They Just Never Stop

Here’s Matt Stoller with the new and novel argument that we should let Romney win to advance the case of progessivism.

I guess this explains why his client, Alan Grayson, lost to Webster in the last election. They just threw the race to advance the cause.






113 replies
  1. 1
    Shakespeare says:

    Repubs: Stop hitting yourself!

    Dems like Stoller: I meant to do that!

    Repubs: Stop hitting yourself!

    Dems like Stoller: I meant to do that!

    Lather, reince, repeat.

  2. 2
    Baud says:

    Obama’s enemies are enemies worth having.

  3. 3
    WereBear says:

    There is no evidence that people find Republican policies believable. Once they actually take place, isn’t it too late?

  4. 4
    PreservedKillick says:

    You knew this kid in high school. The one who tried to hang around with the cool kids despite being the butt of all their jokes.

    Still trying to hang with the cool kids.

    Still the butt of their jokes.

  5. 5
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    I caught a few minutes of Stoller on XM Talk Left today with some fire bagger. He was blaming Obama for TARP and “the bailouts”. I didn’t hear the whole thing, and neither he nor the host were particularly coherent, but the general idea is that Obama, with the help of MSNBC, is the only thing standing between America and real progressive agenda. And Obama has somehow tricked Democrats into supporting him. I guess I shoudln’t get too upset at lo-info voters who can’t make the connection between Mitt Romney and Antonin Scalia when somebody who, for better or worse, makes a living in politics thinks Dennis Kucinich is more representative of the Democratic Party than Dianne Feinstein

  6. 6
    Raven says:

    GO DAWGS!!!!!!

  7. 7
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Raven: 17-9, thass nice.

  8. 8
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    It’s the old “Nach Hitler, Uns” argument.

    Worked really well in 2000 for that egomaniac Nader, too.

  9. 9
    PeakVT says:

    Anybody who thinks about throwing the contest to Romney missed an eight-year long lesson in the consequences of poor leadership which started in early 2001. Not sure how that is possible if you were living on planet Earth.

  10. 10
    PurpleGirl says:

    @WereBear: Yes, it will be too late. By that time, the meme will be that people didn’t really want the economic security net programs because otherwise they wouldn’t have voted in the crazies. Stoller is a jerk; I guess he’s expecting some sweet wingnut welfare being thrown his way.

  11. 11
    DCLaw1 says:

    Sounds like Mr. Stoller needs a hug.

  12. 12
    JPL says:

    @Raven: breathe, breathe..
    that’s the game.

  13. 13
    JPL says:

    @PurpleGirl: We can party like it’s 1920. I won’t be alive to see the next next coming of FDR.

  14. 14
    Liberty60 says:

    And of course, for Stoller and all the rest of the above-it-all types, the election of Romney will have absolutely no consequence at all.
    He isn’t going to see any cuts that affect him, and hell, his taxes will probably go down.

    He knows he is a totebagger; thats why his article went to such great pains to prove his liberal bonafides. Its the equivalent of “I am not a racist, but…”

  15. 15
    Schlemizel says:

    There is a hilarious comedy routine by a Canadian troop. I’m not going to look it up right now but the theme is everyone gets a boot to the head. Thats what I think of at ti,es like this:
    And to Matt Stoller I bequeath . . A BOOT TO THE HEAD!

  16. 16
    eemom says:

    Oh fer fux sake. You don’t like me and I don’t like you, Cole — but honestly, don’t we all have enough to be climbing the walls over at this point without throwing firebagger shit on the fire?

  17. 17
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @DCLaw1:

    Sounds like Mr. Stoller needs a hug kick in the junk.

  18. 18
    Raven says:

    @JPL: YESSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!

  19. 19
    Richard says:

    It’s quite simple really. If we elect enough Republicans that they manage to finish the job of pushing the country over the cliff and smashing it into tiny little bits, enough folks will then embrace progressive causes that we will then be able to turn the resulting wasteland it into the utopia we want.

  20. 20
    PurpleGirl says:

    Romney in Carbonite (via Making Light):

    http://www.etsy.com/listing/97.....h_type=all

  21. 21
    The Dangerman says:

    How braindead do you have to be to think that a Romney win is a win for the Left? I rate it 3 Schiavo’s.

    And, damn, Florida’s now coming up with unique ways to blow this game. Was I too many drinks in, or did they fuck up accepting the penalty a drive or 2 ago and let Georgia off the hook with a punt?

    ETA; Yes, Raven, breathe!

  22. 22
    Liberty60 says:

    I actualy read “Rules For Radicals”, to see what all the wingnut rage was about.

    Alinsky heaped scorn on the purity ponies, and spoke admiringly about how the US partnered with Stalin to defeat Hitler, even knowing full well what a monster Stalin was.
    His advice was that radicalism sees the world as it is, and seeks to change it, by any means necessary.

    NOT sitting around and fapping ourselves about being the bestest most pure leftist on the block.

  23. 23
    beltane says:

    I hope the GOP is paying Stoller for his trolling. If he’s making this argument without getting compensated for it he is a bigger idiot than I thought.

  24. 24
    Raven says:

    There’s gonna be some furniture destroyed tonight!

  25. 25
    Raven says:

    @The Dangerman: I might even go downtown for the Wild Rumpus!

  26. 26
    KG says:

    Meanwhile, the PAC-12 South officially makes no sense whatsoever

  27. 27
    mattH says:

    fucking idiots

  28. 28
    DCLaw1 says:

    @Bobby Thomson: Or that.

  29. 29
    The Dangerman says:

    Wow, USC’s now shitting the bed. And I expect the Fighting Irish to get crushed by Oklahoma. This is better than a meteor!

  30. 30
    Spatula says:

    John, I’m sure you carefully weighed all the merits and pitfalls of his argument before you made this post.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…

    BALLOON JUICE: BARACK OBAMA BEFORE, AFTER, ALWAYS, AND ABOVE ALL ELSE! FORWARD, COMRADES.

  31. 31
    balconesfault says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: I do remember Naderites, after the 2000 election, saying essentially “this will be better for the country, since instead of half-way corporatism we’d get with Gore, with Bush they’ll see how bad corporatism really can be and won’t ever vote for another like him ..,”

  32. 32
    General Stuck says:

    You know, of all the anti Obama bullshit from certain quarters of the left the past 4 years, the one that just dumfounds me the most is the claim that Obama is a corporatist, or that he cares about business stuff more than true liberal stuff, that is about the average person.

    These are critiques for another president on another planet. The president on earth in the USA was met with last rights being given to our economy as a inanimate beast on its deathbed. And the wingnuts handed the keys over with a message, ‘fix it if you can’, and don’t look for us to help. So the wingnuts set about blocking everything close to reform, when they could. And spent every waking hour trying to lay that yoke of fail they made around PBO’s neck.

    And imagine, the first black president’s first chore was to save us from the depression abyss, with a lick and a prayer. Barack Obama is not a corporatist, neither is he a nihilist, and the economy did not die an unnatural death on his watch. It could have been worse, you know, Matty.

  33. 33
    Paul says:

    Matt Stoller is a perfect example of the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans just about always stand united. Democrats, on the other hand, have people like Stoller who argues it is better to let the other team win.

    Good grief! Who needs Republicans when there are Democrats like Stoller.

  34. 34

    @Spatula: If you are able to coherently defend any of the arguments Stoller advances in his piece I will send you ten dollars through bitcoin.

    “Coherently defend” does not mean “offer convincing support”, either. It means “offer any logical warrant, any, a single one”.

    Easy money.

  35. 35
    KG says:

    @Spatula: The republicans have a very simple approach: support the most conservative candidate in the primary who has a chance of winning a general election. Then support the most conservative general election candidate with a chance of winning. Obama is by no means perfect, by any standard, but in 2012 and 2016 he is the best chance liberalism has. A Romney win would be terrible for liberalism or progressivism or whatever we are calling it this week. If you honestly believe otherwise, please explain, and show your work

  36. 36

    @Spatula:
    Until the morning of Nov 7th? Fuck, yes.

    Problem?

  37. 37
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @DCLaw1: If by “hug” you mean “whack on the side of the head with a 2×4”, why, then, yes.

    @KG:

    If you honestly believe otherwise, please explain, and show your work.

    “Because Obama still hasn’t declared property to be theft, and still hasn’t called upon us to rise up and expropriate the expropriators, I’m voting for Romney who will then give all my stuff to rich people who don’t need it and despise me.”

    It’s so logicial

  38. 38
    Roger Moore says:

    @Bobby Thomson:
    Around Balloon-Juice, we punch people in the neck, not the junk.

  39. 39
    Left Coast Tom says:

    I still think if Stoller insists upon pushing Republican memes we should all just call him a Republican and move on. He can dress it up in as much Progressive Purity as he wants, I think it makes far more sense to look at what he does and not what he says about himself.

  40. 40
    Paul says:

    @General Stuck:

    You know, of all the anti Obama bullshit from certain quarters of the left the past 4 years, the one that just dumfounds me the most is the claim that Obama is a corporatist, or that he cares about business stuff more than true liberal stuff, that is about the average person.

    It is no different than the absurd claim from the left that it is Obama’s fault that gitmo isn’t closed. They scream about whatever, yet they have little to no clue about what powers the President actually have.

    Compare the people on the left to the tea baggers. The tea baggers used their influence to actually do something. The Obama haters on the left either had no influence or they were too dumb to use it.

  41. 41
    Strontium 90 says:

    @PeakVT: I doubt they really think that. It is a media differentiation move. EVERYONE knows Bush sucked and Romney does too. If you tow that line, you get lost in the white noise. If you spew the nonsense cited above, people might say “whoa, hold on a minute” and you get some pub. Sort of like today’s republicans masquerading as libertarians or tea partiers. It is re-branding.

    Edit: I find it hard to believe there are well meaning people out there who actually believe that 4 to 8 more years of Republican punishment in the form of governance will somehow enlighten the vast majority of the voting population and usher in a golden age of progressive rule.

  42. 42
    Liberty60 says:

    @Davis X. Machina:
    Or as Chris Rock observed, Obama hasn’t cured cancer, so I’m voting for cancer.

  43. 43
    KG says:

    @Roger Moore: why does it have to be one or the other? A swift junk punch doubles them over, then an upper cut to the neck finishes it

  44. 44
    WereBear says:

    @Schlemizel: The Frantics.

    Originators of Canada’s greatest aluminum crimefighter, Mr. Canoehead.

  45. 45
    Paul says:

    @Spatula:

    The time to primary Obama was 10 months ago. By the way, Obama would have crushed any primary opponent as most democrats strongly support him.

    It is beyond idiotic to suggest voting for the other team at this point.

  46. 46
    Roger Moore says:

    @Paul:

    It is beyond idiotic to suggest voting for the other team at this point.

    Now you just need to draw the inevitable conclusion about the person who’s suggesting it.

  47. 47
    WereBear says:

    Booman has a post up where he explains what is at stake.

    NOW.

  48. 48
    Haydnseek says:

    @The Dangerman: I hope USC enjoys their trip to some second-tier bowl game. The end of the Lane Kiffin era can’t come fast enough.

  49. 49
    PeakVT says:

    @Strontium 90: That’s quite possible, but most of the heighten-the-contradictions crowd has struck me as entirely sincere. I don’t know enough about Stoller to say one way or another.

  50. 50
    mdblanche says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: It worked for Ernst Thaelmann. Sure, sacrifices were required, like world war, genocide, foreign occupation, long-term division of the country with only half becoming the Glorious Workers’ Paradise, and getting shot. But it’s a proven strategy for defeating social fascism.

    Actual fascism, not so much.

  51. 51
    Marci Kiser says:

    My favorite bit is when Stoller explains that, even though voting for a third party is inherently ridiculous, it’s “good practice” so that progressives can assume power when “the next crisis” happens.

    I for one cannot wait for the zombie apocalypse, when we will all finally unite under the banner of Liberal Tinkerbell Jesus.

  52. 52
    Raven says:

    @Haydnseek: The only good thing that skunk ever did was cause Jarvis Jones to come here! WOOF!

  53. 53
    Corner Store Operator says:

    There’s a lot of words in Stoller’s Salon piece but at the end of the day they add up to most far right radical conservative supreme court of all time.

  54. 54
    Spatula says:

    Why is it that you Demobots have no faith in a Democratic Senate to keep a President Romney in check just as the Republicans shut down so much of Obama’s alleged agenda?

  55. 55
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    I just this second figured out that Matt Stoller and Mark Knoller are two different people.*

    Fucking conflation, how does it work?

    *(Upon reflection: maybe not all that much.)

  56. 56
    Tim I says:

    Can we please always refer to him as Matt ‘Shit for Brains’ Stoller.

  57. 57
    El Cid says:

    This is the sort of ‘argument’ which achieves whatever plausibility it does when it sounds like a narrative.

    Break it down into the relevant claims and assertions rather than a hazy grand theme, and it’s a lot easier to see how weak many of the claims necessary for the conclusion indeed are.

  58. 58
    Schlemizel says:

    @WereBear:

    Thats them! I love their work was just being lazy to not look up a link to the bit on youtube.

    The bit is called, oddly enough. “BOOT TO THE HEAD” There looks to be 60 versions on youtube & the 5-6 that I tried were not complete.

  59. 59
    magurakurin says:

    @Left Coast Tom:

    I still think if Stoller insists upon pushing Republican memes we should all just call him a Republican ratfucker and move on.

  60. 60
    aimai says:

    @Marci Kiser:

    How anyone could see how hard it is for Obama to take back the White House–a billion dollars, thousands of man hours, an energetic and brilliant President and Vice President and think for one fucking minute that it would be easier or even feasible with a more leftist candidate is impossible for me to imagine.

  61. 61
    jayackroyd says:

    @General Stuck: Have you read the Bowles-Simpson plan? Have you not done the arithmetic on 2.50 in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases? Do you not believe the President when he says that he and Romney are not far apart on Social Security?

  62. 62
    Mark says:

    Most of those writing above put themselves in the position of propping up the status-quo for the foreseeable future.
    Endless war, erosion of civil liberties, illegal drone attacks and corporate and Wall Street control of our government not to mention an immoral share of wealth controlled by 1%.
    After 40yrs of voting for the “lesser of two evils” and no end in sight, I find many of these comments sad.

  63. 63

    @jayackroyd:
    Obama has never explicitly endorsed Bowles-Simpson.

  64. 64
    kd bart says:

    It’s not too late to nominate Shaheen/Choi

  65. 65
    Keith G says:

    @General Stuck:

    …the one that just dumfounds me the most is the claim that Obama is a corporatist, or that he cares about business stuff more than true liberal stuff,

    I don’t think Obama sets out to be a corporatist type. Despite his true inner compass, though, some of his choices as a leader have seemed to be very helpful to corporate America at the expense of others.

    Hopefully he will address this in his second term.

  66. 66
    Splitting Image says:

    @Spatula:

    Why is it that you Demobots have no faith in a Democratic Senate to keep a President Romney in check just as the Republicans shut down so much of Obama’s alleged agenda?

    Because using the Senate to block an executive from performing a legitimate function of his office has the long-term effect of diminishing the legitimacy of the Senate.

    Reducing the legitimacy of the Senate is a long-term Republican goal because it transfers the power of the institution over to the Executive and Judicial branches, which are easier to control with a sufficient application of money, or preferably out of the government entirely.

    In short, the Republicans want to drown the federal government in a bathtub and grinding the Senate to a halt for four years serves that purpose even if they fail to block a judicial nominee or two.

    The Democrats can’t use Republican tactics without supporting their larger strategic goals. They therefore have to more careful about pursuing a path of total obstruction.

  67. 67
    magurakurin says:

    @jayackroyd:

    so, we should vote for Rmoney?

    whatever, man. Do what you think is best.

  68. 68
    Keith G says:

    @Splitting Image: Very clear and concise. A good explanation.

  69. 69
    Cacti says:

    1968: We should let Nixon win to advance the cause of progressivism!

    1980: We should let Reagan win to advance the cause of progressivism!

    2000: We should let Bush win to advance the cause of progressivism!

    2012: We should let Romney win to advance the cause of progressivism…but this time, we promise it will work!

  70. 70
    Haydnseek says:

    @Raven: Nice win for your Dawgs today. I’m a Pac 12 guy but I really like me some of that sweet SEC action. How about Oregon and ‘Bama for the national championship?

  71. 71
    Keith G says:

    @Cacti:

    We should let Nixon win to advance the cause of progressivism!

    Actually were it not for his rampant paranoia(plus a random collection of other serious social dysfunctions), Nixon would be seen as a very successful progressive leader.

  72. 72
    jayackroyd says:

    @Judas Escargot, Acerbic Prophet of the Mighty Potato God: So IYO B-S is a bad framework for a deal? And that you don’t think Obama is committed to it? You’re vaguely aware of how the commission came to be put together, right?

    Look, I’m fine if you want to say that whatever deal Obama can get in grand bargain negotiations is okay with you. But I want you to acknowledge that. Obama HAS committed to 2.50 in spending cuts for every dollar of revenue increase, and HAS committed to reducing the deficit. B-S proposes SS cuts, and hints at adopting premium support for Medicare. If Obama is not getting the money from “tweaking” (which he HAS committed to) Social Security, where is he getting it?

    But, in any case, wouldn’t it be a good idea to check in with your elected officials to make sure that this is off the table. http://www.ourfuture.org/nocuts

  73. 73
    Spatula says:

    @Splitting Image:

    hahahahahahaha….nice rationalization

    I almost admire your complete and total sublimation.

  74. 74
    mclaren says:

    Stoller is an obvious clown and asshole. That doesn’t change the fact that Barack Cheney is the third term of the Bush maladministration.

    Incidentally, once Barack Cheney gets re-elected, watch him preside over a “grand bargain” that supposedly `solves’ the fiscal cliff crisis by slashing medicare and social security while increasing funding for America’s out-of-control military-police-surveillance-prison-torture complex.

  75. 75
    Keith G says:

    @jayackroyd: It’s almost bedtime and I am too tired to look it up, but I am under the impression that part of the “tweaking” attempted was likely to be increasing the upper level of income that is taxed. That would go a long way in stabilizing SS without gouging those who will be depending on that assistance.

  76. 76
    mk3872 says:

    Firebaggers and more loser progressives are so used to losing, that is all they know and being on the losing side is where they feel more comfortable.

  77. 77
    Roger Moore says:

    @jayackroyd:

    You’re vaguely aware of how the commission came to be put together, right?

    Yes. It was put together because lots of people were bitching and moaning about the deficit. Rather than actually take any steps to reduce it, Obama made a big show of putting together a committee to study the idea. The committee was carefully structured to prevent it from actually agreeing on much, a goal which was duly accomplished. The committee co-chairs were so upset by the failure to achieve anything that they put out their own recommendations, which the press has mischaracterized as the recommendations of the committee as a whole. Since then, Obama has occasionally talked about the need to pay attention to the committee, but has not actually based his policies on it.

    Astute people recognize this as an excellent job of playing political Kabuki. To manic progressives, it’s a sure sign that the President is going to stab them in the back the first chance he gets.

  78. 78
    TexasMango says:

    I can’t help but notice that all of the people advocating for suffering in order to make things better long term are people who wouldn’t actually be doing the suffering. Stoller wouldn’t lose anything if Romney wins and the “very serious” tote bag crowd wouldn’t lose anything if the Republicans win either.

    These people have no idea the extent to which their upper-income white privilege is guiding their opinions.

  79. 79
    General Stuck says:

    @jayackroyd:

    Have you read the Bowles-Simpson plan? Have you not done the arithmetic on 2.50 in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases? Do you not believe the President when he says that he and Romney are not far apart on Social Security?

    Well, I look at what Obama does, and not what he says. And no, I don’t believe him when saying he is not that far apart from the republicans on anything, as a matter of political strategy. I do believe his last SOTU and all the other times that he says SS is fine as it is. And the basic and profound statements he makes as opposed to privatizing SS or Medicare in any way.

    All of this, including Simpson Bowles is about two things. First, breaking the dangerous blood oath the wingnuts have taken to never raise taxes for any reason, and secondly, as a jumping off place for how to deal with the cost of medicare that is, and will continue to be a real problem.

    Think of Simpson Bowle’s as a probing of the republican line, to find out what they are thinking and how their caucus is with dealing with funding medicare into the future. And to deal with that shit, there is going to have to be compromise of some sort, to fix medicare and bring down overall medical costs. That is just reality living in a democracy. It is curious that SB’s called for a public option.

    Obama has no doubt made mistakes on dealing with the ginormous economic problems he was handed, that were on the brink of total collapse. And I think those mistakes were erring on the side of not making too many big changes to fast. Because we are a capitalist society, and the health and well being of the corporate community and average citizens are deeply entwined with one another.

  80. 80
    Gwangung says:

    The time to primary Obama was 10 months ago

    Well, actually 4 years and ten months ago.

    Except a lot of progressives don’t have the organizational and political sense of a wombat; they can’t build a machine to get things done…they only have the vision to destroy one.

    I ,ean it’s a whole lot easier to build a vision than to deflect or derail an already existing one.

  81. 81
    General Stuck says:

    @Roger Moore:

    Astute people recognize this as an excellent job of playing political Kabuki. To manic progressives, it’s a sure sign that the President is going to stab them in the back the first chance he gets.

    Ha!

  82. 82
    azrev says:

    Reminds me of the narcissistic New Left males of the ’60’s who wanted things to get really bad in order to speed up the arrival of the revolution. They also treated women like crap.

  83. 83
    Taylormattd says:

    All of you people who think he behaves this way because of tote bagging or something are mistaken.

    It is far more simple. He has personally hated Obama’s guts for years and years.

    His writing about Obama, going back to 2005, shows a rage he rarely expressed toward the then sitting president, W.

    When he visited Seattle, I forget the year – 2007? 2008?, he went to the drinking liberally, where I heard him bitch red-faced and angrily about Obama being Lieberman.

    The guy is simply on a years-long jihad because the black guy beat his primary candidate.

  84. 84
    mclaren says:

    @General Stuck:

    Obama has no doubt made mistakes on dealing with the ginormous economic problems he was handed, that were on the brink of total collapse.

    This is where just about every Democrat is dead wrong. Obama has done plenty to answer for — making the insane “war on terror” permanent, tearing up the constitution and wiping his ass with it, embracing Dick Cheney’s crazy 1% doctrine, getting rolled and conned and scammed by the corrupt cowards who run America’s army, getting sucked into extending the Bush tax cust, expanding the lunatic War on Drugs, signing off on the TSA’s grotesque thuggery — but as far as the economy is concerned, Obama did everything exactly right.

    It might have improved things if Obama had called for a bigger stimulus after the 2009 crash…but that would have required extrasensory perception. At the time, no serious economist was predicting an economic crash as deep and prolonged as we had.

    In any case, look what Obama did economically: he took the colossal fuckup of the Bush years and avoided another Great Depression (that’s huge right there — just imagine if McCain or Romney had been elected, we’d have unemployment in the 40% range now and America would be burning to the ground with mass riots by starving people), he successfully argued for economic stimulus sufficient to get the unemployment rate down below 8% within 4 years after the biggest economic collapse since 1930. That’s a pretty damn good track record given the incredible shitstorm Obama faced when he came into office.

    Criticize Obama for lots of things, but not for the economy. That’s one area where he’s blameless. And the voters recognize this. That’s why they’re re-electing him. They realize Obama was handed a shit sandwich and he’s used enough bleach to mostly clean it up.

  85. 85
    xian says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: also the Ramparts “heighten the differences” endosement of Reagan, a philosophy echoed by Nader in 2000.

  86. 86
    mclaren says:

    @Roger Moore:

    Astute people recognize this as an excellent job of playing political Kabuki. To manic progressives, it’s a sure sign that the President is going to stab them in the back the first chance he gets.

    So anyone who points out that Obama has betrayed essentially all the promises he made in 2008 is”not astute,” eh? It’s the hallmark of the “astute” and “wise” and “insightful” mind to kiss the baton that beats him to death and lick the boot that stamps into his face, is it?

    Good thinking there, skippy. Unfortunately we heard this kind of stuff coming from the guys in the dock at Nuremberg, and it didn’t fly then either.

    When Obama extended the Bush tax cuts and ordered the murder of American citizens without even charging them with a crime and agreed to illegal warrantless wiretapping of every American citizen’s emails and phone calls and bank records is a “manic progressive.”

    Sehr gut, Mein Herr. Looking forward to your description of a person who demands jury trials as “a pathetic totebagger” and someone who opposes kidnapping and torture of American citizens with no charges as “a hysterical far-left crank.”

    How the fuck did you get so completely lost in the deepest shadows of barbarism, you fringe lunatic? Since when did asking the president of the united states to obey the fucking law become the mark of a “manic progressive”?

    Toadies and cowards like you made Pol Pot and Stalin possible. You’re going to deserve what you get when the second or third president after Obama orders death squads into your house to shoot your family in the head “as an example to other insufficiently loyal citizens.”

  87. 87
    xian says:

    slipped by some hyperbolic mouth-foaming…

  88. 88
    Comrade Nimrod Humperdink says:

    I love this “let wingnut win to advance the cause of revolution” crap. Lots of hard core lefties have been spouting that junk since at least the Nixon days. Plenty of them thought the election of Reagan would be enough to do it. And how did that turn out? A decent fraction of the country now wants Reagan on Rushmore, he gets the DC airport re-named after him AFTER breaking the Air Traffic Controller’s strike, and he sets in motion the chain of policies and the political climate that has given rise to all that we deal with now. Yes, yes, let’s let Romney win because THEN people will wake up. The evidence CLEARLY backs that up. Let’s take a guy who made his bones strip-mining the real economy and put him in charge of the free world. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

    People like this consider the suffering of the powerless to be a tactic in their long ideological struggle. Fuck that.

  89. 89
    xian says:

    @Keith G: wrong, relative to context

  90. 90
    xian says:

    I forget where I saw this recently, but Obama was on the TV, maybe on Jon Stewart, basically saying that the other branches need to rein him (and subsequent presidents) in on some of the war powers issues. He is a total within-the-system guy.

  91. 91
    mclaren says:

    @Gwangung:

    Except a lot of progressives don’t have the organizational and political sense of a wombat; they can’t build a machine to get things done…they only have the vision to destroy one.

    That’s not the problem. The problem is that Obama is ferocious and brutally relentless in his political assaults only against other progressives. Obama’s political machine savagely shut down the funding and conducting smoking-wasteland political assaults against every Democratic effort to primary him.

    When it comes to people inside his own party, Obama is Genghis Khan. He stops at nothing to crush any opposition. But when it comes to lunatics in the Republican party, why, nothing is too good for them…Obama bends over backwards to accommodate those crackpots by offering to slash medicare and social security rather than reduce the insane spending on America’s endless pointless unwinnable foreign wars. Obama deep-throats the muggers with badges who now grope little children in the name of “antiterrorism” and arrest and imprison their mothers when they object.

  92. 92
    Corner Stone says:

    @xian:

    I forget where I saw this recently, but Obama was on the TV, maybe on Jon Stewart, basically saying that the other branches need to rein him (and subsequent presidents) in on some of the war powers issues. He is a total within-the-system guy.

    This never gets old.

  93. 93
    jshooper says:

    One word

    RATFUCKER !!!

    Assholes like Stoller, Douchewald, Hamsher, Cenk, Huffington etc are nothing more than republican agents with one simple mission…Destroy the democratic party by infiltrating the “far left”…Literally EVERY election cycle they pull the same act…Attempt to shave off enough votes from the Democratic candidate (by staying home, voting 3rd party) so that the right wing republican wins…They don’t want a progressive utopia…That is just part of their con job…They oppose literally EVERY progressive legislation proposed or signed by President Obama (kill the bill etc)

    These people are lifelong republicans…agents of KKKarl Rove and the KKKoch brothers

    Fuck them all !!!

  94. 94
    Ruckus says:

    @DCLaw1:

    A nice bear hug.

    With a real live fucking bear. Like a momma black bear with young cubs. A nice hungry momma black bear.

  95. 95
    Nerull says:

    @Spatula: Cause the world will be a better place with a few million less brown people in it.

    Because that’s what you’re voting for. That’s what you voted for in 2000, and you got it.

    And it’s what you’re voting for now. A vote for republicans is a vote for war, and they’re not even pretending to hide it. And all the true-progressiveism in the world won’t change that fact.

    But hey, maybe you don’t have a problem with that.

  96. 96
    Spatula says:

    @mclaren:

    Since when did asking the president of the united states to obey the fucking law become the mark of a “manic progressive”?

    Easy. Since the election of Barack Obama.

  97. 97
    Spatula says:

    @xian:

    I forget where I saw this recently, but Obama was on the TV, maybe on Jon Stewart, basically saying that the other branches need to rein him (and subsequent presidents) in on some of the war powers issues.

    Or…maybe as president he could simply stop pursuing bogus war policies? What is this?: Stop me before I kill again?

    It’s bizarre anyone buys into that as a legitimate argument.

  98. 98
    Spatula says:

    @Nerull:

    Hey douche: I voted for Gore in 2000.

    Where do you get this shit?

  99. 99
    AxelFoley says:

    @Paul:

    Compare the people on the left to the tea baggers. The tea baggers used their influence to actually do something. The Obama haters on the left either had no influence or they were too dumb to use it.

    Hence, the term “fire baggers”.

  100. 100
    Maude says:

    For AWSP
    OMG! Obama is worse than Bush. He sold us out.

  101. 101
    Jay in Oregon says:

    @Schlemizel:
    Try this one; the bit is actually called “Ti Kwan Leep”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8VD4JXUozM

  102. 102
    The Lodger says:

    @SiubhanDuinne: You confused Matt Stoller with the guy who did Money for Nothing?

    That’s nothing, it was only this week that I figured Mark Halperin isn’t the same guy who wrote The Winter’s Tale.

    Not to mention Anna Nicole Smith and Anna Devaere Smith.

  103. 103
    wetcasements says:

    Jesus Christ, what an asshole.

  104. 104
    David Koch says:

    Makes perfect sense!

    Genius!

    Stoller has convinced me. That’s why I will vote for Scott Brown. Elizabeth Warren’s defeat will advance the cause of liberalism!

  105. 105
    ruemara says:

    The Simpson-Bowles commission was created at the behest of the Senate. Please get your facts straight.

  106. 106
    low-tech cyclist says:

    Stoller’s seriously into Underpants Gnome territory.

    1. Let the GOP win and abolish Obamacare, cut Medicaid by 1/3, voucherize Medicare, and take another swing at privatizing Social Security, while cutting taxes for the rich even further, gutting regulations that protect us from everything from bad food to bad mortgages, and who knows what else.

    2. ???

    3. Progressives win!

  107. 107
    PopeRatzo says:

    @PreservedKillick: If there’s one things the Republicans are not, it’s the “cool kids”.

    Stoller just wants the GOP daddy to teach him a lesson. Or, like some people I’ve known, they think there is some nobility in getting your ass kicked.

  108. 108
    arguingwithsignposts says:

    Wow, glad I was otherwise occupied so I missed the firebagger troll perfect storm on this one. And @Maude: thank you!

  109. 109
    airbetty says:

    There’s one thing that I keep reading on prog blogs of how Republicans support other Republicans, unlike Dems who are busy stabbing one another in the back. But that is patently false on the R side at least. Hello Tea Party? They decimated the Republican party so that it’s a shambles of what it used to be. How’d they do it? Organizing….and lying and stuff. But they did it.

  110. 110
    Howard Beale IV says:

    @Jay in Oregon: Too bad the clip posted doesn’t include the part of the song that goes: “people talking in movie shows/people smoking in bed/people voting Republican/Give them a Boot to the head!”

  111. 111
    uptown says:

    The only reason Stoller and his kind call themselves progressives, is because they would be laughed out of any other party. Always easier to get media time when you don’t challenge the plutocracy.

  112. 112
    David Koch says:

    Matt Stoller–former lead blogger for proletariat revolutionary Jon “Chairman of Goldman Sachs” Corzine.

    Way to go, Matt. Way to go.

    Frankly we’re surprised Stoller was chosen by the Corzine campaign. You see Matt Stoller has been on the losing side of every issue and political race he’s touched. Perhaps it’s Matt’s prep school and Harvard University background that impressed someone, because it can’t be his knowledge of New Jersey’s issues, his political insight or writing skills. Take a look at his previous projects:Wesley Clark for President, The Blogging of the President, Blogging at the DNCC, Simon Rosenberg for DNC Chairman. Somehow we think Stoller will be exposed for the for the self-aggrandizing, condescending, social climber that he most certainly will be exposed to be, sooner or later

    HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

    That was written in 2005 and he would go on to have even more failures.

  113. 113
    Northern Observer says:

    @Baud: yep

Comments are closed.