The Reaction to Immigration

I really have not paid too much attention to the immigration bill, and anything with the handprints of Kennedy and Bush is probably something that is flawed in so many ways it is hard to count, but I have to admit, what I am really enjoying is the reaction from the 28%ers. Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett are going to explode any time now, and Michelle Malkin is equally volcanic (really, just go to the top and scroll). Their readers and echo chorus are in a predictable lather, as well.

Bush and the last few congresses have betrayed every principle conservatives ever stood for, and these folks were there with pom-poms the whole ride, degrading the debate and attacking anyone who dared to disagree with Bush. These are the folks who pushed Schiavo, these are the folks who said little to nothing over the hideous bankruptcy bill, these are the folks who told us all to STFU and let Bush lead us in the debacle in Iraq, these are the folks who insist that torture and invasive surveillance are first order conservative principles. I could list 100 more things, but why bother?

And now their ox has been gored, and they are freaking out.

Personally, I am experiencing wave after wave of sheer joy at their expense. They brought it on themselves- their cheerleading already cost them the House and Senate, as it was their bullying of dissenters and unflinching support of the Bush/Cheney axis of incompetence that lead to the mess we have now. You want to know why the GOP lost the House and Senate and will lose the Presidency in 2008?

Because this administration has been so coddled by its internet cheerleaders and the base, that no matter how inexcusable the administration incompetence, they had still had the full support of the rightwing nutroots bootlickers. It got so bad, that the vast majority of the country, when faced with Bush’s assertion that you are either “With us or against us,” the choice wasn’t so clear any more.

And the folks screaming hysterically today are the root cause. Excuse me while I gloat.

77 replies
  1. 1
    Lee says:

    Does anyone have links handy (text or Youtube) that have Bush, Cheney, etc calling into the question the patriotism those that disagree with them on policy (any policy)?

    I know it has occured, I’m just looking for the evidence.

    thanks,

  2. 2

    I know it has occured, I’m just looking for the evidence.

    That’d be awesome!

  3. 3
    Punchy says:

    Apparently both Tim AND John Cole are missing, cuz there’s just no way this was penned by THE Mr. Cole.

    Wow. Nice post. John’s one forced abortion, a few gay friends, and some Birks away from full-fledged membership in the DEMONcrat party. Congrats, Big Man.

  4. 4
    grumpy realist says:

    There’s a good article by Publius over at Obsidian Wings, by the way. His thesis (which I find plausible) is that this whole thing will cause the Republican party to lose Hispanics for years–purely because of the hissy fit that we’re already starting to see from the nativist sillies.

    Now we can sit back and watch the Republican candidates pander their way down to the last 10% bat-sh*t crazy percentage of the die-hards. And lose all hope of attracting more than 2% of Hispanic votes.

    California GOP, redux.

  5. 5
    grumpy realist says:

    John–do you see any evidence that the moderates/intelligent side of the Republican party will ever start to come back?

    I’m surprised that the business crowd hasn’t started to yank on the reins more–they must realize that handing one’s political party over to a bunch of wild-eyed religious yahoos isn’t going to produce great governance for a modern economy.

  6. 6
    RSA says:

    Does anyone have links handy (text or Youtube) that have Bush, Cheney, etc calling into the question the patriotism those that disagree with them on policy (any policy)?

    Cheney and Bush are well-prepped, I think, to handle the patriotism issue. Samples from the searchable White House news release site:

    I hope out of all this debate — and by the way, there is — you’ve just got to understand, here in Washington, I do not believe that someone is unpatriotic if they don’t agree with my point of view. On the other hand, I think it’s important for people to understand the consequences of not giving our troops the resources necessary to do the job.

    And my point was that if we follow what I believe Speaker Pelosi really wants to do in terms of withdraw, that that would validate the al Qaeda strategy. I was very careful in those words I selected. I didn’t say “give aid and comfort to terrorists.” I didn’t say “unpatriotic.” I said it would validate the al Qaeda strategy.

    Translation: I didn’t say you were unpatriotic; I just said you’re with us or against us, and you’re obviously not with us.

  7. 7
    Face says:

    These right-leaning websites are literally living in fantasy world. They cannot believe the gov’t would pass any bill short of kicking out every Hispanic in the country. Not only can they simply not fathom that they no longer control the legislative process, they’re unable to comprehend the impossibility (not to mention, economic disaster) of forcing every illegal back to whatever country they claim to be from. As if these countries want them back, of course.

  8. 8
    taodon says:

    And as a progressive who disagrees with this bill – where do I fit? Woe is me, what label will I take tomorrow? I really want to wear the 28%er level at least once, cause it’s trendy, apparently.

  9. 9
    Andrew says:

    Shoe me someone who is obsessed with immigration and I will show you someone who is a hugely unpleasant dickwad.

  10. 10
    sglover says:

    I have an acquaintance who’s a refugee from one of the former Soviet republics in Central Asia, so I’ve paid particular attention to the “path to citizenship” bit. It stinks. It really stinks. I can see imposing a fee/fine for dodging the CIS (formerly knows as INS). But the “Z” visa requirement that heads of households need to return to their country of origin for some kind of “security” song and dance is pure bureaucratic chickenshit. My guess is that this alone will keep many immigrants — all those from further than Central America — out in the cold.

    The “guest worker” thing conjures up images of the plight of the Turks in Germany — exactly the kind of dead-end situation that America, to her great credit, has managed to avoid.

    I don’t see why Dems need to sign off on such a shit bill, just to give the Boy King a transient feeling of accomplishment.

  11. 11
    Davebo says:

    Pure comedy gold.

    Check out the Freepers reaction.

    Impeach Bush..

  12. 12
    Jake says:

    Yeah verily, the bill sucks but those who say it sucks because it will deny them their RDA of red meat (in the form of people being rounded up and shoved into planes) suck even harder by a factor of 12.

    Do ya think the cheerleader in chief’s cheerleaders are finally twigging to the fact that he doesn’t give half a flaming rat’s arse what they think? Whoops. I forgot, Teddy K. is involved so they can just blame it on the Dems.

    Never mind.

  13. 13
    Steve says:

    But the “Z” visa requirement that heads of households need to return to their country of origin for some kind of “security” song and dance is pure bureaucratic chickenshit.

    Your choice of words is apt. What’s really going on here is, everyone is somewhat afraid of the “amnesty” label. If we simply let all the illegals petition for citizenship, that’s obviously amnesty. If we let them petition but make them pay a retroactive fine or something, that’s still too close to amnesty. So the brilliant political minds in Washington decide that hey, just keep loading it up with one requirement after another, and if we make them jump through 100 legal hoops before they’re allowed to apply for citizenship, maybe we’ll confuse people so much that they’ll stop calling it amnesty.

    In reality, mind you, if you’re pro-immigration then almost nothing constitutes “amnesty” to you, and if you’re anti-immigration then almost everything constitutes “amnesty.” It’s just a silly label that doesn’t actually mean anything.

    The argument is made that if the Democrats just wait a few years to increase their majorities, they can pass a better bill. But they don’t want to do that, because if they pass a “better” bill all on their own, they know they’re going to be relentlessly demagogued by the Republicans. They’d rather pass an imperfect bill on a bipartisan basis, so nobody gets to point fingers and make political hay out of it.

    It’s kind of like a bill lessening the penalties for child rape. If that bill is ever going to pass, it’s going to have to be bipartisan. No one is stupid enough to support it all on their own.

  14. 14
    Wilfred says:

    I wouldn’t gloat so much. Bush will have to do something to appease his scumbag base, who were already pissed off because they didn’t get their war in Iran. Since the Mexicans got a pass, he’ll have to find some other people to hammer. Brown preferably, but Iranians will do.

  15. 15
    LITBMueller says:

    Because this administration has been so coddled by its internet cheerleaders and the base…

    I think its even more than that: Bush has always shown that he will only do what…BUSH wants (and, BUSH = Cheney, Rove, et al.).

    This can be seen in the Cult of Personality that has been built around Bush the Decider: he only keeps his closest associates around him, and when there is a vacancy in the Executive Branch, he almost always just shuffles his closest people around.

    Need a new AG? Here’s my lawyer! Need a new Supreme Court Chief? Here’s my other lawyer! (rejected, thankfully) Need a new World Bank Prez? Here’s my buddy who gave us the Iraq War! Need an Iraq Ambassador? Here’s my UN Ambassador who was behind the death squads in Honduras! Need a new Intelligence Director? Shift over the death squads guy!

    It just goes on and on…. [I am willing to bet a million smackers that Bush appoints Zoellick to head the World Bank. That would be par for the course]

    And, look at how much this Administration stresses loyalty. Not to the GOP. Not to Republican or Conservative principles. But, to BUSH, the great figurehead. From the loyalty oaths that people had to sign before entering Cheney campaign appearances in 2004, to the whole “loyal Bushies” thing in DOJ. And, that’s probably just a really small sampling. I even read once that people applying to join the National Park Service were asked if they support BUSH’s policies.

  16. 16
    srv says:

    The ironical Bush Derangement Syndrome – on display today everywhere in the Fluffersphere. Hughs minions demanding he make George veto the bill. Freepers wanting impeachment! How can we win over there if we surrender over here!

    Revel in it, never have so many deserved so much scorn.

  17. 17
    Dreggas says:

    Davebo Says:

    Pure comedy gold.

    Check out the Freepers reaction.

    Impeach Bush

    To hear them now talk about “treason” and about bush “not believing in the rule of law” after all the shit that has been coming out just makes me want to smack every last one of them.

    It wasn’t ignoring the rule of law or treason when bush was committing other crimes, like, uh SPYING ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE or ignoring the laws of the land wholesale but let one illegal immigrant be allowed to petition for citizenship and now it’s time to impeach.

    Un.Fucking.Believable.

  18. 18
    Pug says:

    I’m done with him on this and many other issues.
    I’ll never vote for him again.

    Illegal invaders are going to kill us all.

    A little sampe of the hysteria over at Free Republic. I’ll never vote for him again? Huh?

  19. 19
    demkat620 says:

    I blew my gas money on popcorn and margaritas. This is gonna be fun to watch. You knew Malkin was gonna explode, the Freepi too. But if he’s lost Hewitt it really is over.

  20. 20
    demkat620 says:

    I blew my gas money on popcorn and margaritas. This is gonna be fun to watch. You knew Malkin was gonna explode, the Freepi too. But if he’s lost Hewitt it really is over.

  21. 21
    demkat620 says:

    sorry for the double post.

  22. 22
    Fe E says:

    I’m done with him on this and many other issues.
    I’ll never vote for him again.

    Illegal invaders are going to kill us all.

    A little sampe of the hysteria over at Free Republic. I’ll never vote for him again? Huh?

    That was pure comedy gold; and the “I’ll never vote for him again was the cerry on top of the funny sundae!

  23. 23
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Ooh, RW will not like that. (For cheap entertainment, take a look at his recent entry scrabbling frantically for evidence that the country is starting to turn back toward Bush.)

  24. 24
    MBunge says:

    The best part of it all is that President Bush had never hidden his immigration agenda. The fact is that from the beginning there’s been plenty about George W. Bush for conservatives of all kinds to distrust and dislike, but they let themselves be herded like sheep into slavishly supporting him. Some of the anger has to come from at least a limited realization of what moronic suckers they’ve been.

    Mike

  25. 25
    Face says:

    Good Lord, how many more do they intend to bring into the country? Isn’t 30-50 million enough for them? The sorry bast*rds. They’re traitors to America/Americans. I hope they rot in hell.

    From the Freeper comments. Question–how did this number go from the correct ~12 mill to 20 mill (Malkin’s link) to now 30-50 million (Davebo’s link)?

    If they’re really crossing our boarder at ~3 million an hour, perhaps we really do have a problem.

    WHERE’S THAT DAMN FENCE BUSH PROMISED US????

  26. 26
    bud says:

    So, John, are you *for* unlimited immigration -which is what anything with so much as a whiff of “amnesty” will bring us (see previous “amnesty” bill and results) – or are you against allowing our Mexican neighbors to overrun the place?

    Or are you just for anything that will vex the R’s (like EVERY OTHER commenter), and devil take the hindmost?

  27. 27
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    bud,
    Immigration aside, I’m against you.
    Also, you know John is an R, right? Not his fault you just got sheared by the leader you thought was on you side, ya mindless sheep.

  28. 28
    Tom Hilton says:

    Pure comedy gold.

    Check out the Freepers reaction.

    Impeach Bush..

    They had the same reaction after Bush’s speech on immigration a year ago. It’s an affront to one of the core principles of today’s Republicans (xenophobia–the other principle being authoritarianism).

  29. 29
    AkaDad says:

    Dreggas, I am your bobblehead…

  30. 30
    Dreggas says:

    Face Says:

    Good Lord, how many more do they intend to bring into the country? Isn’t 30-50 million enough for them? The sorry bast*rds. They’re traitors to America/Americans. I hope they rot in hell.

    From the Freeper comments. Question—how did this number go from the correct ~12 mill to 20 mill (Malkin’s link) to now 30-50 million (Davebo’s link)?

    If they’re really crossing our boarder at ~3 million an hour, perhaps we really do have a problem.

    WHERE’S THAT DAMN FENCE BUSH PROMISED US????

    Ever hear of the Great Adirondack Fish story?

  31. 31
    Dreggas says:

    AkaDad Says:

    Dreggas, I am your bobblehead…

    If I didn’t see it I wouldn’t have believed it. God what miserable troglodytes.

  32. 32
    Pooh says:

    It got so bad, that the vast majority of the country, when faced with Bush’s assertion that you are either “With us or against us,” the choice wasn’t so clear any more.

    For some reason, this was my favorite part…

    Relatedly, has anyone seen Darrell recently? This is just his kind of story…

  33. 33
    JWeidner says:

    some Birks away from full-fledged membership in the DEMONcrat party. Congrats, Big Man.

    Come on now. Birkenstocks? There are some lengths to which even John won’t go (I hope).

  34. 34
    stavro says:

    Relatedly, has anyone seen Darrell recently? This is just his kind of story…

    I was wondering the same thing. Haven’t seen him in weeks.

  35. 35
    Dave says:

    To: 300magnum

    The rule of law has just been thrown out the window. I agree that impeachment is in order.

    15 posted on 05/17/2007 12:22:44 PM PDT by albie

    From the Freeper site. This made my day.

  36. 36
    Sstarr says:

    I quite like this Freeper reaction:

    “I’m done with him on this and many other issues. I’ll never vote for him again.”

    I tried to think of a pithy thing to say about the comment, but I think I’ll just let it speak for itself.

  37. 37
    jake says:

    Illegal invaders are going to kill us all.

    Perhaps this … humanoid … was quoting Native Americans, circa 1600?

    Or not.

  38. 38
    Dreggas says:

    Dave Says:

    To: 300magnum

    The rule of law has just been thrown out the window. I agree that impeachment is in order.

    15 posted on 05/17/2007 12:22:44 PM PDT by albie

    From the Freeper site. This made my day

    I just want to beat people like that guy mercilessly.

  39. 39
    Pug says:

    So, John, are you for unlimited immigration -which is what anything with so much as a whiff of “amnesty” will bring us (see previous “amnesty” bill and results) – or are you against allowing our Mexican neighbors to overrun the place?

    Or are you just for anything that will vex the R’s (like EVERY OTHER commenter), and devil take the hindmost?

    For the record, I’m against unlimited immigration and for anything that will vex the R’s. These people have been brutal in their attacks on anyone who dared criticize Bush. It’s humorous to see their heads exploding. Now they are calling him a traitor. Is this Bush Derangement Syndrome, or does that only apply to “the left”?

    Where’s Dr. Krauthammer? We need his opinion.

  40. 40
    Ryan S. says:

    Shoe me someone who is obsessed with immigration and I will show you someone who is a hugely unpleasant dickwad.

    *Cough* *Cough* Lou Dobbs *Cough*

    Seriously though, if this passes I’m pretty sure they’re gonna have to squeegee Lou’s head off the camra lens. I can’t wait to see that.

  41. 41
    The Other Andrew says:

    So–will the 2008 Republican candidate be for or against this bill? I can see benefits for the Dems either way. If he’s for it, a third party could very well rise up and sabotage whatever chances the Republicans had of winning. But if the candidate is against it, the lunacy will be on full display, and it’ll probably win even more Hispanics over to our side.

  42. 42
    Ryan S. says:

    From what I hear of this bill it doesn’t seem like so bad a thing.
    1. Gives a clear path to citizenship to hardworking people. Requiring them to pay restitution for the laws they broke.
    2. Actually funding the border fence and tighter border security.
    3. Providing hopefully an adequate amount of guest worker visas.

    If it actually does these things successfully I don’t see why this isn’t a good thing.

  43. 43
    Tsulagi says:

    Have to admit, when yesterday you wrote the 28%ers might drop to the 12%ers over this immigration thing I thought “yeah, right.” Don’t know if it will get down to that number, but now it seems the Bushbots have contracted their own serious case of BDS over this. LOL

    I didn’t completely think that until today while I was driving and tuned into a local conservative talk radio host. Until now he had been a 100% certified Fluffer for Bush. Nothing deterred him. Not the Harriet Meirs nomination, nothing.

    But on this I heard him say “History will vindicate President Bush entirely on the Iraq War, but history will also record him as being the president WHO SOLD OUT THE COUNTRY!” The guy was spitting livid. I pictured a huge aneurism forming on his neck. I seriously thought about calling into the show and just laughing. It was funny.

    So the guy runs a war in ways even a lobotomized idiot would laugh at. Runs up trillions of dollars in debt. Fucks up every agency in government appointing people not competent enough to work at 7/11s. That’s all fine, but this is the thing that sets off the base. Amazing.

    I look forward to the dwindling 28%ers finding some way to blame the Dems. Of course, not like their elected Bush fluffers could have put together an immigration bill sometime in the six years during their hectic two-day workweeks while they were the majority.

  44. 44
    Steve says:

    What’s wrong with unlimited immigration, anyway? I didn’t spend four years of high school learning Spanish for nothing, fuckers.

  45. 45

    […] John Cole laughing at the 28%ers By Doug John Cole has a post entitled The Reaction to Immigration which I enjoyed. I really have not paid too much attention to the immigration bill, and anything with the handprints of Kennedy and Bush is probably something that is flawed in so many ways it is hard to count, but I have to admit, what I am really enjoying is the reaction from the 28%ers. Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett are going to explode any time now, and Michelle Malkin is equally volcanic (really, just go to the top and scroll). Their readers and echo chorus are in a predictable lather, as well. […]

  46. 46

    […] John Cole laughing at the 28%ers By Doug John Cole has a post entitled The Reaction to Immigration which I enjoyed. I really have not paid too much attention to the immigration bill, and anything with the handprints of Kennedy and Bush is probably something that is flawed in so many ways it is hard to count, but I have to admit, what I am really enjoying is the reaction from the 28%ers. Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett are going to explode any time now, and Michelle Malkin is equally volcanic (really, just go to the top and scroll). Their readers and echo chorus are in a predictable lather, as well. […]

  47. 47
    jake says:

    I didn’t spend four years of high school learning Spanish for nothing, fuckers.

    In that case I demand the entire population of France and Sweden relocate to the US, pronto.

  48. 48
    slick says:

    Malkin and Hewitt were certainly NOT “there with pom-poms the whole ride”. On some issues, yes. On others, like immigration, definitely not.

    You’re reaching.

    If you want to criticize cerain right-wing bloggers for their stances on issues like Iraq, so be it. I”m with you on that.

    But being unfair and generalizing certainly doesn’t help YOUR credibility.

    Ah well. Seems that very few can contain themselves from pointing the finger and painting with very broad strokes. Shame.

  49. 49
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Slick, on almost all of Bush’s major (and disastrous) decisions, M. and H. and their brethren were with him all the way. We’re not talking here about the likes of, say, George Will (or even Victor Gold).

  50. 50
    slick says:

    Well, I read blogs on the left, right, and other just about every day. FWIW, I rarely (ever?) agree with Malkin or Hewitt on just about ANY issue. However, Malkin has consistently been to the right of the POTUS and warned time and again that Bush would sell out (as she sees it).

    I don’t get the point of John’s post. It’s clear he wants to gloat over SOMETHING (anything?). Frankly, even if he has legit cause to gloat (told ya!), I think there’s far too much of that in society. It’s immature and of no value. Yes, people tend to make excuses for those they support. Duh. We all have blind spots too (except John, of course). That’s not exactly a revelation. We see this in all walks of life, on all points of the political spectrum.

    John obviously has a major axe to grind. Perhaps it’s justified? But I have read these blogs for many years and I know for a fact that HH, MM, and the other prominent right-wing bloggers have repeatedly faulted Bush and co. on many issues. And even if you disagree with them (as I do most of the time), I think it’s unreasonable to say that they were “blindly cheerleading” in the cases where they fully or mostly agreed with Bush. As I said above, there is a strong human tendency to make excuses for peopel and positions we favour. We ALL do it. And I’m sure there are plenty of people – ledft and right – who do rationalize and march in full lockstep with their “side”. But MM and HH are bad examples of this phenomenon. Actually, I think the COMMENTERS on most of the blogs are a much better example of this!

    re: the immigration bill, most of the prominent right-wing blogs I have read are upset and disappointed – but NOT surprised.

    p.s. I would love to see more civility, tolerance, and respect in the blogosphere. Wishful thinking, I know. Is it the anonymity that brings out the worst in so many?

  51. 51
    Andrew J. Lazarus says:

    Another nut on the Terrorist Amnesty Bill and forecasts disaster for GOP 2008 (that, at least, is likely correct). It’s too bad to see Telenko messing up Winds of Change again, a site whose proprietor keeps postponing his IraqWagmire come to Jesus moment.

    Guest author Telenko, though, has always seen Bush as a bit of a wimp for not invading not just Iran but also Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

    You won’t be surprised to learn he has no military service, but he did once explain that his posts are informed by his successful experiences wargaming.

  52. 52
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    I would love to see more civility and tolerance ANYWHERE, Slick. But we’re not seeing it. I suspect that the anonymity (although it’s a contributing factor) is less important than the simple fact that the Internet is allowing people to continuously blurt out their real feelings (at least of the moment). It’s no more abusive than verbal conversations; but it goes onto permanent record.

    And where political bloging is concerned: instead of turning into Civil, Rational Debate Societies, they’ve become kaffeeklatches where people who had similar views to begin with can get together and stroke each other’s egos by agreeing with each other, in much the same way that troops of chimpanzees cement their social ties by grooming each other. Occasionally a member of a rival ideological troop comes over to challenge the group, at which point there is much screaming and jumping up and down and throwing of sticks until the intruder returns to his own clan. I strongly doubt that anything can be done about this; it’s a reflection of our basic emotional nature, and by itself it will always seriously limit the ability of the Web to enlighten us.

    Where Bush is concerened, however, Cole is livid because he feels betrayed. It’s clear that Cole is a relatively moderate conservative, and one with social-libertarian tendencies into the bargain. He signed on with Bush initially because he thought (as do I) that our current strategic situation is extremely dangerous, and he was convinced that the GOP in general was taking it much more seriously than the Dems were. Well, we have now discovered that the current crew is not only economically right-wing; they don’t even take the nation’s military security seriously — nor do they take the rule of law, or the need to avoid economic corruption, seriously.

    So, what’s a conservative who genuinely believes in the importance of an honest free market, and in competent national defense, to do on making the discovery that he’s been flim-flammed? He gets mad. I’ve watched Cole get madder and madder and madder over the last 3 years as this administration (and its Congressional allies) gradually dropped their fans. He is not alone; my God, had I ever thought I’d see Victor Gold write a furious attack on the GOP…

  53. 53
    merlallen says:

    Does Michelle Malkin know that she is a non white anchor baby?
    Someone needs to tell her that she is, I’ve been banned from her site.
    She hates America and Free Speech.

  54. 54
    Hyperion says:

    And where political bloging is concerned: instead of turning into Civil, Rational Debate Societies, they’ve become kaffeeklatches where people who had similar views to begin with can get together and stroke each other’s egos by agreeing with each other,

    well, sadly, yes.

    but then occasionally someone like you writes a clear, substantive and snarkless post. thanks, Bruce, for temporarily restoring my faith in human intelligence.

  55. 55
    ThymeZone says:

    it’s a reflection of our basic emotional nature, and by itself it will always seriously limit the ability of the Web to enlighten us

    So, if I understand you correctly (you know, based on what you said, and all) …. its the kaffeklatsch that has held back human progress, retarded civilization, and impeded the spread of enlightment? Turned us into monkeys that just like to groom each other and shriek at the intruders?

    If only we could tamp down that kaffeeklatsch insitinct.

    I must say, Bruce, even for you, what was a mighty load of crap you posted there.

    A helluva steaming pile.

    In what fevered brain cell would one imagine that an unmoderated and completely egalitarian, free medium of speech would lead to reasoned discourse and “civility?”

    Like I have to say on a regular basis …. have ya seen the name of the blog, man?

    Hot Air. Not “ladies book club with tea.”

  56. 56
    numbskull says:

    Bullshit.

    It is NOT just the “nutroots” that have been and are continuing to support all of the absolute batshit crazy crap coming out of the Bush/Cheney feces machine.

    Over 70% of self-described Republicans STILL support Bush! Every single Republican I know (and sadly, I’m surrounded by the morons) STILL cannot bring himself or herself to diss Bush beyond a vague grasp that he’s hurting the party (and to hell with the country – never even enters their thoughts).

    So, Johnny, I think you are indulging in wishful thinking. YOU may be the only “Republican” who has seen the naked emporer. The rest of your fellow travelers are still on the way to hell and dragging us down with them. The best you got is Hagel, and shit, all he does is talk the talk.

    Deeply, profoundly, forever: Fuck The Republican Party (before they fuck you!)

  57. 57
    PAULQX says:

    In any sane and just universe the Republicans would lose every election in 2008, but we don’t live in a sane or just universe. For anyone who doubts the legitimacy of the 2000 and 2004 elections go read Greg Palast’s article at BuzzFlash about how the right is already acting to steal the 2008 election. After all it is right in front of our eyes with the federal attorney firings and replacements by Rovian cronies with a history of voter manipulation.

  58. 58
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Well, at least Thymy’s attack was refreshing, given all the years of abuse I’ve taken from various rightists for being a Silly Weak-Kneed Paranoid America-Hating Pinko. (See, as just the latest example, Ricky West’s gibberings at me yesterday on the “How to Write Like a Hack” thread. And I haven’t even heard back yet from Tom Maguire and “Cassandra” for furiously attacking their fondness for frequent military torture.)

    I will repeat: it’s a shame that the Web hasn’t generated more honest-to-God debating societies — as opposed to ego-stroking political circle-jerks (in which, God knows, I’ve taken part enough times myself). But in retrospect, given human nature, it’s had to see how it could. People — including little old me — will always be feverishly trying to prop up their own egos, and carefully looking away from any evidence that suggests they might be seriously wrong about something. (Which, by the way, makes John Cole’s genuine Road To Damascus routine all the more remarkable. I don’t like to think about how much emotional humiliation he had to go through en route to his new political destination.)

  59. 59
    Andrew J. Lazarus says:

    Other conservative blogs to see the light about Bush.
    Cunning RealistBelgravia DispatchBjorn StaerkWell, I don’t know if Staerk, a Euro, qualifies as conservative, but the link is his repentance for supporting the Iraq Disaster.

    I hope John won’t be offended if I say the quality of writing, qua stylists, at those three is probably higher than here.

  60. 60
    Barry says:

    JWeidner Says:

    “Come on now. Birkenstocks? There are some lengths to which even John won’t go (I hope).”

    John *is* from West Virginia, so wearing shoes in the summer just isn’t in his blood :)

    The college does have a ‘no shoes, no shirt, no beer’ policy, so he’s got to find a compromise. Ordinarily, that would have been flip-flops, but he’s teaching, and has to maintain his dignity :).

    So the faculty in his department got together, and bought John what they said were downhill/northerner folk-type ‘summer shoes’, which had detachable tops (they said that he’d get the tops in September).

    What was he to do?

  61. 61
    caustics says:

    I will repeat: it’s a shame that the Web hasn’t generated more honest-to-God debating societies—as opposed to ego-stroking political circle-jerks

    I’ve seen this attempted – Crossed Swords comes to mind. Usually what happens is that the well-meaning right-wing participants get frustrated and wander off once their talking points are systematically and authoritatively refuted.

    Part of it is simple numbers – %72 vs %28, but in the main I think it stems from the fact that when you restrict your world-view to whatever Fox, Rush or Hugh regurgitates from the White House on any particular day you end up being a factually challenged moron.

    And its no fun debating one of those. Unless his name is Dan Riehl.

  62. 62
    Jon H says:

    What other core constituencies of the 28% are left? Fundies, and Iraq dead enders, correct?

    Anyone want to put money on Bush doing something to irrevocably piss off the
    fundamentalists in the next year?

    The only thing Bush could do to piss off the dead enders would be to withdraw from Iraq, which isn’t going to happen until Bush can push it off on the next guy so as to make sure his own sleep is not disturbed.

  63. 63
    Eli Rabett says:

    The sad truth is you guys have been played by the nomenklatura ever since Nixon in 68. It is time to look up

  64. 64
    thedaddy says:

    My first vist to this blog.

    My conclusion after reading these comments:

    What a bunch of flaming idiots.

  65. 65
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Close the door on your way out.

  66. 66
    The Other Steve says:

    And don’t forget to turn off the light.

    – Your Father

  67. 67
    bud says:

    Bruce, you expressed it much better than I did.

    And, incidentally, I do pop in here every now and then just for the excitement – the sticks and noise. I also have hope that John may return to the rational person he was before BDS.

    I’m not a big Bush fan. I do think that he has been demonized beyond belief – he’s both dumb as a post AND able to orchestrate vast conspiracies – by the echo chambers. I disagree with him on a large number of issues, but I do support him on the one issue that has pushed JC past the tipping point: the war.

    Whether anyone here believes it or not, we’re in a struggle (and not in the Marxian sense, either) against a very significant percentage of Muslims; they’re convinced that western values embedded in our culture, as typified by the US, are undermining their religious values… and they’re probably correct. Freedom and material excess are very seductive things. The unfortunate part is that that same religion tells them that it’s just peachy keen to kill anyone doing this. Judism and Christianity had these same issues in the past, but have, through the miracle of texual exegesis, thought and argued their way out of it.

    This is not much of a stretch with Christian texts, and the Jews have had even longer to work, but the basic writings of Islam are not so easy. With the Bible, especially the New Testament, it’s not hard to interpret it in the direction of tolerance, and there’s always the “but through the pen of fallible men” safety valve. Islam, OTOH, does not have the safety valve – the Koran is the literal WORD OF GOD – and the text is much less wishy-washy. Infidels either convert or are to be put to the sword, period.

    Given this, and regardless of whether or not the Iraq war was originally justified, I’ve got (and I beleive the country has) no choice but to oppose the cut-and-run policies that I see Bush’s opponents supporting.

    Therefore, in the spirit of your post: Naanayyah! Couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn with your argument! :-)

  68. 68
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Bud, absolutely nobody I’m aware of on this site — and very few Americans anywhere else — disagree with you that current-day (i.e., unreformed) Islam is riddled with incredibly poisonous ideas, and that the combination of these with its new nuclear capabilities is very, very dangerous. That has absolutely nothing to do with the STRATEGIC question of whether Iraq is the best place to fight it, or the most cost-effective expenditure of our military strength — especially given the fact that the deadliest threat, by far, is nuclear terrorism, which the Iraq War is doing absolutely nothing to help us with and indeed is seriously harming us on. (I may add that I too fell for the Iraq War at its beginning, because I simply couldn’t believe — despite my low estimate of Bush’s IQ, and the fact that I detest most republican policies — that Cheney and Rumsfeld would be suicidally idiotic enough to waste our energies and endanger our, and their own, lives by fighting in the wrong damn country. Surprise! Indeed, judging from the reaction of virtually everyone who used to know them, the sudden stupidity of C. and R. is the central mystery of this administration, and still hasn’t been adequately explained.)

    Always keep in mind that the Iraq “War” is really just one CAMPAIGN in the worldwide War Against Megaterrorism (or Police Action Against Megaterrorism,or whatever you prefer to call it). Thinking that one campaign in a war has been stupidly chosen is hardly the same thing as opposing the war.

  69. 69
    Mark says:

    Never thought I’d see Michelle Malkin post this image.

  70. 70
    mrmobi says:

    I do think that he has been demonized beyond belief – he’s both dumb as a post AND able to orchestrate vast conspiracies – by the echo chambers. I disagree with him on a large number of issues, but I do support him on the one issue that has pushed JC past the tipping point: the war.

    I’m one of those foolish Democrats who gave Bush the benefit of the doubt after 9/11, including supporting the invasion of Iraq. When he landed on the deck of that aircraft carrier and declared victory, I woke up. You should too.

    …they’re convinced that western values embedded in our culture, as typified by the US, are undermining their religious values… and they’re probably correct. Freedom and material excess are very seductive things. The unfortunate part is that that same religion tells them that it’s just peachy keen to kill anyone doing this.

    This is just plain wrong, as is your supposition that “they hate us for our freedom.”
    “They,” as if there is a monolithic “they,” hate us because we invaded, bombed and tortured them, all in the name of “bringing Democracy to the Middle-East.” How’s that democracy thing working out so far? There is little doubt in my mind that Iraq is a much worse place to live in now than when Saddam was in power. So what if Saddam was a monster? It is not the business of the United States government to depose all monsters, 9/11 notwithstanding. If you think it is, what the fuck is Kim Jong Il doing in power?

    We have serious security problems in this country, which are not being addressed by this group of incompetents. What we don’t need is to be pissing ourselves, abandoning long-standing treaties, and bypassing the constitution every time some 3rd rate religious fanatics commit mass murder.

    Given this, and regardless of whether or not the Iraq war was originally justified, I’ve got (and I beleive the country has) no choice but to oppose the cut-and-run policies that I see Bush’s opponents supporting.

    Ahhh, I see. This is all about not wanting to “lose.” Relax, we already have. Several prominent conservatives including Bill Buckley, Bill Odoms, even Henry Kissinger, have written op-eds to that effect. Parroting “cut-and-run” talking point nonsense doesn’t help, because you are, in effect, calling the person you are arguing with a coward, lacking in the grit necessary to “stay the course.” It’s insulting and stupid, because it doesn’t advance the argument, it ends it.

    In sports, when a team has lost, they usually leave the field, practice harder, and rebuild to play another day.

    The Bush Administration seems to believe that we need to fight to the finish in Iraq. What they won’t acknowledge is that the finish will be of our own military ability to continue fighting. This conflict will leave us weakened for decades to come, both militarily and economically. But never fear, there will be a Democratic President available in 2009 for you to blame.

    Having tried wearing blinders as a method of citizenship, I found it lacking. The next time someone asks me to give a newly elected President the benefit of the doubt, be that President Democratic or Republican, I’ll tell them to take a hike. Presidents don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. They deserve attentive, informed and critical citizens.

  71. 71
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    To the list of hard-line conservatives who think choosing this war was a strategic disaster and we should bail now, you can add George Will and Victor Gold

  72. 72
    BIRDZILLA says:

    We need to oppose all illegal imagration becuase its illegal we dont want any NORTH AMERICAN UNION its a act of treason

  73. 73
    The Other Steve says:

    Whether anyone here believes it or not, we’re in a struggle (and not in the Marxian sense, either) against a very significant percentage of Muslims; they’re convinced that western values embedded in our culture, as typified by the US, are undermining their religious values…

    I think you mean the Islamofascist Killer Robots are out to get us.

    The base problem with your little fantasy, is that it is dependent upon the notion that America should be a nation of cowards, afraid of every tom, dick, and Muhammed who yells “Death to America”.

    By acting like a coward, you insure that they win. Why on earth do you want that?

    We’ve had six years of this disasterous cowardice. It’s time that we had someone who actually stands for American values, and tells the Islamofascist Killer Robots to fuck off, we aren’t afraid of you.

  74. 74
    mrmobi says:

    We’ve had six years of this disasterous cowardice. It’s time that we had someone who actually stands for American values, and tells the Islamofascist Killer Robots to fuck off, we aren’t afraid of you.

    TOS, you said it so much better than I did, and with economy.

  75. 75
    mrmobi says:

    We need to oppose all illegal imagration becuase its illegal we dont want any NORTH AMERICAN UNION its a act of treason

    All hail BIRDZILLA, perfect master of the run-on sentence!

  76. 76

    […] Not to stroke my own ego, but I predicted this. […]

  77. 77
    In the Agora says:

    Why, Again

    During the Harriet Miers fiasco, I wondered why Bush would have pushed such an unqualified and infuriating nominee. It has been increasingly difficult to explain the actions of this administration, which have grown more and more bizarre. And I’m not…

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. In the Agora says:

    Why, Again

    During the Harriet Miers fiasco, I wondered why Bush would have pushed such an unqualified and infuriating nominee. It has been increasingly difficult to explain the actions of this administration, which have grown more and more bizarre. And I’m not…

  2. […] Not to stroke my own ego, but I predicted this. […]

  3. […] John Cole laughing at the 28%ers By Doug John Cole has a post entitled The Reaction to Immigration which I enjoyed. I really have not paid too much attention to the immigration bill, and anything with the handprints of Kennedy and Bush is probably something that is flawed in so many ways it is hard to count, but I have to admit, what I am really enjoying is the reaction from the 28%ers. Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett are going to explode any time now, and Michelle Malkin is equally volcanic (really, just go to the top and scroll). Their readers and echo chorus are in a predictable lather, as well. […]

  4. […] John Cole laughing at the 28%ers By Doug John Cole has a post entitled The Reaction to Immigration which I enjoyed. I really have not paid too much attention to the immigration bill, and anything with the handprints of Kennedy and Bush is probably something that is flawed in so many ways it is hard to count, but I have to admit, what I am really enjoying is the reaction from the 28%ers. Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett are going to explode any time now, and Michelle Malkin is equally volcanic (really, just go to the top and scroll). Their readers and echo chorus are in a predictable lather, as well. […]

Comments are closed.