A Late Night Laugh

Dan Bartlett, on right wing blogs:

That’s what I mean by influential. I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Another victory for citizen journalism! I personally am becoming a fan of Bartlett’s interviews and comments.

(via Kevin Drum)






110 replies
  1. 1

    I wander how long its going to take the Right Wing Blogs to accuse Bartlett of being a closet liberal? Gotta shoot the messenger you know! Of course, no one here at Balloon Juice knows anything about failure to obey the loyalty oath, do they?

  2. 2
    Delia says:

    Man, talk about knifing your most slavish supporters right in the back. It’s like one of those scifi shows where everybody’s brain gets rewired by nanobots or something. Maybe the instructions flow through the wingers’ wifi directly into their brains and out into their laptops. I wonder if they let Michelle choose her own font sizes or if that’s hardwired, too. There’s really no way to ask them, since they excommunicate anyone from their websites who doesn’t allow their brain to be rewired by the nanobots.

  3. 3
    wasabi gasp says:

    They the pimp’d out junkies of the Pukeoshpere.

  4. 4
    wasabi gasp says:

    Rat bastard pukeosphere spellchecking hell.

  5. 5

    You think the right wing blogosphere really takes that as an insult? I figure they look at it as a sign that they’re plugged into what’s really going on in the world.

  6. 6
    Johnny Pez says:

    Agree with Incertus/Brian. Groupthink is only bad when the other side does it.

  7. 7
    myiq2xu says:

    See John, how easy your life would be if you started drinking the kool-aid again? No more doubts, no more uncertainties.

  8. 8
    Fledermaus says:

    What Bartlett thought but didn’t say: And the best part was they’d do it for free, at least I got a regular paycheck.

  9. 9
    cd6 from india says:

    The ultimate test will be is if the wingnuts just pass this along verbatum. “We are giant tools – Hugh Hewitt has more on this.”

  10. 10
    Nylund says:

    I agree with a previous comment. Passively regurgitating what your leader says without offering any insight or critical thought is pretty much the idea of perfection in the wignut-o-sphere. Only traitors question government leaders in their worldview. Like dogs, they are perfectly content to have an owner to loyally obey as long as they are placated with the occasional treat. These are the neglected America’s neglected children who yearn for a father figure to tell them what to do.

    And they will always obey blindly, which is what makes them so scary. Their only moral guidance is to do exactly as told, no matter what harm it may cause them. Like a soldier, they find honor in doing nothing but blindly obeying their orders. This, to them, is viewed as courageous.

    If this was 1776, they’d be the Tories calling for the hanging of our founding fathers who dared to question the leader and commander-in-chief.

  11. 11

    […] Ask a right-wing blogger — “Do you regurgitate?” December 6, 2007 — Ned Raggett A more meta post, this one, but prompted by something that turned up which Balloon Juice has already had some well-deserved snark about. Some context: […]

  12. 12
    Cain says:

    I thought the whole idea about conservatism was that you didn’t trust government yet these guys always seem to just do follow the leader. I think that it’s true that only pawns join the Republican party. I mean they all need some kind of leader to look up to, parse his messages and what not. It’s got to be a manly man and look good in a flight suit.

    The next debate needs to have a fashion show with a Mission Accomplished banner and a flight suit.

    cain

  13. 13
    Mark S. says:

    I’ve often wondered why some of the most popular conservative bloggers (Hewitt, Dan Riehl, Mark Noonan, the Powertools) seemed like some of the dumbest people in the universe, and I think this explains why. They do okay when they are just repeating talking points that have been fed to them, but when they try to write something using their own brains, good god it’s the stupid.

  14. 14
    myiq2xu says:

    Naw, they look even dumber saying shit like they believe it when even they know that we know they’re lying and/or wrong.

    “There were WMD’s in Iraq.”

    “The liberal media are covering up the success in Iraq.”

    “Tax cuts increase revenues.”

    “Bush is a genius.”

    But they don’t care, cuz the kool-aid makes it all better.

  15. 15
    Lupin says:

    “Regurgitate” has a nice bovine sound. I like that.

  16. 16
    John Rohan says:

    1) It’s strange that you John Cole takes Bartlett’s statement above at face value, when I’m guessing that he (as well as most of you in this thread) disagree with every other single thing Bartlett says here.

    2) It’s even stranger that no one here seems to realize that the liberal blogs also do this exactly as much (if not more) than conservative ones. Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos) is a huge VIP at Democratic functions even though he has never run for office or worked in mainstream journalism. If there’s any talking point that’s the least bit anti-Republican/pro-Democrat, you can guarantee that Kos, Media Matters, Crooks & Liars, Democratic Underground, etc, will be all over it in minutes. Don’t kid yourselves here.

  17. 17
    John Rohan says:

    Oh – and I can already predict the response to that: “yes, but they only regurgitate pure crap, while we pass along the truth”. Yep. Keep telling yourselves that.

  18. 18
    John Rohan says:

    LOL, ok apologies for three comments in a row, but this was too good to pass up. I just checked out the liberal blog “talking points memo” and what do I see?? 12.05.07 — 5:17PMBy David Kurtz

    Dan Bartlett, on the White House’s use of right wing blogs:

    It’s not bloody likely that John Cole just happened to be reading “Texasmonthly.com” today– more likely scenario is that he saw this on Talking points or some other liberal blog, repeated it, causing the same kind of blog “circle jerk” (John Cole’s term for it) that he constantly berates the conservative blogs for! Hypocrisy at its finest. LOL, thanks, Balloon Juice, I needed a good laugh today.

  19. 19
    John Rohan says:

    Oh – sorry I see he got it from Kevin Drum. Same circle jerk, just different direction; with Drum as the pitcher, Cole as the catcher, and TPM (and others) as the runners…

  20. 20
    merlallen says:

    john rohan sure likes to repeatedly say dumb shit, doesn’t he?

  21. 21
    cleek says:

    john rohan sure likes to repeatedly say dumb shit, doesn’t he?

    see what happens when they try to work without a script?

  22. 22
    Cassidy says:

    Of course, no one here at Balloon Juice knows anything about failure to obey the loyalty oath, do they?

    Ain’t this the damn truth. If you don’t believe as the denizens of this comments section, you get treated like shit and called all kinds of names. Heaven forbid you be a Democrat that doesn’t toe the liberal line. These jerks around here will (try) to skewer you for not obeying the liberal mindset.

    john rohan sure likes to repeatedly say dumb shit, doesn’t he?

    It amazes me how much like conservatives, liberals are. Just 2 sides of the same bad penny.

  23. 23
    cleek says:

    you get treated like shit and called all kinds of names

    yeah, what a bunch of jerks

  24. 24
    Xenos says:

    Oh, poor Cassidy.

    Let whe whingefest begin.

    One does not obey a ‘mindset’. There is no mindset, supported with tax dollars, with a conscious and deliberate program of propaganda and misinformation, faxing and emailing out talking points for us obedient lefties to regurgitate for the massess. Not to mention a whole system of financial and social rewards for those mouthpieces who make fools of themselves for the greater glory of the coven of jerks in the White House.

    Mindset /= systematic dishonesty and corruption.

  25. 25
    taodon says:

    Help me! I don’t know where I fit on the Conservative/Liberal line… I’m so confused about where I should go, and who’s mantras I should be repeating! *cries* Here, I’ll give you where I stand on some issues and you tell me which party I belong.

    Anti-Abortion, Anti-Capital Punishment, Anti-Euthanasia, Anti-War, Anti-Spending, Anti-Nanny-State-Programs, Pro-Diplomacy, Pro-Privacy, Pro-Gay Marriage, Pro-Universal Health Care

    Okay – who do I belong to? Please help me! I need to know how I’m supposed to bleet! *cries*

  26. 26
    taodon says:

    Oops, I forgot Anti-Amnesty!

  27. 27

    Anti-Abortion, Anti-Capital Punishment, Anti-Euthanasia, Anti-War, Anti-Spending, Anti-Nanny-State-Programs, Pro-Diplomacy, Pro-Privacy, Pro-Gay Marriage, Pro-Universal Health Care

    Sounds like a moderately libertarian stance (even closer to pro-life libertarians like Paul or Badnarik). Of course the one item that really sticks out as a unquestionable variance from libertarianism is the health care. I too have my doubts about how the market as currently constituted deals with that issue. I would like to see more market-based fixes (e.g. requiring fewer prescriptions; licensing lower classes of doctors with less professional training; etc.) before concluding that the State will save us on that issue.

    Honestly, I’m pretty close to you and very active in the LP, and the thing that bugs me the most about fellow libertarians is their inability to set aside any point of doctrine and talk about pragmatism. I understand why this is — when unlike the Rs and Ds, you derive your policies from a logically-consistent set of principles, you tend to see any deviation from those as capitulation. But the reality is, politics is all about getting what’s most important to you by compromising on what’s less important to you.

    Essentially the staunch libertarians make the LP as small a tent as possible. This should be our moment, with the GOP imploding. It’s not surprising to me that we fail to capitalize. It’s more fun to sit around debating theory than to do hard work to start winning votes.

  28. 28
    John S. says:

    It’s just that here at Balloon-Juice we love the false-equivalence commenters like John Rohan and Cassidy so much…

    White House feeding bullshit to be regurgitated by rightwing bloggers = left wing blogs repeating factual information!

    Citizen “journalists” camping out in front of the house of a 12-year old kid = actual journalists camping out in front of the house of man running for president!

    Rightwing blogs crushing dissent in their comments that goes against their ludicrous views = commenters on a blog universally rejecting ludicrous viewpoints because they are bullshit!

    Extremists on the right = extremists on the left!

    Pimping manufactured talking points = discussing commonly accepted facts!

    So what’s your favorite statement of false equivalence made by right-wingers (or so-called ‘Democrats that don’t toe the liberal line’)?

    My favorite false non-equivalence this week is by far:

    NRO’s fabulist =/ TNR’s fabulist!

  29. 29
    RSA says:

    It amazes me how much like conservatives, liberals are.

    Yup. Passing along an explicit quotation from an interview, with attribution to a left of center blog, is no different from repeating ideas you get from the White House press office as if they were your own.

  30. 30
    RSA says:

    Damn it, John S., you type (and probably think) a lot faster than me.

  31. 31
    jake says:

    Shorter John Rohan: Four legs goood, two legs beeeter!

  32. 32
    LITBMueller says:

    1) It’s strange that you John Cole takes Bartlett’s statement above at face value, when I’m guessing that he (as well as most of you in this thread) disagree with every other single thing Bartlett says here.

    Heh. Well, every once in a while, a ‘winger lets the truth slip out!

    Another nice nugget from Bartlett:

    Do you think the press corps is responsible for putting that word out—that the president was lying?

    I don’t think they’re purposely doing it. Look, I get asked the question all the time: How do you deal with them when they’re all liberal? I’ve found that most of them are not ideologically driven. Do I think that a lot of them don’t agree with the president? No doubt about it. But impact, above all else, is what matters. All they’re worried about is, can I have the front-page byline? Can I lead the evening newscast? And unfortunately, that requires them to not do in-depth studies about President Bush’s health care plan or No Child Left Behind. It’s who’s up, who’s down: Cheney hates Condi, Condi hates Cheney.

    Heads must be exploding all over keyboards this morning!

  33. 33
    Jen says:

    Greenwald had a good piece on this kind of thing a while back (someone really needs to do a non-snarky “shorter Greenwald”, ’cause I like his stuff but it could be edited just a bit), where he basically said these bloggers were stenographers, except that it sounded insulting to stenographers, who do their job in a professional manner and know that their job is to take down dictation literally without taking sides.

    I would also like consensus that it is time to stop using “LOL” if you are over 12. Teh Lolcatspeak is still funny.

  34. 34
    taodon says:

    Sounds like a moderately libertarian stance

    You know, I’ve never even thought about that. Does that mean I am now officially irrelevant in national politics? I don’t like that at all – but it beats trying to force myself into the democrat mold.

  35. 35
    demimondian says:

    Remind me, Cassidy, whose troll you are? Which of the hosts were you hoping to suck in by your posturing?

  36. 36
    Xenos says:

    The Stonographer term has been around for a while. I remember Susan Schmidt of teh WaPo being called ‘Steno Sue’ by the Atrios crowd a couple years ago. She was accused of reprinting pentagon press releases with minimal paraphrasing to make it look like reporting.

  37. 37

    […] A Late Night Laugh […]

  38. 38
    John S. says:

    RSA-

    I like the phrasing of your false-equivalance:

    Passing along an explicit quotation from an interview, with attribution to a blog = Passing along ideas you get from the White House press office as if they were your own!

    That’s good stuff right there.

  39. 39
    Tim F. says:

    If you don’t believe as the denizens of this comments section, you get treated like shit and called all kinds of names.

    No, people give you shit because you recite the exact same unsupported assumptions, inflexible ideological statements and blanket statements that you cite as a weakness in others. For example, here you make the unsupported assumption that your politics explain why everyone gets irritates with you. Consider alternative explanations and get back to me.

  40. 40
    Jen says:

    That’s good stuff right there.

    Don’t forget complete and total unwillingness to discuss substance, Tim!

  41. 41
    Tim F. says:

    Rohan, I don’t think that you even read Kos. When Democratic officials show up at dKos, they are asking for support, clarification or sometimes forgiveness. Half the time they don’t get it. Instead they get abuse from the Kossacks and sometimes by Kos himself. More often than not their diary gets bumped from the top by another diary denouncing them in the harshest of terms.

    What happens then? Of course they storm off in a huff, accuse Kos of Paulouse-like bias against women/minorities/mormons and dismiss the site as irrelevant like Republicans do when they get the same sort of criticism from the roots.

    Oh wait, no they don’t. The Dems say thanks. They adjust their message to please the roots (it happens more often than you think, though not nearly as often as I’d like). A week later they’re back for more abuse. If you think that that has anything to do with the top-down puke funnel that Dan Bartlett uses to push the party line through the conservablogs then you’re a grade-A moron. And I say that with all due respect, maybe more.

  42. 42
    grumpy realist says:

    Repeating without sourcing and passing off other people’s prose as your own==Repeating with sourcing as part of the middle of a news story.

    Rohan, it’s obvious you have never written a researched paper with footnotes, right?

    Sheesh, I knew NCLB was having effects on our kiddies’ education, but I never thought I’d see such a drastic drop in scholarly abilities. We’re going to have to do a LOT of make-up work in college.

  43. 43
    Cassidy says:

    No, people give you shit because you recite the exact same unsupported assumptions, inflexible ideological statements and blanket statements that you cite as a weakness in others. For example, here you make the unsupported assumption that your politics explain why everyone gets irritates with you. Consider alternative explanations and get back to me.

    Tim, I draw logical conclusions from various scenarios (check the taser thread), coupled with experience. The moment I say something that doesn’t toe the party line in here, I’m immediately “assualted” (see Bob, my favorite frothing lunatic). If your regular readers could pull their ears out of their ass long enough, they could easily see that I’m trying to have a discussion. But, what you seem to consider inflexible, is my unwillingness to listen to those who are so dogmatic and driven to emotional hysteria, that they cannot possibly see anything beyond their delusional black (or brown)/white world. For example, the individual yesterday who was all but accusing me of racism, without actually clarifying what I was talking about. Instead, he immediately jumped to the conclusion (erroneously) that I was speaking in some sort of “code”.

    I’m not making an unsupported assumption, Tim. The moment I state an opinion that isn’t in line with the majority group-think in here, I am immediately jumped on. Lo and behold, in the few threads I’ve commented on that I happen to agree with the more liberal stances (the war, Bush, etc.), not a peep. As long as you agree, it’s okay.

  44. 44
    Zifnab says:

    Two excellent take-downs, Tim. If there were any ponies in Iraq, I’d say you earned one.

    I love this blog.

  45. 45
    Cassidy says:

    Forgot to add:

    There is nothing inflexible about my opinions. I go through a period of introspection every so often, examining my beliefs, to insure I still feel strongly about them and for the right reasons. I am always open to the possibility of having my mind changed. But I’ve also learned that those who aren’t mature enough to have their beliefs challenged, don’t tend to have a whole lot to offer. So, I ignore them.

  46. 46
    cleek says:

    yeah, poor Cassidy! why can’t all those hysterical, delusional, groupthinking, dogmatic, ears-in-their-ass, immature, name-calling jerks understand that he just wants to have a discussion ?!

  47. 47
    jenniebee says:

    I don’t get it Cassidy. Are you saying that people shouldn’t disagree with you, or that they shouldn’t address your statements if they disagree with them, or that they shouldn’t voice opinions that you don’t agree with, or some combination of the three?

    I understand if you just feel shouted down by the preponderance of people whose ideas are different from yours, but hey – that’s democracy for you.

  48. 48
    Cassidy says:

    JB, I love discussion. I expect for people to disagree with me. You don’t learn anything by talking to a bunch of people who thinks the same way you do. So none of the above, I guess. I love disagreement. OTOH, what I won’t listen to is illogical, emotionalist drivel. I’m a fairly pragamtic person, so I could care less about how something makes “you” feel. I care about what works and what doesn’t work. I don’t care for self-serving interpretations of the Constitution, or the bible for that matter.

    Secondly, your last statement has nothing to do with Democracy. That is why I continue to state that liberals and conservatives are alike: dogmatic, emotionally driven, illogical, largely hypocritical, and neither are interested in having a real Democracy.

    Cleek- perfect example of what I’m talking about. All is peace and love until someone disagrees with you. Then, attacking is fair game.

    What’s funny about that, is in almost every case, I’m not the first person to attack. After that, though, it’s just fun to rile the unclean masses.

  49. 49
    Darkness says:

    I’m with Tim F. Kos and the Kossacks bite the hands that could feed them too often for their own good. I’ll agree about Crook and Liars, they’ve become too much just trumpeting whatever feel good lefty talking point has cropped up that hour. So I don’t read them any more.

    One of the reasons Dems can’t organize a la The Contract With America(American CEOs) is they can’t agree to follow one leader or idea. It’s just not possible for them, they represent too many small groups whose agendas may not conflict, but the are forced to fight for the same resources, so they tie the system up in knots each tugging their own way. That is a HUGE weakness toward moving an agenda along, but it makes them far safer as a government when you want to have a free state.

  50. 50
    Pb says:

    Shorter CQ: waah, the White House doesn’t send me enough talking points!

    As far as regurgitation and efficiencies of communication, we all wish Bartlett would have succeeded as well as he apparently thinks he did. Most of us have begged for more interaction at the White House, and have received little more than e-mails with speech transcripts. On one occasion, when the White House wanted to make its case on executive privilege, they held a blogger conference call, which I live-blogged here. There may have been one more, but at the moment I don’t recall it.

    Man, if that’s the case, I wonder how they manage to propagate their Fair and Balanced(R) message?

  51. 51
    Billy K says:

    Wait…wait… is this a Liberal blog now? Does this mean – as a Democrat – I can backlash against it?

  52. 52
    John Cole says:

    Oh FFS Cassidy.

    If you think someone is unfair to you, say it and fight back. If I think they are being unfair, I will defend you. As it is, the only thing I have seen you comment on in months is the tasering event, in which you manage to do everything possible to justify tasering a naked deaf man in his own home.

    People argued with you, and you gave as good as you got. And this is a sign of what, exactly?

    I would argue that is a healthy climate for debate, and in addition, I would argue that while folks are in your face around here when they disagree with you, we don’t take ourselves too seriously. By this time next week all the commenters will have told me to go fuck myself on one or two occasions. Somehow, I will still manage to pull myself out of bed the next morning.

    Drop the persecution complex, and remember- you can punch back.

  53. 53
    Jen says:

    Most of us have begged for more interaction at the White House, and have received little more than e-mails with speech transcripts.

    Well, yeah, I can see his point. Those would be Bush speeches, and if you’re in the regurgitation/making these idiots look good business, there’s not much to work with there. You definitely need to be on their talking points email list, too.

  54. 54
    cleek says:

    Cleek- perfect example of what I’m talking about. All is peace and love until someone disagrees with you. Then, attacking is fair game.

    hilarious. WTF is there to disagree with you about? you haven’t written about anything on this thread except your own terrible persecution – and even that is just a bunch of open-letter insults complaining how stupid and insulting everybody is.

    bah. i’ve fallen for the worst kind of troll. shame on me.

  55. 55
    Cassidy says:

    Drop the persecution complex, and remember- you can punch back.

    It’s not a complex. It’s a logical conclusion from many “debates” here. And I think I do just fine, deliberately saying things that will rile up the window-lickers. Trust me, I’m fine. I enjoy that part very much.

    As for the tasering, it has nothing to do with justifying anything. I was defending the actions of the police; a tactical decision made on the ground. I said several times that the end result was a bad one and that the victim deserved any restitution and compensation he sought. But that’s not the same as analyzing the decisions made and deciding they were the right ones, based on the available information.

    You think this is a healthy debating environment? Your audience just got through name calling and cursing out one of your regular posters, with a smattering of actual debate, because he supports something they do not. An exchange of ideas can take place without unnecessary personal attacks. It is unfortunate that the majority of your audience doesn’t realize this.

  56. 56
    Cassidy says:

    bah. i’ve fallen for the worst kind of troll. shame on me.

    You should fix the falling for emotional rhetoric first. That alone would serve you well.

  57. 57
    cleek says:

    You should fix the falling for emotional rhetoric first.

    another classic!

    keep ’em coming!

  58. 58
    Cassidy says:

    the only thing I have seen you comment on in months

    I got bored the first time. Too much rhetoric, not enough logic.

  59. 59
    Pb says:

    Too much rhetoric, not enough logic.

    This, coming from Cassidy. Who? Oh yeah, this guy:

    I do just fine, deliberately saying things that will rile up the window-lickers

    Too much rhetoric, not enough logic.

  60. 60
    Zifnab says:

    By this time next week all the commenters will have told me to go fuck myself on one or two occasions.

    My god, I just realized that John Cole has been remarkably sane of late. I don’t think I’ve told him to fuck himself once. Maybe that’s why he brought Michael D on.

  61. 61
    Jen says:

    Perhaps my fellow window-lickers should stop getting riled up and instead post their suggestions on how the wounded right wing blogosphere will lick their wounds. They have already thought of three entire examples from the last seven years where they did not agree with Bush

    Or, you know, whatever else you want to talk about.

  62. 62
    grumpy realist says:

    1. Rohan isn’t one of our regular posters.
    2. Ideas deserved to be criticized.
    3. Some ideas are so idiotic you’d think that the person who proposed them would have done some self-checking beforehand and realized the problems in them before wasting everyone’s time by posting them.
    4. We assume a certain modicum of intelligence from the commentators here. Which means: “don’t annoy us by posting stupid st*t and claim it’s chocolate brownies.”

    Sheesh, Cassidy, have you EVER sat in on any scholarly seminars? Or read ANY scholarly criticism at all? You think the criticism you get here is too harsh? You haven’t seen anything. I’ve seen tons of cases where people put out stupid or unsourced theories and they get torn into little tiny pieces which then get stomped on. Experience this enough times and you learn (painfully) to make sure you can back up EVERYTHING you claim. If you can’t learn to disassociate your statements from your ego, you’re going to feel very beat up all the time. That, in fact, is what part of being a good researcher is–you have to want to search for the truth enough that you are willing to put your theories out there up against the harshest, most in depth criticism to make sure there’s no problem with it.

  63. 63
    Cassidy says:

    You think the criticism you get here is too harsh?

    No, I think it’s childish. And I’ve yet to feel beat, but thanks for the concern. Typically, I don’t have to say much before a few posters make my point for me.

  64. 64
    les says:

    Drop the persecution complex, and remember- you can punch back.

    John, I thought you had moved to evidence based positions. Cassidy doesn’t fight back, he whines about how uncivil it is for people to disagree with him. Hardly surprising, since here’s how he characterizes his own “debate style:”

    And I think I do just fine, deliberately saying things that will rile up the window-lickers.

    Cassidy, you’re a dick. I say that not as an ad hominem, ’cause that’s not why your (pathetically few) opinions suck; it’s merely descriptive.

  65. 65
    Pb says:

    Cassidy,

    You’ve contributed less than nothing to this thread. You’re under no obligation to say anything at all, you know, but note that you’ve said nothing about the topic at hand and a ton about yourself. Woe is you–and you wonder why you get mocked? Don’t act surprised when you get back what you put in.

  66. 66

    All of this nuance about who was snarkier first sounds just like discussions between the Israelis and Palestinians.

    Israel: “No, you started it.”

    Palestine: “No, you started it.”

    Israel: “No, you started it.”

    Palestine: “No, you started it.”

    The fact is there is a quantifiable difference between right-wing and left-wing blogs. I am a progressive to moderate Democrat and regularly get smeared, flamed and decimated at DKos for the things I say. If I were a Bush-bot and posted pro-Bush and pro-GOP dogma at some random mouthpiece “citizen journalism” blog like Red State or whatever, the other sheeple there would back me up 100% without hesitation, because I would be backing the Dear Leader, and in their world, that is all that matters.

    While I wish the people at Kos and other sites were not as snarky toward me, I post there occasionally, just for gits and shiggles. If I dare post anything at Red State that did not parrot the Dan Bartlett talking points, they wouldn’t bother with the comebacks; they’d just ban me.

    Let the Balloon-Juice flaming begin.

  67. 67
    Cassidy says:

    Les—You don’t read none to well. I’ll leave it at that. I’d hate to confuse you.

    Pb—I joined the conversation. And with little searching, you can find other topics where I did discuss the topic, etc.

  68. 68
    Cyrus says:

    John S. Says:
    It’s just that here at Balloon-Juice we love the false-equivalence commenters like John Rohan and Cassidy so much…

    Tim already addressed this, kind of, but you left out the best false equivalence of all.

    right-wing bloggers uncritically praising and supporting Republicans = left-wing bloggers complaining about how much Democrats suck more than half the time!

    Also, what the hell is a window-licker, anyway?

  69. 69
    Billy K says:

    Let the Balloon-Juice flaming begin.

    You’re a dum-dum head.

  70. 70
    Pb says:

    what the hell is a window-licker, anyway?

    I had to look it up–apparently, it’s an even more retarded term for ‘retard’.

  71. 71

    You’re a dum-dum head.

    Sticks and stones may break my bones, but what am I?

    Er,

    You’re just a Bush-bot liberal wingnutty moonbat….

    Oh man, it’s too early in LA. I get my counter-insults all screwed up.

  72. 72
    Krista says:

    John Cole Says:

    …By this time next week all the commenters will have told me to go fuck myself on one or two occasions.

    Hear that, lads and ladettes? We now have a quota and a deadline. Let’s not let John down.

    John? Darling? Go fuck yourself. :)

  73. 73
    Bombadil says:

    You’re a dum-dum head.

    Or, for the geekier among us, the words of the immortal James T. Kirk: “Double dumb-ass on you!”

  74. 74

    You’re a dum-dum head.

    Sticks and stones may break my bones, but what am I?

    Er,

    You’re just a Bush-bot liberal wingnutty moonbat….

    Oh man, it’s too early in LA. I get my counter-insults all screwed up.

  75. 75

    Oopsie-doodle, sorry for the double-post.

  76. 76
    Bombadil says:

    John, please go fuck yourself.

    One down, one to go….

  77. 77
    Nash says:

    someone really needs to do a non-snarky “shorter Greenwald”, ‘cause I like his stuff but it could be edited just a bit

    Yes, because valuing readers who have an attention span greater than 10 seconds is just so yesterday.

    But thanks for following your own suggestion, Jen. I find I don’t need your comments to be pre-edited for length and there’s certainly nothing to be removed content-wise.

    I promise not to lol.

  78. 78
    OxyCon says:

    If Rush Limpbaughs’ listeners are called “Dittoheads”, does that make right wing bloggers “Shittoheads”?

  79. 79
    canuckistani says:

    John Cole Says:

    …By this time next week all the commenters will have told me to go fuck myself on one or two occasions.

    Once or twice? Why? Are you taking the weekend off? Well, GFY, and Steely McBeam too.

  80. 80
    Tony J says:

    I love the deployment of that traditional old saw “But, but, you can’t even comment on whatever (insert name of lying POS here) may or may not have said without it meaning that (insert name of lying POS here) must have always told the truth in the past.

    Vot GOP – Because sometimes stupid just isn’t enough.

  81. 81
    Billy K says:

    Or, for the geekier among us, the words of the immortal James T. Kirk: “Double dumb-ass on you!”

    Yours is superior, sir.

  82. 82
    stickler says:

    Cassidy’s problem can best be summed up thus:

    And I’ve yet to feel beat, but thanks for the concern.

    He may not feel beat. But in the world of ideas and rational debate, “feelings” have nothing to do with objective reality. He who debates without facts on his side is going to get beaten. What he “feels” at that point, is utterly irrelevant.

  83. 83
    Cassidy says:

    He who debates without facts on his side is going to get beaten.

    Irony is not only beautiful but lost on you.

    I have yet to see the world of “rational debate” here.

  84. 84
    John S. says:

    right-wing bloggers uncritically praising and supporting Republicans = left-wing bloggers complaining about how much Democrats suck more than half the time!

    I love it!

  85. 85
    John S. says:

    I have yet to see the world of “rational debate” here.

    Does one really have to state the obvious reason for why that is?

    I can imagine Rambo bursting into a bar – guns blazing – lamenting why he hasn’t seen peace and tranquility.

  86. 86
    Tax Analyst says:

    John? Darling? Go fuck yourself.

    Hmmm…why doesn’t it sound the same when I say it?

    I’ll have to work on that a bit.

    I ALMOST never tell my host to “Go Fuck Yourself”. Old-fashioned, I guess…protocol and all.

  87. 87
    spencer says:

    Sorry if this has already been raised but:

    Sounds like a moderately libertarian stance (even closer to pro-life libertarians like Paul or Badnarik). Of course the one item that really sticks out as a unquestionable variance from libertarianism is the health care.

    How would an anti-abortion / anti-euthanasia stance fit into libertarianism? I thought a libertarian viewpoint argued for non-interference in personal matters by the state. And while I suppose it’s possible to make arguments that the state has an interest in stopping abortion as part of its duties to provide police protection to citizens (an argument I personally find very unconvincing, btw), there is no possible libertarian justification for allowing the state to interfere with one’s right to die, presuming that choice is made by a legally competent adult.

  88. 88
    AnonE.Mouse says:

    Famous Monkey,everyone knows the Palestinians started it generations ago by foolishly failing to vacate land that everyone knew a bunch of white European Jews would need in the 20th century because some other white Europeans didn’t like them.Similar to the way those dumbshits in Iraq have trespassed for several thousand years on land that sits on top of our oil.
    Cassidy’s comments strike the right ‘woe is me’ chord if you imagine them being read by Joe Lieberman.

  89. 89
    Cassidy says:

    I can imagine Rambo bursting into a bar – guns blazing – lamenting why he hasn’t seen peace and tranquility.

    That critique would have some weight if that’s how I presented my first opinion(s). The “gunfire” doesn’t start until one of the resident liberals doesn’t agree with my stance. Rational debate is not calling names and other assorted happenings that result from said positions.

  90. 90
    cleek says:

    Rational debate is not calling names and other assorted happenings that result from said positions.

    we can’t help it. we’re just a bunch of childish, hysterical, delusional, groupthinking, dogmatic, ears-in-their-ass, immature, window-licking, illogical, hypocritical, name-calling, jerks !

    but, at least we’re talking about you!

  91. 91
    Pb says:

    spencer,

    If your starting point is that abortion is murder, then the libertarian stance there would be to oppose abortion. For example, here’s Ron Paul:

    I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society.

  92. 92

    AnonE.Mouse,

    You ignoramus. Learn your history!!!

    If you bothered to read, you would realize that back in the 2007 BC, a pre-historic Palestinian (who knew that in 4000 years his progeny would become a Muslim) bashed the head of some pre-historic Israeli (who knew that, some 4000 years later, his progeny would reject the One and Only True Savior and become a Jew) which led to the Great Rock Retaliation by the latter, at which point the former whooped his caveman friends into a frenzy and convinced them to set themselves on fire and become the first Suicide Bombers (without the bomb) on the latter’s cave.

    Sheesh. You lefties are so ignorant of history.

  93. 93
    Cassidy says:

    I’ve gotten through to someone, it appears.

  94. 94
    AnonE.Mouse says:

    Cassidy,just to clarify,if I were actually able to get an ear in my ass,I’d probably also be physically capable of blowing myself,and consequently wouldn’t be wasting time bantering here.

  95. 95
    LittlePig says:

    Cassidy:

    Rational debate is not calling names and other assorted happenings that result from said positions

    From Cassidy’s VERY FIRST POST on this thread:

    These jerks around here will (try) to skewer you for not obeying the liberal mindset.

    The rest of the exercise is left for the reader.

  96. 96
    D-Chance. says:

    Anyway, back to the Bartlett thing, because the Instaguy finally decided to weigh in, and it’s classic:

    Well, I hadn’t REALLY kept up with it, but…

    “It reads like wishful thinking to me. The White House — like the GOP generally — has been extremely lame in dealing with the blogosphere…”

    I guess Reynolds is more than a tad jealous that he didn’t get a WH invite like the milguys and NRO did.

  97. 97
    Krista says:

    AnonE.Mouse Says:

    Cassidy,just to clarify,if I were actually able to get an ear in my ass,I’d probably also be physically capable of blowing myself,and consequently wouldn’t be wasting time bantering here.

    He’s tried, but just keeps falling off the couch.

  98. 98
    Shabbazz says:

    Jesus Haarold, Cassady — if you’re going to continue to be the resident drama queen, you’re going to need to get yourself some thicker skin. Somebody give this guy a tissue, already.

    Totally off topic — but has anyone heard of the upcoming documentary called “Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden?” It was done by the same guy that did “Supersize Me”. Rumor has it that he actually tracked down and interviewed Osama. Supposed to be at Sundace, I believe.

  99. 99
    myiq2xu says:

    john rohan sure likes to repeatedly say dumb shit, doesn’t he?

    He follows that infamous rohanite, Grima Wormtongue

  100. 100
    myiq2xu says:

    The “gunfire” doesn’t start until one of the resident liberals doesn’t agree with my stance.

    People live here? Liberal people? I’m a resident of California.

    We have gunfire here, but rarely from the liberals. Or does Cassidey mean he/she/it starts shooting when a liberal expresses disagreement?

    Oops, gotta go. It’s almost 4:20, and that time is sacred here in Big Smoggy.

  101. 101
    jcricket says:

    John, please go fuck yourself.

    One down, one to go….

    Ditto.

    And a “fuck you, you fucking fuck.”

    I don’t say “fuck you” on Shabbos, though, so had to get it in today.

    Doesn’t anyone have one of those “I Like Pie” filters for Cassidy and Peter Johnson?

  102. 102
    Ty says:

    Wow, this is my first time here and my last. Arguing which side is more closed minded. Have fun you guys.

  103. 103
    borehole says:

    Whenever it’s December 7th, 2007 at 5:56 am, I’ll think of Ty.

  104. 104

    […] I am sure you are all shocked to know that the wingnuts whinged and moaned and wailed, and in the end sucked it up and embraced their irrelevance. Months of calling him Juan McCain and worse were swept aside, “shamnesty” is but a memory, and all it took was one chorus of the “democrats are worse” and our brave patriots came to their senses. And now, magically, the right-wing blabosphere and John McCain are united and go together like Cheetos and Mountain Dew. Before long, our independent bloggers and right-wing bloviators they will be back to doing what they do best- regurgitating the party line. […]

  105. 105

    […] Yeah, I was clearly trying to frame the sign as questioning a policy. I should have called you a moron. Seriously, the point of this is that you are now making a big deal out of nothing, and as a loyal GOP soldier, it is up to you to make a stink out of what is essentially nothing. But you know that, and we know what your role is- Dan Bartlett told us. […]

  106. 106

    Well after reading John Rohan’s post I realized immediately he has never actually sat and read dKos because if he did, he would realize that most of the time the site is complaining about Democrats, rather than praising them.

    Tim F. summed it up nicely, and like he said, more often than not Democratic representatives who post on the site are critiqued and possibly criticized for their short-comings. They are definitely not given a free pass nor does their message just get regurgitated.

    You see, with the Republicans, the party dictates the message to them and they follow along; Whereas with the Democrats the message if dictated by the blogs and the party follows along.

  107. 107

    “if dictated” should read “is dictated”…

  108. 108

    […] I’m not surprised to see somebody like Captain Ed run with this stuff because his job is to regurgitate right wing talking points. It’s a little peculiar, however, to see otherwise respectable pro-Clinton bloggers jump on the bandwagon. Surely, there’s a better way to support a candidate. […]

  109. 109

    […] Dan Bartlett, in December: […]

  110. 110

    […] What the Republicans need are not organizational skills. Hell, mention one potential bombshell scandal that will hurt Obama, and every right-wing blogger has their obligatory link up at memeorandum predicting the end. Have any of you sat down and thought how silly you look- by my count, there are any number of videotapes out there that are supposed to end it all. The Michelle whitey tape, the tape of Obama’s mistress, the tape of Obama screaming about how much he hates Israel, the tape of Michelle ranting at API, and on and on and on. But back to the point- as far as echoing messages, right-wing bloggers are great. Remember the old Dan Bartlett quote: […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] What the Republicans need are not organizational skills. Hell, mention one potential bombshell scandal that will hurt Obama, and every right-wing blogger has their obligatory link up at memeorandum predicting the end. Have any of you sat down and thought how silly you look- by my count, there are any number of videotapes out there that are supposed to end it all. The Michelle whitey tape, the tape of Obama’s mistress, the tape of Obama screaming about how much he hates Israel, the tape of Michelle ranting at API, and on and on and on. But back to the point- as far as echoing messages, right-wing bloggers are great. Remember the old Dan Bartlett quote: […]

  2. […] Dan Bartlett, in December: […]

  3. […] I’m not surprised to see somebody like Captain Ed run with this stuff because his job is to regurgitate right wing talking points. It’s a little peculiar, however, to see otherwise respectable pro-Clinton bloggers jump on the bandwagon. Surely, there’s a better way to support a candidate. […]

  4. […] Yeah, I was clearly trying to frame the sign as questioning a policy. I should have called you a moron. Seriously, the point of this is that you are now making a big deal out of nothing, and as a loyal GOP soldier, it is up to you to make a stink out of what is essentially nothing. But you know that, and we know what your role is- Dan Bartlett told us. […]

  5. […] I am sure you are all shocked to know that the wingnuts whinged and moaned and wailed, and in the end sucked it up and embraced their irrelevance. Months of calling him Juan McCain and worse were swept aside, “shamnesty” is but a memory, and all it took was one chorus of the “democrats are worse” and our brave patriots came to their senses. And now, magically, the right-wing blabosphere and John McCain are united and go together like Cheetos and Mountain Dew. Before long, our independent bloggers and right-wing bloviators they will be back to doing what they do best- regurgitating the party line. […]

  6. […] A Late Night Laugh […]

  7. […] Ask a right-wing blogger — “Do you regurgitate?” December 6, 2007 — Ned Raggett A more meta post, this one, but prompted by something that turned up which Balloon Juice has already had some well-deserved snark about. Some context: […]

Comments are closed.