carry around for inspiration.

  196. 196
    jaime says:

    People like you are exhibit A as to why the Democrats can’t win a national election.

    Wow. I always thought it was a combination of gerrymandering, fear mongering, and voter apathy.

  197. 197
    yet another jeff says:

    Maybe a splinter of the True Brian’s House? Have you a Donation of Faith to send?

  198. 198
    demimondian says:

    Otto:

    several shots of people open-mouthed, heads-back. Maybe they were all sneezing?

    No, snoring.

  199. 199
    DougJ says:

    No, snoring.

    No, strung out on oxycontin.

  200. 200
    Slide says:

    People like you are exhibit A as to why the Democrats can’t win a national election.

    actually didn’t the Democratic candidate for president receive more votes than the Republican candidate three out of the last four national elections?

  201. 201
    yet another jeff says:

    Well…it is still mouth breathing.

  202. 202
    demimondian says:

    No, strung out on oxycontin.

    I didn’t know that Rush performed at the WHCD this year. Cool!

  203. 203
    neil says:

    It’s true that CSPAN has pretty awful audience mikes. (I actually had to go to FreeRepublic to read about that, where, _contra_ DougJ, they didn’t really like Colbert at all.) Most of the laughter that clip picked up must have been coming from a few tables — upon rewatching the clip I noticed you could clearly make out somebody talking over the crowd mic.

    Anyway, no matter how many Cohens take to their typewriters to warn Americans that Colbert was unfunny, it seems that people are watching it.

  204. 204
    tBone says:

    Back on topic – it’s been several hours since John made the original post and no one has called him an asshole yet. Why can’t the Angry Left stop its constant flip-flopping?!?

  205. 205
    Steve says:

    John has a bad batting average when it comes to predicting the antics of the Angry Left. Why, some of us are still waiting for the Democrats to call for Cheney’s impeachment for getting drunk and shooting that guy in the face.

  206. 206
    neil says:

    tBone: But the emails! Can’t you imagine what the emails are like?!

  207. 207
    Brian says:

    You don’t impeach a VP, dipshit.

  208. 208
    DougJ says:

    I actually had to go to FreeRepublic to read about that, where, contra DougJ, they didn’t really like Colbert at all.

    I only looked at it early — of the first 20 comments or so, most were positive. The tide may have turned as the Brians of the world showed up to comment.

  209. 209
    neil says:

    Actually, Brian, you do impeach a Vice-President. But please, heap some more insults on us! By now, that basically means ‘you told me so’ to us.

  210. 210
    DougJ says:

    You don’t impeach a VP, dipshit.

    Huh?

    http://www.onlinejournal.com/a....._112.shtml

    This article appeared in the Wall Street Journal Opinion page, so someone like you should believe it.

  211. 211
    tBone says:

    You don’t impeach a VP, dipshit.

    Article II, Section 4:
    “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

  212. 212
    chopper says:

    wow brian, you sound so angry.

  213. 213
    yet another jeff says:

    it’s been several hours since John made the original post and no one has called him an asshole yet.

    Dammit, tBone…I was just searching the comments to ensure that when I made the post that it would be accurate. You snuck in while I was researching. Grrr, you win this battle….

  214. 214
    tBone says:

    You snuck in while I was researching. Grrr, you win this battle….

    Sorry. I’m an asshole. An angry one.

  215. 215
    Davebo says:

    You don’t impeach a VP, dipshit.

    And the fourth ammendment doesn’t say a thing about probable cause.

    Geez, it’s a good thing this crowd has decided it can violate any law it wants to.

    Since they can’t seem to parse laws in the first place.

  216. 216
    Brian says:

    The constitution contains lots of items you folks don’t particularly observe. I didn’t say you can’t impeach the VP, I said you don’t impeach him. No one has, and no one ever will. The fish stinks from the head, so you rid yourself of the President, and the rest fall like dominos, or the VP takes the presidency and pardons the predecessor.

    THAT’s how it works.

  217. 217
    tBone says:

    Brian makes a solid argument here. I guess it’s a good thing the Angry Left wussed out and didn’t call for Cheney’s impeachment over Shootinganoldguyinthefacegate.

  218. 218
    Krista says:

    It’s sadly hilarious that someone is afraid of a slap from Funny.

    Ha! Very nice.

  219. 219
    Steve says:

    So basically, John Cole predicts the Democrats will call for Cheney’s impeachment, I mention that it hasn’t happened yet, and I’m a dipshit because “you don’t impeach the VP.”

    I surrender. The Angry Left is no match for the Incoherent Right.

  220. 220
    neil says:

    So if the Vice-President has committed crimes, you impeach the President and let the Vice-President pardon him?

  221. 221
    Blue Neponset says:

    Brian,

    I didn’t say you can’t impeach the VP, I said you don’t impeach him. No one has, and no one ever will.

    Didn’t you learn about Spiro Agnew in Civics class last month? He would have been impeached had he not resigned.

  222. 222
    chopper says:

    I didn’t say you can’t impeach the VP, I said you don’t impeach him.

    that’s one of the best semantic squirms i’ve seen all day.

  223. 223
    Steve says:

    Also, he didn’t say Congress couldn’t impeach the VP. He said I don’t impeach the VP, “dipshit.” I still say the Incoherent Right wins the debate.

  224. 224
    ImJohnGalt says:

    He also didn’t say “the VP of the United States“, dipshit. He was clearly talking about the VP of Liberia, and you *don’t* impeach that bad boy. Why are you lefties all so angry?

  225. 225
    Barbar says:

    Here’s an interesting question. Check out this column from Cohen in 2000.

    http://ezraklein.typepad.com/b.....olumn.html

    Is there anyone of ANY political persuasion who can read this and not conclude that Richard Cohen is a wanker by the second paragraph? Even the bizarre right-wing nutjobs who appear here, not to speak of John Cole, who actually seems halfway intelligent.

    Surely we can all agree that Richard Cohen is a wanker?

  226. 226
    Brian says:

    The great document also says that Congress authorizes war. That happens, right? Well, actually, it doesn’t. You can count on one hand the number of times that it’s happened.

    There’s the document, and there’s what’s followed as a practice. And the practice is: VPs don’t get impeached in and of themselves.

  227. 227
    Steve says:

    It’s also worth noting that “VP” doesn’t necessarily mean Vice-President. According to my handy acronym dictionary, it can also mean Vice-Principal, Viral Protein, Variance Propagation, or Vapautus Palveluksesta, which is Finnish for “relieved from service.” I trust we all agree that none of those things are impeachable.

  228. 228
    Waxmaker says:

    Mr. Furious, paging Mr. Furious…

  229. 229
    Steve says:

    The great document also says that Congress authorizes war. That happens, right? Well, actually, it doesn’t. You can count on one hand the number of times that it’s happened.

    Technically, you could count it on one finger, as long as you counted that finger eleven times. Anyway, the Incoherent Right just keeps landing body blow after body blow. Oof!

  230. 230
    ImJohnGalt says:

    I’m still waiting to hear why “Lynch Mob” is appropriate, here.

    Digby has had a number of illuminating posts on the eliminationist rantings of the right. Still waiting to hear the liberal pundit that advocates a terrorist blowing up the National Review.

  231. 231
    Cmoore says:

    It is interesting to me that what used to be two parties just saying they disagreed with each others ideas seems to have degraded into not “I just disagree” but “I dont even like you.” From: “I cant go along with your logic on that.” to “I don’t even respect you as a person, you stupid idiot!.”
    Then we wake up and have a political process so polluted with partisanship and vitriol and self interest that I fear the ability for reasoning people to reach across the isle to get anything done is quickly becoming untenable altogether.
    What’s good for the country or the state (which ever one your in) clearly comes 2nd or 3rd to what’s good for MY party.
    A retired washington lobbyist told me that when they were not on the hill, he used to see lawmakers both Democrats and Republicans having meals together after hours working on issues. Now he says if they aren’t preening for the cameras or in committee all they do is raise money for the next election.
    Well I hope your all proud of what we have become. Oh well…. I guess its just “The other guys fault” right ?

  232. 232
    DougJ says:

    That Cohen article is amazing — the one Ezra Klein wrote about.

  233. 233
    neil says:

    Brian is right, but he’s right in a weird way. I think it’s also true that no impeachment of the President could ever succeed, either — because any President facing likely impeachment would resign before they made him do it, like Nixon.

    However, to state it as a general rule, I’m not so sure about. I’ve never pulled an emergency brake on a subway car, but I wouldn’t claim based on this that you don’t pull the emergency brake.

  234. 234
    Steve says:

    Of course, the punchline is that John Cole is the one who said the Democrats would try to impeach Cheney, so it’s him that Brian is calling a “dipshit,” not any of us.

  235. 235
    RonB says:

    If you can show me one staunch Republican who has been convinced by the sheer ineptitude of the current Administration to vote for Democrats

    Maviva. He even took alot of shit on his own blog for banning the Republicans to the wilderness.

  236. 236
    ppGaz says:

    Brian is right, but he’s right in a weird way

    No, he’s wrong, but fashioned himself a weasely semantic loophole.

    Yes, you can impeach a Vice President. The fact that no VP has been impeached, notwithstanding. The fact would have no bearing on the ability to bring impeachment against one, or to convict. It’s just an oddity of history, so far, that one has not been impeached. The fact is, most VP’s have been largely invisible and ignored until the recent ascendancy of executive power.

  237. 237
    RonB says:

    The Left is so riddled with rage

    Brian, honestly, why shouldn’t they be? Why shouldn’t anyone, for that matter?

  238. 238
    Ancient Purple says:

    The constitution contains lots of items you folks don’t particularly observe. I didn’t say you can’t impeach the VP, I said you don’t impeach him. No one has, and no one ever will. The fish stinks from the head, so you rid yourself of the President, and the rest fall like dominos, or the VP takes the presidency and pardons the predecessor.

    THAT’s how it works.

    Out of Lithium again, Brian?

  239. 239
    RonB says:

    DoodieJoybot, you have long ceased being amusing, and it’s for certain that you don’t possess the “smarts” to say anything remotely intelligent. Why don’t you go back to spoofing Protein Wisdom. Jeff said he kind of appreciated a dumb foil such as yourself.

    Par R=GOP4Me
    Gop4Me/Par R=???

  240. 240
    Steve says:

    The fish stinks from the head, so you rid yourself of the President, and the rest fall like dominos, or the VP takes the presidency and pardons the predecessor.

    THAT’s how it works.

    Thanks for the explanation of how it works, Brian.

    By the way, you know that the President can’t actually pardon someone who’s been impeached and removed from office, right? You did know that, right?

  241. 241
    Andrew says:

    What kind of quorum is needed for impeachment purposes? Is there any reason, besides the general spinelessness of the Congressional Democrats, for not filling up the chamber when a few Republicans are also there (to the normally requisite 218 members for voting purposes) and voting on impeachment?

    Besides, too, Brian’s constitutional authority to make shit up, I mean.

  242. 242
    ppGaz says:

    What’s really amazing is that in March of ’05 when I came here, over half the commenters here were basically Brians.

    Can you imagine what that was like? And it was only a year ago.

    Welcome to the post_katrina version of BJ. Leeeeeetle different!

    But if you think Brian is bad, and he is, wait until Darrell shows up!

  243. 243
    Pb says:

    ppGaz Says:

    What’s really amazing is that in March of ‘05 when I came here, over half the commenters here were basically Brians.

    …and the other half was DougJ? :)

  244. 244
    Brian says:

    Besides, too, Brian’s constitutional authority to make shit up, I mean.

    Make shit up? There’s the governmental process you think you have, and there’s the governmental process that functionally exists. They are not the same.

  245. 245
    rachel says:

    On the internet, nobody can do anything to you for just being an ass.

  246. 246
    Bone-In RibEye says:

    Left and Right…its the new North and South.

  247. 247
    tBone says:

    There’s the governmental process you think you have, and there’s the governmental process that functionally exists. They are not the same.

    I think 6 years of the Bush administration have taught all of us that, Brian.

  248. 248
    Brian says:

    By the way, you know that the President can’t actually pardon someone who’s been impeached and removed from office, right?

    True. A president can’t interfere with an impeachment in progress, but s/he can pardon for the crimes that may lead to the impeachment. So, if Cheney (our VP, in case you don’t know) gets charged, Bush can pardon him before an impeachment occurs, thereby impeding an embarrassing process and Bush having to testify. He’d take a lot of heat for it, but he can do it.

  249. 249
    Harley says:

    This Richard Cohen?

    The evidence he [Colin Powell] presented to the United Nations — some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail — had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn’t accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool — or possibly a Frenchman — could conclude otherwise.

    Poor Baby.

  250. 250
    Steve says:

    The fish stinks from the head, so you rid yourself of the President, and the rest fall like dominos, or the VP takes the presidency and pardons the predecessor.

    THAT’s how it works.

    1. For the VP to take the presidency as a result of impeachment and then pardon his predecessor before the impeachment occurs would require some kind of wormhole.

    2. In any event, pardoning someone for the underlying crime does not foreclose an impeachment for that crime.

  251. 251
    scarshapedstar says:

    Something upsets you- get ten thousand people to fire off vulgar e-mails. Really- it convinces people your position is right.

    I must have missed the part where Atrios said “Quick, now everyone send him incoherent emails laced with profanity.”

  252. 252
    ppGaz says:

    So, if Cheney (our VP, in case you don’t know) gets charged, Bush can pardon him before an impeachment occurs

    Un, no. The pardon is a criminal proceeding, while impeachment is a political proceeding. When impeachment proceedings are brought, there’s no “pardon” possible, the president has no standing that I know of. The Senate has sole power to dispose of the impeachment one way or the other as far as I know.

  253. 253

    CMoore wrote:

    A retired washington lobbyist told me that when they were not on the hill, he used to see lawmakers both Democrats and Republicans having meals together after hours working on issues. Now he says if they aren’t preening for the cameras or in committee all they do is raise money for the next election.
    Well I hope your all proud of what we have become. Oh well…. I guess its just “The other guys fault” right ?

    Let me introduce you to logic.

    When this bipartisanship was happening, who was in control of Congress? Answer: Democrats

    Who is in control now? Answer: Republicans

    Another little tidbit of history. The unwritten rule used to be… politics ends at our borders. Who abandoned that rule? Answer: Republicans

    What power do Democrats have in Congress to change this? Answer: None

    So, let’s see. Republicans were at fault for poisoning the well, and they are the only ones in control to fix the well.

    That pretty much makes it the Republicans fault.

  254. 254

    One more thing CMoore… Newt Gingrich disbanded the various processes which were in place to maintain that bipartisanship.

    So again, who is at fault?

  255. 255
    ppGaz says:

    So again, who is at fault?

    Blame it on the bossa nova.

  256. 256
    Steve says:

    I must have missed the part where Atrios said “Quick, now everyone send him incoherent emails laced with profanity.”

    When Michelle Malkin actually published students’ phone numbers and email addresses on the front page of her blog, John was all like “oh, she just linked a press release, and then some knuckle-draggers decided to make death threats,” as if there was barely any causal relationship. But apparently, any time Atrios calls someone a wanker, it’s equivalent to unleashing an angry mob! I know John is no Malkin fan but I still don’t think he’s playing this one straight down the middle.

    What if all of John’s angry commentors read this post and start sending Atrios nasty emails? Will John feel responsible?

  257. 257
    Ancient Purple says:

    The most scary thing I think I could hear on this blog is that Brian is a civics teacher.

    /shudder

  258. 258
    demimondian says:

    The Constitution is silent on whether or not the Presidential power of pardon extends to the impeachment and removal process. It seems wildly unlikely to so extend, however, since that would make impeachment, removal, and permanent ban from holding office of trust totally toothless.

    However, if Bush were impeached, I fully expect to hear from the pestiferous punpits of presidential primacy that the power to pardon is parvasive.

  259. 259
    Steve says:

    No one ever takes my word for anything.

    Article II, Section 2:

    …he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

  260. 260
    Barbar says:

    That Cohen article is amazing—the one Ezra Klein wrote about.

    Yup. Can’t we all just get along? In the interests of unity, I suggest:

    Is there anyone, no matter of what political persuasion, who can read that Cohen column and then say with a straight face that he is not a wanker?

    Here’s the link again:
    http://ezraklein.typepad.com/b.....olumn.html

  261. 261
    ppGaz says:

    The Constitution is silent on whether or not the Presidential power of pardon extends to the impeachment and removal process.

    Uh, you’ll need to join Brian in the corner with the large Dunce cap.

    Wow. This thread must have set a record for bad information.

  262. 262
    Beej says:

    If the foregoing comments are representative of the level of political discourse in this country (and I have no reason to doubt that they are) then God help us all! Please, everyone, explain to me how attacking other commenters personally is supposed to convince them to agree with you. Persuasion is the art of opening the eyes of others with your words. Hard to open one’s eyes when someone is throwing acid at you. But they did it first? So what? You hated it when they did it so now you’re going to do the same thing so they can hate it when you do it? Oh, yeah, that makes sense!

  263. 263
    Pooh says:

    “Lynch Mob” is appropriate, here.

    Cohen’s kids are huge fans of Ice Cube’s early post-NWA work

  264. 264
    ppGaz says:

    Beej, what in the world made you think that “persuasion” has anything to do with blogging?

    I always find that one of the oddest and most charming notions that regularly shows up in places like this.

    The blog is called an ugly name that represents “Hot Air.”
    It’s mostly performance art, and theatrical rhetoric. Persuasion?

    In ten years and many tens of thousands of articles in Usenet and blog-o-land, I have yet to see any reliable examples of intended or even accidental persuasion.

  265. 265
    Sherard says:

    Yeah you frothing rage filled lefties, you run with that impeachment thing. That’s a SURE winner. Morons.

  266. 266
    Beej says:

    ppGaz,

    You’re probably right, more’s the pity. Can you imagine what a tool blogs could be if people really did try a little reason and persuasion? One of the reasons I read John Cole’s blog is because he seems to me to be a reasonable person. Too bad reason is waaaaaay down the list of priorities for many commenters.

  267. 267
    Par R says:

    New and apparently naive Beej writes: .

    Too bad reason is waaaaaay down the list of priorities for many commenters

    The fact that so many of the commenters have no functioning abilities to “reason” is undoubtedly responsible for this result. The collective IQ of any random three probably totals less than the average age of any other three.

  268. 268
    Brian says:

    Brian is a civics teacher

    How did you guess??? I teach government at UCLA.

  269. 269
    Andrew says:

    I can’t decide if Sherard is slower, more dim-witted Brian or if Brian is simply a more punctual Sherard.

  270. 270
    ppGaz says:

    Can you imagine what a tool blogs could be if people really did try a little reason and persuasion?

    Okay. You, Darrell and Par go first. Set the example.

    Give me a call when you think you’ve created the proper environment. My email address is in plain sight. Been using the same one for ten years.

    Yours? Par’s Darrell’s? Hmm. That’s funny, you guys don’t seem to be reachable. Well, I’m sure that’s just a minor oversight that will be corrected forthwith.

  271. 271
    Andrew says:

    I teach government at UCLA.

    Okay, I take it back. You’re a good spoofer.

  272. 272
    Ancient Purple says:

    Okay, I take it back. You’re a good spoofer.

    Or just a liar.

  273. 273

    […] John Cole of Balloon Juice pretty much nails it: There is, apparently, no ‘political downside’ to being an asshole, so many on the left and the right will continue to urge people to behave like one. Something upsets you- get ten thousand people to fire off vulgar e-mails. Really- it convinces people your position is right. [/sarcasm] […]

  274. 274
    ppGaz says:

    Third time in a row that Brian has taken a sudden powder when the subject of email addresses comes up.

    What’s the deal, Brian? You do HAVE an email address, right?

  275. 275

    Can you imagine what a tool blogs could be if people really did try a little reason and persuasion? One of the reasons I read John Cole’s blog is because he seems to me to be a reasonable person. Too bad reason is waaaaaay down the list of priorities for many commenters.

    Lead by example.

  276. 276
    Perry Como says:

    You can impeach a ham sandwich.

  277. 277
    jpe says:

    This just in: there are lots of crazies out there. Wadda scoop!

  278. 278
    demimondian says:

    ppG — you know what? I’m not reachable, either. Nor is DougJ, as far as I know.

  279. 279
    Jess says:

    As usual, Digby has a particularly nice comment on the matter:

    Baby boomer elites are now that creepy old guy muttering at the kids to stop walking on his lawn or he’ll call the cops.

  280. 280
    trostky says:

    Hey, 279 comments. Not bad, but you’re no Richard Cohen, hate-mail-wise.

  281. 281
    Ancient Purple says:

    You can impeach a ham sandwich.

    Baloney.

  282. 282
    ppGaz says:

    ppG—you know what? I’m not reachable, either. Nor is DougJ, as far as I know.

    I don’t know about you, but both John Cole and I have exchanged email with DougJ.

    But who has exchanged mail with Darrell, Par, or Brian?

    Anyone?

  283. 283
    srv says:

    All,

    Me thinks DougJ has been busy:

    Shorter Jeff G

  284. 284
    Perry Como says:

    Nor is DougJ, as far as I know.

    Contact LGF. DougJ is the founder.

  285. 285
  286. 286
    Perry Como says:

    Put a radial engine on a motorcycle

    That scares me. Only because I don’t want my ass pulled into that back tire.

  287. 287
    ppGaz says:

    Wow. I like the airplane.

    As a bike, though, you need some serious air moving over those cylinders to cool them at any real power setting, eh?

  288. 288

    Apparently the creator of that motorcycle doesn’t have much faith in his ability to survive.

    I say that, because I noticed…

    He’s got no steering or brakes!

    Can you say SPLAT!?

  289. 289
    Perry Como says:

    He’s got no steering or brakes!

    A buddy of mine has a great story about someone that *demanded* a suicide clutch on a bike. Young kid, rich parents, wrecked bike after a couple blocks. Stupidity knows no bounds.

  290. 290
    ppGaz says:

    I think it might be a photoshop motorcycle.

    Anyway, DougJ, Brian and Beej are all creations of people at Scrutator.

    Wasted thread.

  291. 291

    Let the haters hate.

    Colbert owned the WHCD. He made the press look just as incompetent as Bush.

    Obviously Cohen’s panties were in a twist. I wonder if he’d like some wine with that cheese…

  292. 292

    fuck!

    cheese with that wine.

    …damnit.

  293. 293
    Jess says:

    fuck!

    cheese with that wine.

    …damnit.

    Time to put the wine bottle down and go to bed, Dis.

  294. 294

    I am totally sober tonight.

    Thank you very much.

    Usually I have to delude myself with alcohol when speaking politics to Bush supporters.

    I like to think on their level and communicate in language that they obviously understand.

  295. 295
    Par R says:

    But who has exchanged mail with Darrell, Par, or Brian?

    Obviously, I can’t speak for the others, but who in their right mind would wish to engage a complete idiot like you, ppGaz, in some sort of “private” dialogue? I rather suspect many of us aren’t used to associating with pure trailer trash like you, ppGaz.

  296. 296
    chopper says:

    Obviously, I can’t speak for the others, but who in their right mind would wish to engage a complete idiot like you, ppGaz, in some sort of “private” dialogue? I rather suspect many of us aren’t used to associating with pure trailer trash like you, ppGaz

    i dunno, Par R. i can imagine wanting to engage in private dialogue with some people on this site. but not you, Par R. partly because you’re an idiot, and partly because i hate unnecessary bolding, Par R.

  297. 297
    canuckistani says:

    Obviously, I can’t speak for the others, but who in their right mind would wish to engage a complete idiot like you, ppGaz, in some sort of “private” dialogue? I rather suspect many of us aren’t used to associating with pure trailer trash like you, ppGaz.

    PPGaz – this is why I am opposed to personal attacks. I firmly believe that Richard Cohen should be exposed as the goof that he is, and firmly put in his place with a flood of incisive emails. But crap like the above drains the attacker of anything resembling credibility. If Par R had a point worth making, I’d ignore it if he couldn’t back it up with anything better than calling an opponent “trailer trash”.

  298. 298
    demimondian says:

    Actually, Perry, I think that DougJ is George W. Bush. Think about it: he poses as a conservative in order to get the base riled up, says a lot of things he doesn’t believe, and is really a liberal, according to NRO.

    Sure sound the same to me, anyway. Has anybody ever seen DougJ in the same room with a pretzel?

  299. 299
    ppGaz says:

    but who in their right mind would wish to engage a complete idiot like you, ppGaz

    Well, send me an email, and I’ll send you the list.

  300. 300
    ppGaz says:

    PPGaz – this is why I am opposed to personal attacks

    Chuckle! It’s exactly why I am for them.

    Par is a spoof. The more you go after him, the spoofier he gets.

  301. 301
    mcsey says:

    Odd post considering two post later there’s one filed under “Outrage”.

    Hey look a whole category of outrage, http://www.balloon-juice.com/?cat=15

  302. 302
    mcsey says:

    Boy I miss the point sometimes, don’t I;)

  303. 303
    Mickey Finn says:

    Richaerd Cohen is a hypocrite. He likes to dish it out, but he can’t take it. A careful reading of his vapors-driven column about “hate” reveals he didn’t even read most of the mail that buckled his knees. I wrote him a critical letter, not at the behest of any blogger, but because his piece was poorly supported and offensive. It contained no profanity or “hate.” Whining about public reaction to his BushCo. apologia in the way he did simply confirms his courtier status in the hermetically sealed DC press bubble.

  304. 304

    Still interesting that the Colbert video is #1 at google. The Bush impersonator is like #5, just behind a lady getting punched in the mouth and a 9/11 conspiracy theory.

  305. 305
    Jim Allen says:

    If you prefer a more measured (but biting) response to Cohen, check here..

    H/t to SusanG at DailyKos, who also highlighted this one paragraph (from the link):

    Why the anger? It can be summed up in one run-on sentence: We have lost two towers in New York, a part of the Pentagon, an important American city called New Orleans, our economic solvency, our global reputation, our moral authority, our children’s future, we have lost tens of thousands of American soldiers to death and grievous injury, we must endure the Abramoffs and the Cunninghams and the Libbys and the whores and the bribes and the utter corruption, we must contemplate the staggering depth of the hole we have been hurled down into, and we expect little to no help from the mainstream DC press, whose lazy go-along-to-get-along cocktail-circuit mentality allowed so much of this to happen because they failed comprehensively to do their job.

  306. 306
    Brian says:

    Still interesting that the Colbert video is #1 at google. The Bush impersonator is like #5, just behind a lady getting punched in the mouth and a 9/11 conspiracy theory.

    Big surprise. Just about everything anti-Bush or goofing on Bush is #1 at Google. The way they structure their engine, gives these results. The guys running Google hate Bush and the GOP.

  307. 307
    chopper says:

    The way they structure their engine, gives these results. The guys running Google hate Bush and the GOP.

    so it’s a conspiracy then. interesting.

  308. 308
    Candidus says:

    When this bipartisanship was happening, who was in control of Congress? Answer: Democrats

    Who is in control now? Answer: Republicans

    (shrug)

    Bipartisanship was easy when Republican congressmen “knew their place.”

  309. 309
    Perry Como says:

    so it’s a conspiracy then.

    Conspiracy theory, actually. Of course a multi-billion dollar company is spiking the algorithm for search results because OMGTHPTdrool!!1eleven

  310. 310
    Darrell says:

    When Michelle Malkin actually published students’ phone numbers and email addresses on the front page of her blog, John was all like “oh, she just linked a press release, and then some knuckle-draggers decided to make death threats,” as if there was barely any causal relationship

    She linked to PR release that the students themselves posted with their contact details. It also continued to be posted on Indymedia and other sites as well.

    Furthermore, there is one hell of a distinction between the actions on the two sides, as Malkin’s readers were reacting to leftist student activists who physically blocked military recruiters from speaking freely with interested students with at least one sign which read “Fuck the Military”. Orders of magnitude more inflammatory than a movie review in which one guy disagreed with some of Al Gore’s hairbrained environmental ideas.

    I love how the left does their moral equivalency thing. A mob of “fuck the military” leftists running off military recruiters and vandalizing their property.. in their fucked up minds equates to an unflattering movie review. How rational

  311. 311
    Steve says:

    So because the lefties did the more inflammatory thing… the person who printed their phone numbers and email addresses (NOT JUST A LINK BTW) on the front page of her blog is LESS culpable? Seems to me she’d have a lot more reason to know exactly what her readers would do with the information.

  312. 312
    Darrell says:

    the person who printed their phone numbers and email addresses (NOT JUST A LINK BTW) on the front page of her blog is LESS culpable?

    The students themselves put their phone numbers and email addresses on their announcement. Let me say that again, she was posting what the students themselves were actively publicizing. She didn’t “dig up” their numbers, the numbers and email address were included on the PR announcement which the student activists wrote up and publicized. Those students were not hiding their identities, their contact information, or their activities in the least..

    Malkin was directing attention to the students’ own PR announcement, which was also posted on a number of other sites, not just Malkin’s. So take me through the ‘logic’ on how that makes Malkin “culpable”? and culpable of what? Culpable of publicizing what so many on the left on college campuses are actually doing?

  313. 313
    Bone-In RibEye says:

    She didn’t “dig up” their numbers, the numbers and email address were included on the PR announcement which the student activists wrote up and publicized.

    They removed their names from the press release, she dug up the cached version. They asked to stop because they were receiving threats, she didn’t stop, she posted them again.

  314. 314
    Darrell says:

    They asked to stop because they were receiving threats, she didn’t stop, she posted them again.

    It’s my understanding that they didn’t ask her to stop.. Do you have anything to substantiate that claim that they asked her to stop posting their contact info, and that she refused that request?

  315. 315
    Steve says:

    Malkin was directing attention to the students’ own PR announcement, which was also posted on a number of other sites, not just Malkin’s. So take me through the ‘logic’ on how that makes Malkin “culpable”? and culpable of what?

    She posted the phone numbers and email addresses on the front page of her blog, she didn’t merely “direct attention” to a press release where that information could be found. She actively publicized the information, beyond the places where it was already available.

    A mob of “fuck the military” leftists running off military recruiters and vandalizing their property.. in their fucked up minds equates to an unflattering movie review.

    To be clear, I never said or implied there was any equivalence between these two things. Nor did I say or imply that there was an equivalence between the people who harassed the students and the people who harassed Richard Cohen. All I asked was how Atrios could be considered more culpable than Malkin. In your head, that somehow makes me a big fan of these students who threw rocks or whatever they did, but rest assured, it’s only in your head.

    I’m not going to go through all this again with you. The point I made in the post you quoted – wait, let’s look at it again:

    When Michelle Malkin actually published students’ phone numbers and email addresses on the front page of her blog, John was all like “oh, she just linked a press release, and then some knuckle-draggers decided to make death threats,” as if there was barely any causal relationship. But apparently, any time Atrios calls someone a wanker, it’s equivalent to unleashing an angry mob!

    If you want to argue that neither Malkin nor Atrios is responsible in the least for their commentors harassing the students or Richard Cohen, you know what, fine, have a nice life. The point of my post was to wonder how Atrios, who didn’t publish anything at all beyond “Richard Cohen is a wanker,” could be MORE responsible for his readers harassing Cohen than Malkin is for her readers who harassed the students.

    If you want to make the case that Atrios is more culpable, great, be my guest. Otherwise, you’re arguing some point other than the one I made.

  316. 316

    The way they structure their engine, gives these results. The guys running Google hate Bush and the GOP.

    LOL.

    What a buffoon.

  317. 317
    chopper says:

    Yeah you frothing rage filled lefties, you run with that impeachment thing.

    hey, you frothing hate-filled righties impeached clinton on far less, with far more frothing hate-filled rage.

  318. 318
    canuckistani says:

    with at least one sign which read “Fuck the Military”.

    Is it against the law to say that?

  319. 319
    Darrell says:

    Is it against the law to say that?

    No. I’m not sure if it’s illegal even when leftists say things like this

    But it doesn’t make it right. If it’s not against the law, you’re ok with it, right? Especially if you agree with the ‘message’.

  320. 320
    Darrell says:

    Bone-In RibEye wrote:

    They asked to stop because they were receiving threats, she didn’t stop, she posted them again.

    Second request to back up that statement. Please show any evidence at all that the students contacted Malkin requesting her to remove their contact info. and she refused.

    Or did you simply lie your ass off and make that story up?

  321. 321
    TTT says:

    Flawless and foolproof truism, scientifically tested:

    “If you don’t find Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart funny, you are old.”

    Cohen is every lame 1950s dad grimacing at the first Beatles LP. His tastes are obsolete and wrong, and he is so shocked by the direction of the future that all he can do is demean it based upon petty ideological differences rather than actually critiquing what it has to SAY.

    As others have noted, Cohen mewled his way through TWO op-eds without ever actually deigning to address what his critics (Colbert and then email respondents) had to say. He’s little better than O’Reilly, calling people “Kool Aid drinkers” and cutting off their microphones to prevent them from out-arguing him, which on a fair playing field is quite easy to do.

    If he can’t tell the truth and can’t even follow a story, why trust him to be able to identify a meanie web-flame?

    “OrcSlayer3:16@webtv.net” is not news. The news is that Colbert publicly reamed the worst two-term president in the history of this country and his idle servants in the Beltway media who love jokes about the absent WMDs our soldiers died for, and he did it to their talentless faces too. Of course they think it isn’t funny: they themselves were the joke.

  322. 322
    Sweet Sweetback's Badassssssssssss Song says:

    The Disenfranchised Voter Says:

    The way they structure their engine, gives these results. The guys running Google hate Bush and the GOP.

    LOL.

    What a buffoon.

    Assclown #1, The Disenfranchised Voter, proves himself dumber than the ordinary assclown. Of course, Google has famously rigged their search engine to pull up – guess what? – when you click the “I feel lucky” option on the word “failure”.

    Ho ho ho. Learn your facts, clown, before you “LOL” or call somebody else a buffoon. Moron.

    Meanwhile, Assclown #2, the bloviating TTT, is quite obviously bound and determined to force the Dems to blow up in the next couple of elections over their internal split about the iraq war — a redux of the Dem implosion over Vietnam that got Nixon elected twice.

    Keep it up, fool. It’s a guaranteed recipe for electoral disaster. Just keep that righteous anger coming. I’m loving it!

    Hahahahahahahahaha!

  323. 323
    TTT says:

    Some guy with the stupidest net-handle of all time wrote:

    “TTT, is quite obviously bound and determined to force the Dems to blow up in the next couple of elections over their internal split about the iraq war—a redux of the Dem implosion over Vietnam that got Nixon elected twice.”

    I’m sorry, excuse me, but….

    “Internal split about the Iraq War”?

    Pffft. There’s barely any internal split amongst Dems about the Iraq War, just like there’s barely any internal split amongst Americans or humanity as a whole about the Iraq War. Everybody is opposed to it except for the weird, abnormal cult of people who don’t hate George W. Bush. There are probably more Wiccans in the Vatican than there are Bush / Iraq supporters in America.

    You talk about Nixon’s election, but the thing is, this time the silent majority is everybody who hates Bush and his frivolous, no-gain war. And actually we’re not that silent anymore, which of course makes the last few remaining die-hards accuse us of being “angry.” Instead of doing that, Bush’s fans should stick to playing in the band as the Titanic sinks, it would be more likely to accomplish something useful that way.

  324. 324
    Sweet Sweetback's Badassssssssssss Song says:

    You mark my words, TTT.

    The angry left is going to split the Democratic Party over the war, and it will go down in flames. I realize you’re not going to get this until it’s too late – you’re snarky remarks about Wiccans in the Vatican tell me as much.

    But y’all remember what I told you in December 2006 & December 2008.

    Remember and write it down on your forehead in big, black indelible letters:

    I AM SWEET SWEETBACK’S BITCH

    And when your friends look at you strangely, just shrug your shoulders and say, “Yo, that’s the way it is.”

  325. 325
    TTT says:

    Kid, seriously, if you think that there’s any real support for this war, let alone enough support for it to constitute a “split” when contrasted to the everybody who is against it, then you’re the one who never got it in the first place and you sure don’t now.

    You could just as truthfully claim there’s a “split” over whether the scientific community accepts evolution, based on how a similar fraction of meaningless dead-enders mutter to the contrary. Wait, why’d I say “could”? Since you’re a Bushie, you probably already DO say that…..

  326. 326
    BIRDZILLA says:

    Al Gore is out of his mind and crazy as a bed bug he must be the biggist liar around and frankly he should be sent to the mental ward and have his head examened

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] John Cole of Balloon Juice pretty much nails it: There is, apparently, no ‘political downside’ to being an asshole, so many on the left and the right will continue to urge people to behave like one. Something upsets you- get ten thousand people to fire off vulgar e-mails. Really- it convinces people your position is right. [/sarcasm] […]

Comments are closed.