Sometimes One Parent is Enough

***

Part of the thing that is so vexing to me is why the alleged “sane conservatives” are still with the Republican party, and I think it has to do with a number of things- not being willing or able to say things have changed and that they are wrong, unwillingness to leave the tribe, in some case, I’m sure they are privately alright with what the crazies are doing they just don’t want to get the blame so they distance themselves (“I’m a Republican, but not one of THOSE Republicans”), but finally, I think some of it has to do with the notion that we have a two party system and that there need to be two functional parties. The problem is, right now we have the Democrats, we have the Republicans, and then we have the lunatics:

That’s pretty frightening- the lunatics aren’t just out of touch with the country, they are out of touch with allegedly what their party members want.

When I look at that, were I a mythical dodo bird “sane Republican,” I’d start to rethink why I am in the GOP. But they won’t, they’ll just stay in the party and find new ways to blame Obama for their own faults or throw up their hands and claim the system is broken and dysfunctional. The system is fine- one party is just insane.

It’s a lot like the belief that children are best off with a mother and a father, which, under optimal circumstances, I would agree. We generally are better off with two vibrant parties. But when dad is a needle junky who spends the rent money on smack, shits on the couches and rapes the kids, no one would flinch if mom grabbed the kids and ran. But when the teatards do it, the “sane Republicans” and libertarians sit around and make excuses- “yeah, but Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich and blah blah blah.” It’s crazy.






168 replies
  1. 1
    NR says:

    And yet, what Obama is pushing for (25% tax increases 75% spending cuts at the best) is to the right of what even the average Republican voter wants. Yet somehow, this isn’t a problem?

  2. 2
    Corner Stone says:

    Ahh, Democrats as the “Mommy Party”. Thanks -Republican-, Cole.

  3. 3
    ...now I try to be amused says:

    There are Republicans and there are anti-Democrats who vote Republican. I don’t know what it would take to detach the latter group. A whole lot more crazy than we’re seeing now, it seems.

  4. 4
    Culture of Truth says:

    what Obama is pushing for (25% tax increases 75% spending cuts at the best) is to the right of what even the average Republican voter wants. Yet somehow, this isn’t a problem?

    The problem is the current Congress seems to consider that position thinly veiled Marxism.

  5. 5
    someguy says:

    Um, because no matter how benighted, stupid and wrongheaded they are, the ‘sane conservatives’ actually believe that shit and think the Democrats oppose what they believe? Probably the same reason liberals will eat any shit that the DNC spoons out, no matter what. Where are they going to go – the Republican Party?

    And don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.

  6. 6
    Lit3Bolt says:

    JC…JC…JC….BOTH sides do it. Therefore since both sides are functionally equivalent, I can stay on my side without any self-reflection or self-questioning because they’re my TEAM. You gotta stick by your TEAM, y’know. There’s no switching sides, even if both sides are the same, therefore my side is the best, I know because I know, and I can make up and discard tautologies and strawmen faster than you.

    So there, you Obot.

  7. 7
    Culture of Truth says:

    So stop doing them the favor of differentiating them. Hold every Republican accountable for the actions of the lunatics they allow to control the discourse.

  8. 8
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    Corner Stone: Analogies, how do they work?

  9. 9
    John Cole says:

    Ahh, Democrats as the “Mommy Party”. Thanks Republican, Cole.

    Fine, you can be the needle-junky child rapist.

  10. 10
    Nutella says:

    Wait, what, that tweet demands that you denounce one of your black guys in order to earn the right to denounce one of their black guys? No consideration for what either of them actually said about anything, just counting up people in racial categories?

    Jesus.

  11. 11

    Does anybody really believe Mataconis would take Cole seriously if only he denounced Sharpton? I know it has nothing to do with anything, but the blatant lie amused me.

  12. 12
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    Culter of Truth
    As someone stated the other day, we’re operating in an interesting envornment where Republicans are losing their long held seats due to primary challenges. Until baggers stop winning primaries, I think these Republicans will continue to identify as whatever the current definition of Republican is, not the old definition.

  13. 13
    ...now I try to be amused says:

    So stop doing them the favor of differentiating them. Hold every Republican accountable for the actions of the lunatics they allow to control the discourse.

    “If you’re not against them, you’re with them.” I guess you can call it the Reverse Dubya.

  14. 14
    Superking says:

    Denounce Al Sharpton? What the fuck for?

    dmataconis? Who the hell is that?

    Jesus, people, get off the twitter. No one knows what the fuck you’re talking about.

  15. 15
    Quiddity says:

    dmataconis has a point about Al Sharpton. That guy (Sharpton) is a race hustler who contributed to substantial violence in New York along with other offenses (libel, evasion of fines).

    Why Sharpton was given a speaking role at the 2004 Democratic convention is beyond me. Various Democratic presidential candidates kissed Sharpton’s ring that year. Kowtowing to the reverend mad the party look craven.

    He’s as odious as David Duke.

    As far as “denouncing” Sharpton, he’s frequently on the cable news shows and as a major commentator (or replacement host). You don’t have to denounce Sharpton every time he’s on television, but every once in a while, like we do with Pat Robertson.

  16. 16
    aimai says:

    Mataconis’s point is simple: its all about positioning in a game. If I’m up, you have to be down. If you criticize one of my team, you have to criticize one of yours or I can’t play with you. Its what one friend called “arbitrary competition” when she saw it at a cocktail party, in an academic setting–it absolutely priviliges the status quo over getting anything done because it presumes that the best state is an equilibrium of hostilities. People like Mataconis aren’t interested in getting anything done like, say, hewing to the constitution. Otherwise he’d grasp that your criticism of Cain isn’t “he’s a black guy who says stuff I don’t like” or even “he’s a black guy who is racist” but “he’s a major political figure/candidate for the presidency who doesn’t understand how the constitution works.”

    Ages ago we talked, on the blogs, about people who think mythically, like characters from a Star Trek episode. This is what it means to think mythically and in preset frames. You criticize my black guy/I criticize yours. You criticize Bachmann (a woman) then I hit back by attacking your women. The content of the criticism is meaningless to these people. And so is the idea of principle or progress. They think principle is shouting louder than everyone else and progress on a policy issue created through intransigence and contempt for the other actors.

    aimai

  17. 17
    Pillsy says:

    Wait, denounce Al Sharpton? Is it 1991 all over again? And if so, why am I reading about it on a blog?

  18. 18
    HL_guy says:

    The difference between Al Sharpton and the GOP is, Al has trended toward more reasonable positions in terms of issues and personal style, while the GOP has… gone the other way, to avoid analogies involving pedophilia and poo.

  19. 19
    Corner Stone says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    Analogies, how do they work?

    I’ve never been exactly sure. The closest I’ve been is to use approximate examples from culturally understood reference, juxtaposed in a way that allowed me to extract differential adjustments and understand the substrate to be a stand in for mutual understanding.
    Which is to say, Fucking Astros!

  20. 20
    Linnaeus says:

    FDR nails Republican BS in 1936. Plus ça change

  21. 21
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Yes, debt ceiling, taxes, blah blah blah- what about Al Sharpton? When are you going to get around to the important stuff?

  22. 22
    Davis X. Machina says:

    Ages ago we talked, on the blogs, about people who think mythically, like characters from a Star Trek episode.

    Darmok, from ST-TNG, for those unfamiliar with the episode.

  23. 23
    Moonbatman says:

    Why should progressives denounce Al Sharpton?
    He is just says the same things as Angry Black Lady.

    Peace Out. The Power is Yours. Free Crystal Mangum

  24. 24
    Corner Stone says:

    @John Cole: Happy to, Maureen.

  25. 25
    Corner Stone says:

    @Moonbatman:

    Why should progressives denounce Al Sharpton?
    He is just says the same things as Angry Black Lady.

    Hmmm…for a spoof, you make a pretty strong case.

  26. 26
    OzoneR says:

    dmataconis has a point about Al Sharpton

    and we’ve just lost again

  27. 27
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Can we have a Denounce Al Sharpton Open Thread?

  28. 28
    freelancer says:

    Okay, I denounce Stalin, Broccoli, Als Sharpton and Gore. Do they keep a running list or just keep moving the goalposts once they get a concession?

  29. 29
    Corner Stone says:

    @Davis X. Machina: Sharpton, his race pimping hair slicked back.

  30. 30
    Yutsano says:

    @Moonbatman:

    He is just says the same things as Angry Black Lady

    Fucking English, how does it work?

  31. 31
    Zifnab says:

    But when dad is a needle junky who spends the rent money on smack, shits on the couches and rapes the kids, no one would flinch if mom grabbed the kids and ran. But when the teatards do it, the “sane Republicans” and libertarians sit around and make excuses- “yeah, but Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich and blah blah blah.” It’s crazy.

    Hey now, that so-called “needle junkie” is a fine and upstanding member of my community. He goes to my country club. He’s the CEO of my local bank. He attends church every Sunday, and his wife teaches a class for the local children.

    There’s no way he shits on the couch and beats his kids. The only shit I saw was from the Democrat he invited over, and the only people beating his kids are the unionized school teachers.

    Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich are godless amoral monsters. How dare you upbraid my fine elderly rich white neighbor while you associate with those hooligans!

    /is what they’ll say

  32. 32
    Gus says:

    Am I supposed to know who Doug Mataconis is?

  33. 33
    Poopyman says:

    @Superking:
    #1: Well put.

    #2: Well put!

    #3: Fuckin’ right!

    That is all.

  34. 34
    catclub says:

    quiddity “like we do with Pat Robertson.”

    Who is this we, kemo sabe? Is there some time I missed when the GOP denounced Pat Robertson?

  35. 35
    Superking says:

    @ Davis at 22.

    I went out and picked up a copy og Gilgamesh after watching that Star Trek episode. They did a hell of a job with that show sometimes.

  36. 36
    Alex says:

    Just ask for a list of everyone you have to denounce as being unreasonable before you are allowed to criticize a Republican.

    Then ignore them and criticize the Republican. Because it’s actually possible to criticize people for their actions and speeches individually.

  37. 37
    Donald G says:

    Does Cole also have to denounce the Broccoli Imperative, too? And who the f*** is Doug Mataconis?

  38. 38
    schtum says:

    If you subscribe to Hotelling’s Law (which is basically just a formal description of a line where you plot different positions/ideologies and measure the distance between them), then you would expect just slightly more than half of republicans to abandon the GOP over their no-tax position.

    If the middle position between the GOP (0) and Democrats (46) is 23, then all Republicans who support a deal consisting of more than 23% revenue increases should side with the Democrats. Remember, 26% is the average for Republicans, which means 50% of Republicans want something less than that. Those who want something less than 23% should side with the GOP.

    That’s the theory. Here’s the reality: Politics isn’t a two-dimensional line. You can be fiscally moderate and extremely socially conservative. It’s no accident that the GOP has spent the past two years attacking Planned Parenthood, ACORN, unions and NPR. Voters who are technically closer to the Democrat’s position on taxes will still vote for the GOP because of these issues.

  39. 39
    BGinCHI says:

    What aimai said, as usual. Spot the fuck on.

    Even shorter: hacks like Mataconis and, well, almost all elected GOPs don’t want to get anything done.

    They aren’t part of a system that has problems; they ARE the system’s problem.

  40. 40
    Corner Stone says:

    @Superking:

    after watching that Star Trek episode. They did a hell of a job with that show sometimes.

    I like the time loop episodes.
    Boggles the mind, it does.

  41. 41
    Montysano says:

    @Quiddity:

    He’s as odious as David Duke.

    He’s in contention for History’s Greatest Monster also, too.

  42. 42
    fasteddie9318 says:

    Why do we keep doing Doug Mataconis the favor of preemptively separating him from the lunatics?

  43. 43
    catclub says:

    I get the sense that they _may_ remember exactly what it was that Al Sharpton nneds to be denounced for. I know that I don’t. Unlike the present case where Herman Cain has said something specific, recently, that they would like to forget, asap.

  44. 44
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Republicans aren’t like Dad. Dad’s been working two jobs since forever to keep up with rising health care costs. Mom’s already blown the nest egg and is now funding her massive addictions with borrowed money. She’s also a whore, screwing around on dad with Grover Norquist, desperate to abort Medicare and Medicaid, trying to give up custody of Social Security to the Church.

  45. 45

    Partly they enablers. Partly their own bigotry keeps them from objectively evaluating things.

    And partly the Democratic Party is at fault.

    There are “sane Democrats” who have repeatedly explained that there needs to be real money spent on stimulating the economy.

    But do Obama and the Congressional Dems take action?

    If the debate is between Dems who are advocating stay-the-course and Republicans who are advocating action, it’s not illogical for low information voters to go with the party that claims it’s “action” agenda will lead to creating more jobs.

    The Democrats specialize in delivering a product that’s left of the GOP option by as little as possible on economic issues.

    Republicans dig in their heals and Democrats keep offering to give stuff away. It’s hard to believe the Democrats have any convictions about their agenda when they are busy casting it aside and embracing the GOP agenda.

    Also, our media sucks.

  46. 46
    Paul in KY says:

    Who cares what a guy who’s named after a mythical animal thinks?

    Fuck him, John.

  47. 47
    goblue72 says:

    There aren’t crazy teabaggers and “sane” conservatives in the Republican party. The GOP coalition hasn’t changed – all that’s changed is which part of their coalition is ascendant.

    The GOP coalition, at least since Nixon’s Southern strategy to peel off disaffected Dixiecrats, has been composed of: 1) rich people, 2) Evangelical, single issue, “culture” nuts, and 3) Dixiecrats. Reagan added lunch bucket middle-aged white dudes, but they’ve long since aged & morphed to take on aspects of #2 & #3. #1 (rich people) have long controlled the leadership of the Party (the GOP just being the modern incarnation of the Whig party). #1 controlled the reins, but being a group who’s issues put them in the minority of American opinion, cynically used #2 and #3 as their frothy-mouthed food soldiers. Good for driving votes to the polls, then generally ignored until the next election.

    Reagan was great at nodding and winking at the racists and God-botherers without doing much in the way of actually letting them have much a say.

    Obviously, this has changed in the last 10 years, with #2 and #3 having risen up and, if not completely taking over, at least sharing equal billing with #1. #1 (rich people) are what you call “sane” convervatives – but they aren’t “sane” – just cynical. They are going to cling to the Evangelicals and Dixiecrats because they’ve convinced the rubes that God wants low taxes, deregulation and the end of the safety net. The cling to them because they deliver what the rich want and the rich are rich enough that they can ignore the effects of the culture war stuff.

    There are no “sane” conservatives – whatever was left of “sane” Republicanism has long since left the GOP and become Democrats. Its not a surprise why the Democratic party struggles between its old liberal and its technocractic moderate wing. The moderate voters in the Democratic party are people who 20, 30 years ago would have been New England or Rockefeller-style Republicans – voters who are mainstream Protestant/agnostic, middle of the road on social issues, don’t have an allergy to core social safety nets, but who like their other non-defense govt. programs trimmed down in order to keep taxes modest.

    They came over to our party while the Dixiecrats were invading theirs.

  48. 48
    jl says:

    Cole could also not the asymmetry between the two tweets.

    The reprobate, glibertarian socialist, Cole, vile and disreputable as he is, can still give a reason for criticizing Cain. The reason is that Cain is spouting bigotry.

    @dmataconis (whoever that is, I am tweeter unsavvy) simply demands that Al Sharpton be denounced. Why? For what, done when? How is Sharpton even relevant to issue of religious bigotry?

    Note that Cain is promoting falsehood as well as bigotry. Cain implies that there is no religious law in the US now, and courts considering religious law would corrupt the US legal system.

    But that claim is nonsense. Jews have the Halakha religious law, which has been long practiced in the U.S. Why, problems with Halacha law has lead to crime in our country! What will we do about it? Ban it? (no, that is the wrong answer)

    ” New Jersey rabbi accused in Jewish divorce kidnapping plot
    Rabbi David Wax, 49, and Judy Wax, 47, of Lakewood, N.J., face the possibility of life in prison if convicted of kidnapping in New Jersey.

    TRENTON — A New Jersey rabbi and his wife surrendered to authorities on Monday on charges of kidnapping an Israeli man and threatening to bury him alive if he did not agree to a traditional Jewish divorce.

    ”’

    Under Jewish law, in order to finalize a divorce, the husband must grant his wife a “get,” a document that permits her to remarry. ”

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43.....and_courts

  49. 49
    Ash Can says:

    Oh, come on. Mataconis has to be snarking. No one who can feed and dress himself is that fucking stupid.

    @aimai: This is the only way that idiotic tweet makes any sense at all, and I’d bet anything of value that you’re precisely right.

    ETA: And we’ve got Stalin and broccoli in the thread too. What else are we missing? Arugula and brown mustard! Let’s not forget to denounce them too!

  50. 50
    jl says:

    Cole could also note the asymmetry between the two tweets.

    The reprobate, glibertarian commmie, Cole, vile and disreputable as he is, can still give a reason for criticizing Cain. The reason is that Cain is spouting bigotry.

    @dmataconis (whoever that is, I am tweeter unsavvy) simply demands that Al Sharpton be denounced. Why? For what, done when? How is Sharpton even relevant to issue of religious bigotry?

    Note that Cain is promoting falsehood as well as bigotry. Cain implies that there is no religious law in the US now, and courts considering religious law would corrupt the US legal system.

    But that claim is nonsense. Jews have the Halakha religious law, which has been long practiced in the U.S. Why, problems with Halacha law has lead to crime in our country! What will we do about it? Ban it? (no, that is the wrong answer)

    New Jersey rabbi accused in Jewish divorce kidnapping plot

    ” TRENTON — A New Jersey rabbi and his wife surrendered to authorities on Monday on charges of kidnapping an Israeli man and threatening to bury him alive if he did not agree to a traditional Jewish divorce.

    ‘’’

    Under Jewish law, in order to finalize a divorce, the husband must grant his wife a “get,” a document that permits her to remarry. ”


    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43.....and_courts

  51. 51
    MattF says:

    Has anyone denounced Ann Coulter for saying that physicians who do abortions should be shot? (–crickets–). So, get serious.

  52. 52
    Mike E says:

    Al Sharpton is a shameless demagogue at times, but damn if he didn’t make me “heh indeedy” the most during the 2004 campaign. And, like the fat Michael Moore fatty, his voice makes the GOP’s baby jeebus cry. Hooray!

  53. 53

    ofercrissakes! al sharpton isn’t the leading candidate for the democratic presidential nomination in 2012. what freakin’ relevance does he have to the discussion???? i hate this kind of thing. it’s like trying to have a discussion with a 5-year-old kid on a playground. “oh yeah? i’m rubber and you’re glue! everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you! nyah, nyah…”

  54. 54

    You denounce people when they do or say bad shit.

    What’s Sharpton recently that needs to be criticized?

    If Republicans don’t speak against Herman Cain’s position on mosques, it sorta tells you where they think the party is.

  55. 55

    apologies to 5-year-olds everywhere.

  56. 56
    Corner Stone says:

    @Paul in KY:

    Who cares what a guy who’s named after a mythical animal thinks?

    There’s a mythical animal named “Doug” ?

  57. 57
    OzoneR says:

    There are “sane Democrats” who have repeatedly explained that there needs to be real money spent on stimulating the economy.
    But do Obama and the Congressional Dems take action?

    Yes, yes they do, which is why 9,000 jobs are being created here in New York because of high speed rail.

    Now, tell us when they take action, do the people respond by electing governors, senators and congressman who run on stopping that action?

  58. 58
    Trurl says:

    Part of the thing that is so vexing to me is why the alleged “sane conservatives” are still with the Republican party, and I think it has to do with a number of things- not being willing or able to say things have changed and that they are wrong, unwillingness to leave the tribe, in some case, I’m sure they are privately alright with what the crazies are doing they just don’t want to get the blame so they distance themselves

    Funnily enough, every word of this applies to liberals who support Obama through more wars, more domestic spying, and now frontal assaults on entitlements.

  59. 59
    GVG says:

    There are assets to be fought over-significant assets. If the sane republicans run away, they leave the assets controlled by the nuts. Automatically on most Ballots for instance, money in the bank, donor lists, records. the Ballot issue is I think the biggest one.
    Its why some wealthy people hesitate to divorce and just choose to live apart. People however have options of legal divorce with court split assets. I’m thinking there should be a way for the different types or “republican” to force a split of the assets but I can’t actually think of a way. Part of the problem is that a lot of this religious takeover of the party happened gradually and the real old fiscal republicans have been losing primaries and getting pushed out for years now. So a court division of assets and the name and rights of calling themselves republican could easily come down on the side of the fanatics.
    The 2006 elections is when many moderate republicans began leaving the party in protest. Now there are not enough left to fight for voting control of the party. Some of the stubborn ones who see the value of being automatically on almost all ballots….don’t want to conceed that control to thise they think usurped “their” party/ I would far prefer them retaining control of the assets, but I don’t see how they can. Its too late. I think most of the sane have already left.
    The old style fiscal republicans will have to build a third party probably, which in the long run ought to replace this insane republican morph, but thats going to take a long time and it will be hard to win an actual election under the handicap of having to gather a lot of signatures every election to get on the ballot.

  60. 60
    fasteddie9318 says:

    Doug, if you’re reading this, I just want you to know that the first thing I do when I get home tonight will be to construct an intricate model of Al Sharpton’s body from tongue depressors and pipe cleaners (because their hair, amirite?), with a little wood glue and epoxy to hold it all together. I will stuff it with cotton because zOMG AL SHARPTON IS FAT YOU KNOW? (and plus cotton, wink-wink, amirite?). I figure that will take me about 12 hours give or take, so come tomorrow morning when I finish, I will give the model a vicious caning, while repeatedly crying out “TO HELL’S FIRE WITH THEE, TONGUE DEPRESSOR AL SHARPTON! I DENOUNCE YOU AND YOUR WICKED BROCCOLI, AND I CATEGORICALLY REJECT AND REFUDIATE YOUR BLACK-HEARTED (BLACK! amirite?) VILLAINY!”

    After the caning, I shall ritually disembowel Tongue Depressor Al, both for the symbolic value of such an act and because my subservient child-bearer, now awoken by my primal condemnations, will likely need/want her cotton balls back. Then I shall tie one half of Tongue Depressor Al to my child and I will pull on the other, halving him/it (I wish I could quarter it but my subservient child-bearer has sadly not borne me enough children for the task). The two halves of the figure will then be sent to the farthest reaches of Libertopia as a warning for any who would again dare defy us.

    Will that suffice as a display of my devotion to the cause? Please let me know.

  61. 61
    Yutsano says:

    @Trurl:

    Funnily enough, every word of this applies to liberals who support Obama through more wars, more domestic spying, and now frontal assaults on entitlements.

    Funnily enough, you still haven’t told us who we should be supporting, even after multiple requests to do so.

  62. 62
    dj spellchecka says:

    since i don’t shop at libertarians-r-us i had no idea who doug mataconis is….google suggests he’s someone who no one on either side of the partisan divide takes seriously…judging from his photo i thought he was a professional ballplayer…

    why would anyone follow his tweets? totally lost here…

  63. 63
    OzoneR says:

    every word of this applies to liberals who support Obama through more wars, more domestic spying, and now frontal assaults on entitlements.

    No, it doesn’t, but nice try.

  64. 64
    scarshapedstar says:

    I hereby denounce Al Sharpton.

    Now can we talk about why destroying the credit of the United States is a bad thing?

  65. 65
    j low says:

    Remember the time Sharpton caused a race riot by beating the shit out of 5 white NYC cops?

  66. 66
    Trurl says:

    Funnily enough, you still haven’t told us who we should be supporting

    Someone who has not impeachably violated the War Powers Act. Your ballot should offer one or two.

  67. 67
    BeccaM says:

    John Cole:

    It’s a lot like the belief that children are best off with a mother and a father, which, under optimal circumstances, I would agree.

    Dude, not cool. You just slammed every gay and lesbian headed household, with this claim that under “optimal circumstance”, the hetero couple is what is best for children.

    What’s best for kids is they be loved and cared for by their parents or legal guardians, whatever their gender.

  68. 68
    fasteddie9318 says:

    Someone who has not impeachably violated the War Powers Act. Your ballot should offer one or two.

    So you’re campaigning for the Republican, then?

  69. 69
    OzoneR says:

    Someone who has not impeachably violated the War Powers Act. Your ballot should offer one or two.

    Well, there’s Obama

  70. 70
    fasteddie9318 says:

    Dude, not cool. You just slammed every gay and lesbian headed household, with this claim that under “optimal circumstance”, the hetero couple is what is best for children.

    Ouch, yeah, that wasn’t good. Better to go with “two parents,” maybe, because while I don’t think their gender matters, I can definitely see how having two of them around helps.

  71. 71
    goblue72 says:

    @BeccaM – hyperbole much? save the poutrage for GOS, where they specialize in that kind of stuff.

  72. 72
    Ash Can says:

    @Yutsano: Because if Trurl comes right out and says “Michele Bachmann,” there goes the ruse.

  73. 73
    dww44 says:

    I know lots of folks like this:

    and I think it has to do with a number of things- not being willing or able to say things have changed and that they are wrong, unwillingness to leave the tribe, in some case, I’m sure they are privately alright with what the crazies are doing they just don’t want to get the blame so they distance themselv

    My relatives and friends are so married to the idea of welfare queens and the meme that Democrats are all socialists, anti-Christ, not patriotic enough, too weak on national security, that they are simply unable to see the craziness within their midst. Their brains, IMO, are truly unable to separate facts and common sense from their ideology. Sad and tragic. For all of us.

  74. 74
    Paul in KY says:

    Corner Stone, you just had to go & ruin my carefully contrived joke, didn’t you?

  75. 75
    Ben Cisco says:

    I hereby denounce the Brown Mustard Star Empire.

  76. 76

    Mataconis is an idiot, and the worst blogger who james joyner ever added to his stable.

  77. 77
    alwhite says:

    Boy you went a long way to avoid denouncing Al! ;D

    The next time Al runs for the presidential nomination of the Dems I will diss him, just like I did the last time. But he is not running now & has no position within the Party so whats your point? Must I also denounce Gene McCarthy (who was my US Senator, a horrible person, a worse politician and eventually went to the dark side) and every also ran for the nomination since 1968?

    Damn there are a lot of trolls on this thread – who put out the call for the flying monkeys?

  78. 78
    The Pale Scot says:

    @Moonbat

    Free Magnums of Krystal??

    Count me IN!

  79. 79
    SensesFail says:

    @Mike E (54):

    And, like the fat Michael Moore fatty, his voice makes the GOP’s baby jeebus cry. Hooray!

    You win the internets.

  80. 80

    Um, Al Sharpton has been on fire lately, and in a good way. I’m not denouncing him no-how.

  81. 81
    Sly says:

    @jl:

    @dmataconis (whoever that is, I am tweeter unsavvy) simply demands that Al Sharpton be denounced. Why? For what, done when? How is Sharpton even relevant to issue of religious bigotry?

    Because you have constantly demonstrate a pathological resentment of uppity negroes in order to be taken seriously by middle-brow suburban douchebags.

  82. 82
    Redshift says:

    I know this has been brought up in passing, but can someone please point me to where conservatives ritually denounce everyone on their side (or who is accused of being on “their side,” like the idiocy abput Stalin) who’s ever done anything objectionable before they’re allowed to criticize liberals?

    I assume they must do that, because they’re always demanding that we do, and that couldn’t just be a juvenile tactic to shut down criticism, right?

  83. 83
    RP says:

    Dude, not cool. You just slammed every gay and lesbian headed household, with this claim that under “optimal circumstance”, the hetero couple is what is best for children.
    What’s best for kids is they be loved and cared for by their parents or legal guardians, whatever their gender.

    Lighten up, dude.

  84. 84
    Redshift says:

    @Sly:

    Because you have constantly demonstrate a pathological resentment of uppity negroes in order to be taken seriously by middle-brow suburban douchebags.

    And you have to criticize a black liberal if you’re going to criticize a black conservative or you’re only criticizing because you hate conservatives, and if the conservative is black the liberal has to be because shut up, that’s why.

  85. 85
    Cassidy says:

    whatever their gender.

    Eh…call the butch one dad and the feminine one mom.

  86. 86
    John Cole says:

    Dude, not cool. You just slammed every gay and lesbian headed household, with this claim that under “optimal circumstance”, the hetero couple is what is best for children.

    Oh, Dear God. I wasn’t slamming anyone. It takes a man and a woman to conceive a child, and under optimum conditions, they will love their child and raise it. That’s not fucking controversial, and that isn’t saying that lesbians and gays can’t be wonderful parents.

    This is also why the Democrats fail at everything. We’ve got too many pet grievances that cloud every god damned issue. If what you took away from this post was “John Cole says gay people can’t be good parents” or “John Cole is reinforcing the mommy party/daddy party viewpoints,” let me be clear- YOU ARE PART OF THE FUCKING PROBLEM.

  87. 87
    agrippa says:

    Goblue, your #49.

    Got it in one.

  88. 88
    The Moar You Know says:

    Al Sharpton is both an asshole and an idiot. I don’t see why “denouncing” him is required; these are things that are obvious to everyone.

    It’s like asking someone to denounce puppy abuse.

  89. 89
    trollhattan says:

    @John Cole:

    And now you know why they have all those possible side effects listed after drug ads. If you don’t qualify every bloody thing you write you’re just as bad as Big Pharma.

  90. 90
    MattR says:

    @John Cole:

    It takes a man and a woman to conceive a child, and under optimum conditions, they will love their child and raise it. That’s not fucking controversial, and that isn’t saying that lesbians and gays can’t be wonderful parents.

    I don’t think it was your intent, but your first sentence does imply that if a lesbian couple decide to have a baby using a sperm donor, the “optimum condition” for raising that child would be for the pregnant lesbian to find a man she can love and raise the child with. Once you say that you view heterosexual parents as a better option that gay or lesbian parents, it is not much consolation to state that gays or lesbians can be wonderful parents. The “noncontroversial” stance is what fasteddie9318 said above – that two parents are the optimum condition for raising a child regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

  91. 91
    BeccaM says:

    Oh, Dear God. I wasn’t slamming anyone. It takes a man and a woman to conceive a child, and under optimum conditions, they will love their child and raise it. That’s not fucking controversial, and that isn’t saying that lesbians and gays can’t be wonderful parents.

    No John, what it’s saying is you feel that a mother and a father is inherently superior. There is no other interpretation.

    I didn’t say that you said gay parents can’t be good or wonderful. Just never as potentially good as hetero parents at their best. You didn’t have to make the assertion, but chose to do so anyway.

    I’m sorry to have pissed you off, and if I’m part of the fucking problem in your opinion, clearly there’s no point in my sticking around here, as I have the last couple years.

  92. 92
    jibeaux says:

    Would it be simplest just to have a new acronym? IDSTBMAAS?

    I Denounce Stalin, the Broccoli Mandate, and Al Sharpton

  93. 93
    gex says:

    Becca I almost said something, but then skipped it because it wasn’t the topic of the post. But I’m glad someone said something.

  94. 94
    trollhattan says:

    @The Moar You Know:

    I’m among those who have no idea who Mataconis is, but his Twittertwat comes across as, “Quick, who’s the first naughty black person I can think of to counter Cole’s making fun of the esteemed Mr. Cain–a black person I actually like?”

    It’s barely even adolescent.

  95. 95
    catclub says:

    Redshift @ 84 Exactly.

    Starting with David Vitter, then Pat Buchanan, then Pat Robertson, then Alan Simpson (cow with 300 million teats fame). Then Perry’s treason/secession talk. The only one they nearly repudiated was Sharron Angle’s second amendment remedies. I think it is no coincidence she is the only woman in my list.

  96. 96
    Cassidy says:

    a mother and a father is inherently superior

    You can’t conceive a baby with a dildo, no matter how big and double ended it is.

  97. 97
    PurpleGirl says:

    In 1992 Sharpton ran for the senate. The Democratic choices that year included, besides Sharpton, Robert Abrams, Elizabeth Holtzman and Geraldine Ferraro. One Sunday morning, Sharpton, Abrams and Holtzman were were on the same teevee show; Abrams and Holtzman were nitpicking each other, nattering on about I forget what but sounding like children bickering. Sharpton was the only one that morning who sounded like an adult; who spoke about policy and issues. I voted for Sharpton in the primary that year. (I don’t remember who actually ran.)

  98. 98
    Paul in KY says:

    John, think you nailed it with comment #88.

    I mean, if you don’t think John has your back on equal parenting rights, etc. then you need to stay away from Balloon Juice for awhile & go peruse Free Republic & blogs like that. Might get you refocused on who your real enemies are.

  99. 99
    jibeaux says:

    Sweet Jesus, John wasn’t making a fucking point about gay parents. Focus, people, focus. It’s an analogy. The point is exactly the same with Mommies #1 and #2 and Daddies #1 and #2.

  100. 100
    Violet says:

    @MattR: Why are two lesbians who decide to use a sperm donor to have a child more optimal than one straight woman who decides to use a sperm donor to have a child? Why are two better than one?

  101. 101
    OzoneR says:

    I voted for Sharpton in the primary that year. (I don’t remember who actually ran.)

    Abrams won the nomination and narrowly lost to D’Amato.

  102. 102
    moonbat says:

    I used to thing the 24-hour news cycle was going to be a good thing with more and better stories being reported that couldn’t be squeezed into your 30-minute nightly news cast but I swear now I think it has become the downfall of the country with the tit-for-tat, who is up, who is down, tribalism running non-stop that this mataconis jerk can tweet this without an ounce of irony. Clearly to him Cain is just a token candidate so that the Republicans can claim they have one too. His is extra special in fact, because being black he can say racist things with impunity. Isn’t that cool? So in order to criticize his anti-Muslim black guy you first have to criticize some liberal black guy who has been critical of whites in the past. See how things work in the Land of Racist Jerkwads?
    As for Cain, I’m sick of all these idiots who wrap themselves in the flag and make a tri-corner hat out of the constitution and have NEVER freakin’ read it much less understand it. Freedom of religion means everyone’s religion. Got it? This isn’t really that complicated. And it is the ONLY thing that the American exceptionalism you keep bleating about could possibly be based on.

  103. 103
    navigator says:

    Don’t forget Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter.

    The true believers on local comment boards here don’t usually get too far without throwing those up.

  104. 104
    trollhattan says:

    @PurpleGirl:

    Sharpton’s barely on my radar the last decade or more, but I’m of the opinion he’s somewhat redeemed himself since l’affaire Tawana Brawley, at which point I’d have tossed him in the East River strapped to a piano. That Sharpton, I’d refudiate.

  105. 105
    Corner Stone says:

    @John Cole: No Cole. The main problem is on display here at BJ. A fuckton of former Republicans enjoy telling Democrats what they should do/not do, all the while maintaining the exact Republican mentality they’ve had for their entire life. Maureen.

  106. 106
    Angry Lurker says:

    I apologize for not having time to read all the comments; this is probably repetitive… but since when does Doug Mataconis count as a ‘sane Republican’? James Joyner, maybe… Mataconis? No way.

  107. 107
    AnnaN says:

    Al Sharpton is relevant?

  108. 108
    Violet says:

    @AnnaN:
    I saw Sharpton on TV not that long ago and he looked really thin. Is he well?

  109. 109
    AnnaN says:

    @Violet re: “Why are two lesbians who decide to use a sperm donor to have a child more optimal than one straight woman who decides to use a sperm donor to have a child? Why are two better than one?”

    Because two is more.

  110. 110
    PurpleGirl says:

    OzoneR: Thanks. I just couldn’t remember who won the primary that year. (I didn’t want to take too much time looking for the answer via the Google.)

    Trollhattan: Yeah, I don’t follow what Sharpton is doing in any systematic way but that one teevee appearance stuck with me. Abrams and Holtzman made themselves look so childish and petty… Sharpton was prepared to talk about issues and he sounded so much better than the other two. I know that people love to keep going back to the Tawana Brawley episode. I’m willing to give him some latitude for change.

  111. 111
    AnnaN says:

    @Violet re: Al

    I have not heard him deny he has cancer.

  112. 112
    daveNYC says:

    I’m sorry to have pissed you off, and if I’m part of the fucking problem in your opinion, clearly there’s no point in my sticking around here, as I have the last couple years.

    I’m sure there other blogs that would love to take advantage of your ability to miss the point.

  113. 113
    Hal says:

    Ah Al Sharpton. The white man’s boogie man. Yes, Tawana Brawley was shameful, and Sharpton should have picked up on her BS much sooner, but a lot of people got sucked into that sham.

    Moreover, I missed the part where Sharpton has ever called for white people to be banned from doing certain things, opening churches or synagogues in certain neighborhoods and the like.

    I realize some of you don’t like loud mouthed black people who talk about social injustice in ways that are less than, oh how shall we say, polite, but that doesn’t make the the black equivalent of David Duke.

  114. 114
    Corner Stone says:

    There’s absolutely nothing I enjoy more than a Gang of Six Senate deal.
    Nothing!!

  115. 115
    Chris says:

    As for Cain, I’m sick of all these idiots who wrap themselves in the flag and make a tri-corner hat out of the constitution and have NEVER freakin’ read it much less understand it. Freedom of religion means everyone’s religion. Got it? This isn’t really that complicated. And it is the ONLY thing that the American exceptionalism you keep bleating about could possibly be based on.

    As long as there’s been a Constitution, there’s been a community of bastards crawling out of the woodwork to squeal “wait! Those protections don’t apply to THIS ethnic/religious/political/whatever group!” Herman Cain’s just the latest in a long line of distinguished assholes who historically would’ve put him very high on their target list.

  116. 116
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @goblue72 #49:

    They came over to our party while the Dixiecrats were invading theirs.

    Solid analysis. Well done.

    They are going to cling to the Evangelicals and Dixiecrats

    So they (i.e. group #1 = rich people) are clinging to their bibles and guns? Funny thing that.

  117. 117
    jl says:

    @108 AnnaN

    That is the issue that should come first, regarding the @dmataconis tweet, who should explain exactly how Sharpton is relevant.

    Because Sharpton is black too?
    Because many consider Sharpton ‘extreme’ in a violation of bogus Broderesque comity?
    Because Sharpton may have (probably did) blow it years ago in a controversy over racism? And @dmataconis thinks Muslims are a race of humans, by some definition or other?
    Because reactionary GOPpers don’t have to make sense, they just do or say whatever it takes to distract attention from an issue even if it makes no sense?

    What other possibilities are there?

    Has Sharpton been involved in some controversy over religious bigotry?

  118. 118
    Corner Stone says:

    @Paul in KY:

    you just had to go & ruin my carefully contrived joke, didn’t you?

    That was carefully contrived?

  119. 119
    PurpleGirl says:

    jl — he’s black, he was fat, he lead l’affaire Tawana Brawley. He isn’t a Democratic official nor has he held elective office… but he lead l’affaire Tawana Brawley. That will always define him to some people and make him relevant, even when he hasn’t been in the news recently.

    ETA: trollhattan — I like your phrasing “l’affaire Tawana Brawley”.

  120. 120
    Paul in KY says:

    Corner Stone – The joke about it being carefully contrived was sorta carefully contrived, after your spate of logic busted up my Mataconis/Manticore gem.

  121. 121
    John Cole says:

    A fuckton of former Republicans enjoy telling Democrats what they should do/not do

    By fuckton, you mean me, because every other poster with the exception of DeBoer is a lifelong Democrat.

  122. 122
    gex says:

    I’ll leave it at: Gay people hear that a mother and a father are the best family for a child all the time. Usually by people who are denigrating us. So there may be a bit of a PTSD reaction to that. It jumped out at me too. And I thought about posting something, but let it lay. I know Cole is on our side.

  123. 123
    John Cole says:

    No John, what it’s saying is you feel that a mother and a father is inherently superior. There is no other interpretation.

    I didn’t say that you said gay parents can’t be good or wonderful. Just never as potentially good as hetero parents at their best. You didn’t have to make the assertion, but chose to do so anyway.

    I’m sorry to have pissed you off, and if I’m part of the fucking problem in your opinion, clearly there’s no point in my sticking around here, as I have the last couple years.

    A man and a woman need nothing but a few hours time to make a baby. In Cornerstone’s case, maybe 30 seconds. If they carry that pregnancy to term, and love and raise that child, that is the optimum situation.

    That in no way implies that two lesbians who adopt or two lesbians who have a baby through artificial insemination are bad parents or not even great parents. But simple biology makes it harder and more difficult. I look around me at a lot of shit male/female parents and think a lot of their kids would be better off in “non-traditional” family.

    But seriously, knock it off with the lake woebegone everything is optimum nonsense. Our legal system, simple biology and medical realities, and common sense dictate that the optimum child-raising is if a man and a woman have a child and raise it well. Again, that does not mean that lesbians or gays are bad parents.

  124. 124
    gex says:

    And, OT: Obama endorses DOMA repeal Now what will AmericaBlog freak out about?

  125. 125
    John Cole says:

    And for god sakes, can we not recognize the difference between the optimum in the abstract and the optimum in the specific?

  126. 126
    Ryan S says:

    @Corner Stone
    As the democratic son of life long dems, I say,” Lay off Cole or I’ll have Michael Dukakis go to your house and beat the shit outa ya!”

  127. 127
    Corner Stone says:

    @Paul in KY:

    The joke about it being carefully contrived was sorta carefully contrived, after your spate of logic busted up my Mataconis/Manticore gem

    Hmmm, the joke about it being carefully contrived was carefully contrived. In order to allow the application of snark to an already snarky comment. And if the preceding comment was also, in fact, snarky then the contrivation of said careful comment preceded the snark of the snarkily delivered careful comment.
    I feel like I’m drinking with a Sicilian.

  128. 128
    dead existentialist says:

    @ John Cole 127:
    No.

    Doing so might lessen the opportunities for egregious butthurt and excessive poutage.

  129. 129
    jl says:

    I will settle the issue for all the poor benighted people here, including the hapless Cole.

    The optimal family situation is an extended family. Aunts and uncles, in some combination, are the optimal people to raise kids in terms of discipline and building character. The biological parents for support and building self confidence. Grand parents for passing along wisdom and sage advice.

    If a biological extended family does not exist, you find some sound candidates and adopt whoever is willing to make an extended family.

    Native Americans knew this, and we should learn from their example.

    OK, I don’t use the tweeter (as Perry would say), so has anyone asked @dmataconis how Sharpton is relevant? Other than the fact that he is a well known African American bogie man to all tighty whitey right thinking self righteous pissants, I mean, people.

  130. 130
    Corner Stone says:

    @Ryan S: Have you checked under their skirts recently?

  131. 131
    ...now I try to be amused says:

    @moonbat #104:

    I used to think the 24-hour news cycle was going to be a good thing with more and better stories being reported that couldn’t be squeezed into your 30-minute nightly news cast but I swear now I think it has become the downfall of the country…

    Yep, the 24-hour news channels need a lot of material to fill those 24 hours. They could be more like Al Jazeera English, but NOOOOO! they’re more like 48 30-minute nightly newscasts. Tragedies and misfortunes that used to get only local play now get national play, so the 24-hour news junkies overestimate how threatening the world is. But I digress.

  132. 132
    srv says:

    I denounce Stalin and will denounce John Cole’s gay family bigotries should some pro-gay family wingnuts be offended by it.

  133. 133
    freelancer says:

    @John Cole:

    This place has a lot of Brittas.

  134. 134
    Billy K says:

    You guys are forgetting something very important:

    Al Gore is fat.

  135. 135
    Jay in Oregon says:

    gex @126:

    And, OT: Obama endorses DOMA repeal Now what will AmericaBlog freak out about?

    Have you been reading the rest of this thread?

  136. 136
    goblue72 says:

    I realize all this thread-jacking is fun, but while all y’alls were beating up on Cole over a non-issue, the Gang of Six just burped out a plan that has the President’s initial approval. Cuts $4T from the long term deficit. Cuts to Social Security, Medicare. Closes some tax “loopholes” like reductions to mortage interest deduction, charitable donations and child care credits. Also flattens marginal tax rates, with top rate to be reduced from 35% to 29%.

    Welcome to the Grand Bargain. More goodies for the rich. Ass-raping for the rest of us.

    I’m as big an Obama supporter as they come. At this point though – I’m done. If this is the “best” he can do – I say let the default come and fight the GOP in the trenches.

  137. 137
    Ryan S says:

    My Mom’s been a vegan for 30 years and my dad a Chem PHD who’s so logical he makes spock look like a hot head. eta- Oh and mom would never wear a skirt too sexist.

  138. 138
    Corner Stone says:

    @goblue72:

    that has the President’s initial approval. Cuts $4T from the long term deficit. Cuts to Social Security, Medicare. Closes some tax “loopholes” like reductions to mortage interest deduction, charitable donations and child care credits. Also flattens marginal tax rates, with top rate to be reduced from 35% to 29%.

    Whoa, wait a second. By “cuts” does the plan mean “cuts”, or does it mean “cuts” ?
    And if it means “cuts” then why would it have the presidents’ initial approval?
    Because I thought he was putting forth a plan for “cuts”, not a plan for “cuts”.

  139. 139
    overeducated says:

    I realize all this thread-jacking is fun, but while all y’alls were beating up on Cole over a non-issue, the Gang of Six just burped out a plan that has the President’s initial approval. Cuts $4T from the long term deficit. Cuts to Social Security, Medicare. Closes some tax “loopholes” like reductions to mortage interest deduction, charitable donations and child care credits. Also flattens marginal tax rates, with top rate to be reduced from 35% to 29%. Welcome to the Grand Bargain. More goodies for the rich. Ass-raping for the rest of us. I’m as big an Obama supporter as they come. At this point though – I’m done. If this is the “best” he can do – I say let the default come and fight the GOP in the trenches.

    Let’s see the final deal before we all head for the fainting couches.

  140. 140
    overeducated says:

    I realize all this thread-jacking is fun, but while all y’alls were beating up on Cole over a non-issue, the Gang of Six just burped out a plan that has the President’s initial approval. Cuts $4T from the long term deficit. Cuts to Social Security, Medicare. Closes some tax “loopholes” like reductions to mortage interest deduction, charitable donations and child care credits. Also flattens marginal tax rates, with top rate to be reduced from 35% to 29%. Welcome to the Grand Bargain. More goodies for the rich. Ass-raping for the rest of us. I’m as big an Obama supporter as they come. At this point though – I’m done. If this is the “best” he can do – I say let the default come and fight the GOP in the trenches.

    Let’s see the final deal before we all head for the fainting couches.

  141. 141
    Trurl says:

    Obama endorses DOMA repeal

    So? He’s always paid lip service to opposing DOMA as a law. When he “evolves” his way to actually supporting gay marriage – which will be as soon as the polls say he’d better, and not a second before – let us know.

  142. 142

    @jl: Thank you for being the voice of reason on this thread, Dear FH#3–in all matters. You speak the truth.

  143. 143
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Because I thought he was putting forth a plan for “cuts”, not a plan for “cuts”.

    Depends on the meaning of the word “cuts”. If you mean like a slash cut, that’s not Obama, he’s for death by a thousand cuts, ones you’ll hardly notice til yer dead.

  144. 144
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    .
    .
    All ye of little faith, rejoice that President Obama has finally sprung his trap on the evil Republicans, as predicted right here on balloon-juice.com!
    .
    .

  145. 145
    HyperIon says:

    @TooManJenJens (#11) wrote:

    Does anybody really believe Mataconis would take Cole seriously if only he denounced Sharpton?

    He already denounced him several years ago in a kind of offhand way. During the Imus dustup.

    And Sharpton is scum. He amuses me from time to time, and I like it when he goes into Democratic debates because he raises a ruckus, but he is pure human filth.

  146. 146
    Mark D says:

    Hey, jl–
    Great post.

    I’ve been saying for years that it doesn’t matter if the parents are straight or gay — what matters is the extended support system available, since modern life dictates some assistance from others (due to both parents — or the only one — having to work). And it can be more than blood relatives; neighbors, friends, etc., can all take part and contribute.

    Sadly, the “it takes a village” mindset has been mocked or ignored just because Hillary supported it; thus,large swaths of people will probably never wake the hell up and recognize the fact it really is the best way to raise kids.

  147. 147
    OzoneR says:

    the Gang of Six just burped out a plan that has the President’s initial approval. Cuts $4T from the long term deficit. Cuts to Social Security, Medicare. Closes some tax “loopholes” like reductions to mortage interest deduction, charitable donations and child care credits. Also flattens marginal tax rates, with top rate to be reduced from 35% to 29%.

    where did you hear this, because as of 5 minutes ago, no one was sure what was in this deal.

  148. 148
    fasteddie9318 says:

    Can I point something out that’s gotten lost in the rush to condemn Cole as a gay-hater? Outside the Beltway should be listed among the “Blogs We Monitor And Mock As Needed.” That is all.

  149. 149
    slag says:

    @John Cole: A simple and succinct “my bad” would have made your life a lot easier at this point. Just sayin.

  150. 150
    HyperIon says:

    OzoneR asked:

    where did you hear this, because as of 5 minutes ago, no one was sure what was in this deal.

    yeah i just read a benen piece where he pretty much agrees with your take.

  151. 151
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Nick will be the first to find out what the “deal” is because he’ll be tasked with spinning it.

  152. 152
    Admiral_Komack says:

    “Why should progressives denounce Al Sharpton?
    He is just says the same things as Angry Black Lady.”

    -Both are right (AL & ABL), so what’s the problem?
    …and I’m not denouncing either one.

  153. 153
    Hal says:

    @Trurl

    So? He’s always paid lip service to opposing DOMA as a law. When he “evolves” his way to actually supporting gay marriage – which will be as soon as the polls say he’d better, and not a second before – let us know.

    Who cares for the reason Obama ends up publicly supporting as long as he does? You think white supporters of Civil Rights laws were also dreaming of their daughters and sons bringing home black boyfriends and girlfriends, or that they supported, say, interracial marriage, or would automatically hire blacks just because they opposed segregation?

    If Obama and the Dems in Congress succeed in making Gay Marriage possible, who gives a fuck what they personally think about it, though I suspect Obama is actually in favor of Gay Marriage. I certainly fault him for that, but I don’t regard this type of support as meaningless either.

  154. 154
    Joel says:

    Mataconis is wearing a Yankees cap. Explains everything.

  155. 155
    Admiral_Komack says:

    @ 142. overeducated

    Hey, now!
    You’re not panicking like a member of The Professional Left!

  156. 156
    Admiral_Komack says:

    @gex – July 19, 2011 | 3:23 pm · Link

    “And, OT: Obama endorses DOMA repeal Now what will AmericaBlog freak out about?”

    Don’t worry, they’ll pull something out of their ass.

  157. 157
    Gustopher says:

    I think it’s reasonable for John Cole to denounce Al Sharpton, if Mataconis denounces Allen Keyes, with an offer to up the ante and denounce Clarence Thomas in exchange for Cole denouncing a hypothetical future black Supreme Court Justice appointed by Obama.

  158. 158
    Sentient Puddle says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Nick will be the first to find out what the “deal” is because he’ll be tasked with spinning it.

    This stuff isn’t exactly hard to find, particularly if you put in a little effort. For instance, Ezra provides the summary (PDF) from the Gang of Six.

    Anyway, it is true that nobody really knows what’s in the proposal. I mean, read that thing and try to count how many instances of punting there are.

  159. 159
    Sentient Puddle says:

    Reading a little more news about the Gang of Six proposal, I’m not even sure why we should even pay attention to it. The proposal is apparently not fully cooked, and they’re not going to be able to finish it before the debt ceiling has to be raised.

  160. 160
    NobodySpecial says:

    Hey, Cole?

    But when the teatards do it, the “sane Republicans” and libertarians sit around and make excuses- “yeah, but Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich and blah blah blah.” It’s crazy.

    It ain’t ‘sane Republicans’ that spend their time hacking on the likes of Kucinich, dude. They won that battle long ago and let ‘sane Democrats’ like you do it for them. No, now any Democrat to the left of Goldwater is the target of their ire.

  161. 161
    Cassidy says:

    Jesus, when will people get it. Lesbians having babies is only cool if they’re hot and we get to see them try on PPV!

    Absurd stupidity responded to with absurd stupidity.

  162. 162
    NobodySpecial says:

    Oh, yeah, the Gang of Six thing:

    Reduce marginal tax rates? Stop supporting unserious proposals or dismantle the whole fucking New Deal. You do not maintain a household by reducing your income.

  163. 163
    4jkb4ia says:

    Oh, hell, I have to say something because my sister and her wife have two kids, and they are wonderful parents from everything I can see.

    Why do people need a mother and a father? It means that you have two gendered approaches to the world that are modelled and balanced in the house. So if you have two strong parties, you have two approaches that, if things are going well, are in balance. And there are two broad models for voters to follow. But you could have a political system that is shifted broadly to the left or right compared to anything Americans have, even with a sane Republican party. This would be the equivalent of the gay family. This would represent where the “household” is and could take perfectly good care of it. I am hesitant to use any European country because they are hostages to the banks in their own way.

    And, even if I acknowledge it was sarcasm, the first tweet appears to be an admission that Herman Cain is not a joke. Very scary, but not a joke. I’m proud of you, John.

  164. 164
    4jkb4ia says:

    @147: He was still technically a Republican, so it doesn’t count. But good catch.

  165. 165
    kth says:

    As glibertarians go, Mataconis is less hesitant to attack Republicans and conservatives than most. The tweet referenced in the OP, tired and lame as it is, is somewhat beneath his bloggy standards. Judge for yourselves.

  166. 166
    val says:

    I saw Sharpton on TV not that long ago and he looked really thin. Is he well?

    No, he’s not ill. On the contrary, Sharpton had an epiphany about his health right after the 2004 race and went on a diet and exercise regimen and lost a lot of weight. He hasn’t been fat in about 5 or 6 years.

    (Here’s a feature about it early in the process, from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03.....08ink.html)

    He seems to have mellowed out a bit politically as well. He’s been a pretty mainstream Obama booster of late, hardly the radical race-exploiting boogeyman of the past. He actually does a pretty decent job of nailing GOP crap when he fills in as guest host on various MSNBC shows. In any event, he’s not comparable to the Teapublican crazies, even factoring Tawana Brawley into the mix.

    As for him having a speaking slot at the ’04 convention, he WAS a candidate, after all. That’s fairly traditional that actual presidential candidates during the current election year get some sort of speaking role (it might be 1 a.m. on a Tuesday night or something, but …)

    I see the right is still on this black people must account for every other black person kick. I remember back during the 2008 campaign, Harry Belafonte said something incendiary about Dubya, I don’t remember what, and that Sunday, all the gasbag shows made it a point to ask Obama to repudiate it, despite the fact that Obama and Belafonte had no formal connection other than skin color. Why aren’t white candidates asked about incendiary comments made by white people they don’t know?

    Michael Moore and Al Gore are probably still fat, though. But considering how healthy broccoli is for you, isn’t it a contradiction to denounce both fat Moore/Gore AND broccoli?

  167. 167
    MM says:

    As glibertarians go, Mataconis is less hesitant to attack Republicans and conservatives than most. The tweet referenced in the OP, tired and lame as it is, is somewhat beneath his bloggy standards.

    It’s really not beneath his standards at all. He will call out the GOP, but in the comment thread admit that he’s going to always vote GOP anyway, so what does it matter, and whenever possible he will always resort to “both sides are bad” or “nobody looks particularly good here” arguments. He also does the faked naivete shtick (“I just don’t understand why the Tea Party thinks that a default under Obama might help them”), which I think is the lazy writer’s method of refusing to denounce crazy.

    If Boehner sucker-punched Obama in the face and the Secret Service responded by restraining Boehner, Mataconis would write a post explaining that everyone involved was childish.

  168. 168
    ReaganRaisedTaxes says:

    I’m a little late to the party. I have no idea who this Mataconis guy is. But someone should explain to him that his little analogy falls apart because Sharpton 1) has zero influence over policy and 2) has never been elected to anything.

Comments are closed.