Ponzalez
A very talented long-time friend has contributed this nitid portrait of a certain pol. And we ask you to email it around and help it go viral. If you want a larger, higher-resolution jpeg just email me at mcooper@igc.org and I will make it available.
October 11th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Oh. My. God.
October 11th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Ypou have the nerve to complain about McCain and Palin? This picture is offensive.
October 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Sorry, but this is one of the crappiest Photoshop compositions I’ve seen in a long time. If you’re going to do something like this, at least have it done right. I should know.
October 12th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Fix it.
October 12th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Hester: Tune to a different channel. It’s a God-given right.
October 12th, 2008 at 12:27 am
What’s more offensive, the photoshop comparing Palin to Gonzalez or the fact that Palin is just like Gonzalez and Bush and every crony in their administration? I guess it depends upon which side of the aisle you happen to be sitting.
October 12th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Where is Woody, he is going to be very outraged with you damn liberals, how dare anybody modify Sarah Palin’s photgraph like this, A God fearing, patriotic republican would never resort to such vile and disgusting tactics. Some unpatriotic, atheist liberals will be to going to HELL for this !!!!!
October 12th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Digg it.
October 12th, 2008 at 7:29 am
I’d just like to point out that that shade of lipstick is so wrong for Alberto. I’m pretty sure he’s a “winter” – but in any case, brown would be more appropriate for his lips – kinda the color of poop. Whose poop? You know.
October 12th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Billy Bob, I don’t care about the Palin picture, and, unlike you lefties with no lives, I was out of town and enjoying myself at an SEC game.
What’s interesting is, Marc is so afraid of Palin that, to attack her, he takes the same side of a supposed law officer who admits to tasering his own ten year old son, who threatened to kill the governor’s father, and who beat her sister.
Marc can’t see anything wrong there to justify asking for the trooper’s removal from a law agency whose goal is to protect the public. Nope, works fine for him. I guess he supports such a lack of employment screening because that’s what he, himself, counted on to get hired at USC.
Yeah, Marc supports wife beaters and Obama’s terrorist friendships because, as anything with the left, situational ethics and concocted Democratic investigations, is okay to help you win.
And, Billy Bob, quit calling me your second cousin just because you claim to be married to one of our livestock.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Marc, a fan of both Hustler and Obama, will be happy about and will defend this, too. http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/article43812.ece“>Obama and the gay porn baron.
Also, here’s what you get with Marc’s screening standards on the Obama standards police forces: One in three recent Atlanta Police Academy graduates have criminal records …More than one-third of the officers had been rejected by other law enforcement agencies, and more than half of the recruits admitted using marijuana.
Drug user’s okay, too? Hey, I guess so if you guys support for President a candidate who admitted using cocaine with high schoolers. Oh, wait. I forgot. It’s racist of me to bring that up.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:58 am
That’s right, Woody. As a card-carrying member of the left, I never enjoy myself on weekends. I just lock myself in my house alone and fume about the Man.
It’s wouldn’t be racist for you to acknowledge Obama used cocaine AS a high schooler with high schoolers. You only say he used cocaine WITH high schoolers. The insinuation seems to be he was using as an adult with teens. That’s not racist either, but doesn’t set the bar for those “ethics” you care about.
By the way, wasn’t George Bush arrested for “disorderly conduct” as a result of the drinking problem he didn’t have as a youngster (charges dropped), and then arrested for drunk driving later (as an adult)? Good thing he didn’t want to join the police force. Enlisting in the military or becoming commander-in-chief of the armed forces is okay though, as that has nothing to do with protecting the public.
Did you notice the article on the porn baron noted he also gave money to Republicans? But I guess since it was less money, that’s okay.
Wait… are these examples of “situational ethics?”
October 12th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I would have never guessed Woody had a life till he affirmed it on the Internet.
October 12th, 2008 at 9:53 am
“Hester: Tune to a different channel. It’s a God-given right.”
Oh I completely agree, sir but it is also mine to say it is the photo is offensive.
October 12th, 2008 at 9:54 am
correction: to say the photo is offensive.
October 12th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Off-topic:
http://tinyurl.com/6gokmu
October 12th, 2008 at 11:00 am
“NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE? So we’ve had nearly 8 years of lefty assassination fantasies about George W. Bush, and Bill Ayers’ bombing campaign is explained away as a consequence of him having just felt so strongly about social justice, but a few people yell things at McCain rallies and suddenly it’s a sign that anger is out of control in American politics? It’s nice of McCain to try to tamp that down, and James Taranto sounds a proper cautionary note — but, please, can we also note the staggering level of hypocrisy here? (And that’s before we get to the Obama campaign’s thuggish tactics aimed at silencing critics.)
“Self-control is for everybody, if it’s for anybody.”
http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/025622.php
October 12th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I find it interesting that Hugh McColl, who very aggressively built what is now known as BankAmerica into the biggest on the block and cultivated an image as among the toughest of CEOs, had this to say last week in an op-ed in the Charlotte Observer:
The economic disarray threatening our community and nation poses critical challenges but also presents opportunity. We can observe the presidential candidates in the crucible of crisis.
Only one of them demonstrates the needed intellect, fortitude and temperament. That is why I have decided to publicly support Barack Obama.
What is needed in Washington is sound judgment and exceptional leadership. Through the years that I’ve been a businessman and before that an officer in the Marine Corps, I saw what qualities make effective leaders. I see them in Obama: a sharp intellect, stiff spine and steady hand.
Obama’s economic plans will restore market confidence and provide a blueprint for a better future. His pragmatic, intelligent economic plan will stop our financial slide and restore the expansion and confidence we knew in the 1990s. Obama’s tax relief plans for small businesses and the middle class should provide much-needed economic stimulus.
Obama also has an energy plan that makes sense. He will shift energy use from foreign oil toward alternative, domestic sources. This will create millions of “green collar” jobs and enable us to capitalize on alternative energy. These cleaner energy solutions will protect the planet for our children and grandchildren and free us from depending on hostile nations.
We could not have built Bank of America into the leader it has become without a highly educated workforce. Obama proposes to invest in education to ensure we remain the most productive and efficient in the world. We must take these steps to stay globally competitive.
I greatly respect all that John McCain has done for our nation. But it is Barack Obama whom we need now.
(Obviously not saying Hugh McColl is necessarily the fountain of wisdom, but it’s an endorsement I would not have expected and it’s interesting as evidence of the breadth of support and confidence in Obama as a leader.)
October 12th, 2008 at 11:21 am
You are correct , ” reg”!
“It’s evidence” that B of A’s multimillionaire CEO (and Warren Buffet , and many other plutocrats) agrees Obama is good for corporate-military capitalism.
October 12th, 2008 at 11:22 am
“It’s nice of McCain to try to tamp that down”
Maybe he and Palin – who has shown explicit support for a crackpot secessionist, anti-America party in Alaska that her husband was a member of – should think twice before stirring that shit up. McCain was, of course, the guy who actually killed innocent people with bombs in the course of the “’60s wars” and apparently has no remorse or doubt about what he did. Fuck him and fuck his using his experience as a POW to claim some mantle of heroism or leadership. The guy’s lucky he’s alive thanks to a Vietnamese who showed him more mercy than he had to the angry peasants who found him in a ditch. Once captured he used his Dad’s name to try to garner special treatment. Totally understandable in context and I’m not putting myself above doing the same, but an episode anyone with an ounce of humilty would shut up about, not parade has heroic. His refusal to take early release wasn’t heroic, so much as salvaging some measure of honor in a crappy situation. (His father and fellow POWs would likely never have spoken to him again.) He’s a narcissist and a man with an absolutely undistinquished record as a public servant. Most of the decent things he’s done were in penance for consorting and peddling influence for the worst corporate crooks. So he’s not the craziest conservative in the GOP. That’s a damned low bar in a party stocked with overt racists, rank reactionary ideologues and the most shameless of Beltway criminals. I look forward not just to John McCain’s defeat, but to his humiliation.
October 12th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Sergio – once again you demonstrate the depth and complexity of your intellect.
October 12th, 2008 at 11:25 am
And in inverse proportion to your political relevance…
October 12th, 2008 at 11:28 am
“reg”, you demonstrate you have no life, dimwit shut-in. Now go tell someone else to get off your lawn, old fool.
October 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I agree with Woody — the picture is outrageous. It should have been a picture of Gonzales shining Palin’s shoes.
October 12th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Hester, by the way. Why is the photo offensive? Please explain in detail? Who does it offend and why? It makes no disparagement of race or gender. It casts no personal aspersions. It merely suggests that like Al Gonzales Ms. Palin is an inept and corrupt bureaucrat. I can understand you disagreeing with the photo as well as disagreeing with the ample public documentation that both abused the power of their office (tho to Palin’s credit she has not been accused of officially condoning torture), but what exactly offends you.
For the record, my intelligence was OFFENDED by McCain picking a fifth rate candidate for VP and believing we were stupid enough to accept that.
What offends you?
October 12th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Woody, are you now personally attacking me and my terms of employment or did I read that wrong? Or is that someone impersonating you. I have defended your right to be on this board and your recriprocal action is to state that I have a job at USC because there is lax job screening? Did I read that right? Am I not supposed to take that personally? If so, Im having a rough time getting there. Please step back over the side of the line you just crossed and let me know that you were joking or something, cuz I’m not taking this lightly.
October 12th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Sergio – get off my yawn…
October 12th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Always worth (re)reading, especially in light of reg’s cooing over capital’s support for BHO…
http://marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1917/imperial/index.htm
October 12th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Marc, I’d brush it off. Woody is just bitter because you wouldn’t be where you are today if you weren’t black.
October 12th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Marc,
This is the logical extension of Woody’s hysterical rantings. Clearly if you dare to criticize Palin’s role in Troopergate and deploying her husband on a personal vendetta, then in his warped, Manichean worldview, you not only support accused wifebeaters and stepson taserers, but you also obtained your job through means that were clearly, slanted to account for your shortcomings. All because you had the temerity to disagree with him.
Kind of boggles the mind to see that much narcissism.
October 12th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Hester,
If you’re going to quote Glenn Reynolds, bear in my mind that he commented at the start of the Iraq War that those who opposed the war were “objectively pro-Saddam” or comparing the left’s position on the Iraq War as being like the “Hitler/Stalin Pact.”
Keep quoting him and we’ll all know what that scarlet A stands for.
October 12th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I predict that Woody will offer no response to Marc in this thread. Were he to try, he would have to spin harder and faster than the Large Hadron Collider. Were Woody to attempt to accelerate the particles of his thought at the speed necessary to accomplish said spin, he’d be a victim of spontaneous combustion.
Rather, I think Woody will try to lay low and restrain himself for a couple of threads, and see if he can slide back in after he figures Marc has cooled off, forgotten his serious faux pas, or forgiven it and him.
A classic case study of biting the hand that feeds (defends) you.
BTW, Marc, Ponzalez is one eerie kind of image. It’s really hard to tell by looking where the one leaves off and the other begins. It was awhile before I could scrub it off my ‘mind’s-eye’ last night. Eerie in that they really are mirror images of each other – in much the same way the two halves of one individual’s face tends to be.
October 12th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Palinez…
Works for me: Hat tip to Marc Cooper. Pass it on….
October 12th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
“It merely suggests that like Al Gonzales Ms. Palin is an inept and corrupt bureaucrat.”
It does more than merely suggest! You are equating Palin’s actions with those of Gonzales, which IS unfair and offensive to me. Palin was cleared of any wrong doing in removing the trooper and it seems to me that having read the report, it is rather weak in making a case that she abused her powers.
It may surprise you to know that I agree with you that McCain’s choice was offensive. What on earth was he thinking? BUT my reasons are solely concerned with her quite obvious lack of the knowledge and experience needed for the job.
I find all of the little digs about her faith, patterns of speech, children’s names, pregnant daughter, etc to be sneeringly classist.
October 12th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
“Keep quoting him and we’ll all know what that scarlet A tands for.”
Well, Randy Paul,( or shall I call you Chillingworth?) thank you so much for explaining…..I did not know that in using one Glenn Reynolds quote, I was endorsing his entire world view. So helpful.
October 12th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Marc – perhaps it was reference to the fact that at USC you pal around with an Annenberg-funded crowd, which puts you in some sort of Kevin Baconesque relationship with Bill Ayers…and, of course, Ronald Reagan, who palled around with Annenberg. You claim that Reagan kicked you out of the California university system, but since you’re now endorsing the Ayers-Obama ticket, along with Bank of America mogul Hugh McColl, your terrorist-imperialist sympathies…uh…are very confusing. Like Woody, I’m concerned that you’re inducing shizophrenia in our impressionable youth.
October 12th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Let’s be very clear. A copy of the bipartisan report on Palin’s handling of Wooten can be found here.
Among other things, on page 8 it says:
And, on page 66 it says:
October 12th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Well, I tried to respond to Hester, but my comments are in moderation hell. Reynolds links to a blog post about Palin being booed at a Flyers hockey game, along with her daughter, Piper. Here’s why she brought her daughter:
Reynolds gets annoyed that someone boos Palin at a Flyers game when she drops the puck – ignoring the fact that the fans boo everyone who drops the puck – while ignoring the fact that Palin was using her 6 year old as a human shield. Not a lot of self-awareness there.
FWIW, I’m more the Dimmesdale type.
October 12th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Reg.. ahh. That’s it. Right, Walter Annenberg=Commie. Which would make Nixon and Bebe Rebozo… what?
October 12th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
For the sake of being complete, Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly notes McCain/Palin is an historic ticket.
For Palin it is Troopergate. For McCain it was the Keating Five.
October 12th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
“Which would make Nixon and Bebe Rebozo… what?”
Assholes?
October 12th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
“But what I thought I’d do is I’d put Piper in a Flyers jersey, bring her out with me. How dare they boo Piper!”
Randy Paul, did it occur to you that perhaps she was joking? Geez.
Oh, now I have to defend Glenn Reynolds’ posts?
I used that particular quote in responding to Mr. Cooper because I agree with THAT particular quote! Reynolds was spot on in pointinig out:
“Self-control is for everybody, if it’s for anybody.”
October 12th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
That might have passed as a joke…if she hadn’t actually put Piper in a Flyers’ jersey and brought the kid out with her. Had Obama done and said the same thing, the boys and girls at NRO would flipped out in their zeal to paint him as some combination of child-abuser and coward.
Of course, he’d never pull a punk stunt like that.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
And Reynolds linked to the post within his post in which some wingnut commented that a bunch of “leftists” had booed Palin and her daughter, not knowing that the political affiliations of those booing.
As for Reynolds lecturing anyone about self-control, that’s about as credible as Hannibal Lecter hectoring meat eaters for not being vegetarians.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Listener, I’m not bothering to respond to Marc’s hissy fit, but I can’t let your accusation go that I’m not up to it. I could if I wanted, and Marc knows that I’m one to not back down. However, if I was going to respond, this is how I might approach your challenge.
Now, I like Marc–I still do. I admired Marc from way back and told him so because he was fair to all sides of a discussion. However, lately, he has gone completely nuts, I mean really nuts, and started sounding like Markos Moulitsas with his irrational attacks against Repubicans.
I initially figured that Marc was trying to stir up the conservatives with his most recent posts, so I didn’t take him seriously, But, now, he has exhibited a severe Republican derangement syndrome and it’s as though anything that approaches not being able to spell “potato” is what’s important to him. He has become the leftist that he used to criticize.
He shouldn’t look at me. He needs to look at himself.
Now, if I crossed a line, I have to ask if there is even a line to cross on this site and, then, where is it? There are no rules for commenting. I’ve been insulted more and to greater levels than any one else, and there was no line there to stop those who did it. Marc himself insulted me a few posts back. Did he cross the line? Maybe my accusation of situational ethics is correct, as the undefined line moves on a whim.
Was I wrong if I used Marc’s own process of accusations, although on a much lesser level? His ludicrous methods of saying that Palin is not qualified, if he applied that to himself, could disqualify him from teaching at a major learning institution–as least, the way they are in God’s country. (Although, I do admit that Obama’s BFF Bill Ayers and his potential Sec. of Defense didn’t have trouble becoming a professor in Obama Land.) I don’t know what led to Marc no longer teaching at Cal State, but maybe he can fill us in on that.
Marc was expelled from college, but not by Reagan as he claims, as Regan didn’t expel anyone. Marc does not appear to have advanced degrees. I’m not sure if he has any degree at all from a recognized college. He was a member of the radical SDS and hasn’t renounced those days. He supports Marxists and worked with the communist government of Salvador Allende. He writes for The Nation, which can’t admit that the Rosenbergs were guilty. He publicly mocks Christians. He endorses anarchy at the border. He’s a strong supporter of unions. He even admitted to having no problem paying a car tax. How does someone with those credentials, or lack thereof, get past a university screening system? Well, at least he’s better than Ward Churchill, and he didn’t support that phony Indian.
Is it right for him to attack me but not right for him to allow me to respond? Would he be fair in that? Surely.
But, in case, here’s how another describes Marc’s approach to criticizing others that he reserves only for his use: …Mr. Cooper’s biases and his use of gutter rhetoric to dismiss his critics. …it is Mr. Cooper who demonstrates again and again a distinct ideological inflexibility and uses character assassination to mask his own shortcomings. …Mr. Cooper’s credibility, if he has any left, …Their recurring use of personal vilification and slander against those they simplistically label “extremist fringes,” in order to avoid or abort any honest and frank political debate, should be viewed as a monument to their intellectual failure and cowardice, and a confirmation that they have long sold out — the pitiful guard dogs that they are — to the Citadel. No wonder people vote Republican.
As another measure of Marc’s debate style, check out the comments on this post: Debate with Marc Cooper
I’m surprised at this take on Marc’s reporting:
The problem with Mr. Cooper’s Latin America “reporting” in recent years is not one of opinion (I respect his right to have differing ones), but, rather, of bad reporting: of “just making s**t up” in lieu of doing the heavy lifting that we journos must do. I thought I was the only one allowed to make s**t up.
Last one: Two leftists associated with Pajamas Media…are Max Sawicky and Marc Cooper, who might be described as “dumber and dumber.”
(I’m surprised that no one here has called Marc a racist for attacking Cynthia McKinney.)
I don’t agree with all of those assessements, but what I wrote is quite mild and closer to reality. Plus, I hope that Marc realizes how others see his style of confrontation and how his coming at me may be part of a pattern.
My intent in my other comment was to show the result of Marc’s reasoning applied to himself. One would think that he would thank me for that. At least Marc should understand it without acting so offended. I do get so tired of people claiming offense.
Marc may have been trying to use bully words with me, but I’m not intimidated in the least. I still like him, but he will get the respect that he gives out to others and deserves himself. And, if he’s going to attack me for crossing a line, then maybe he should define the lines and publish them and set an example for everyone else. He can start being consistent in requiring more respect from the commenters on the left. Finally, he could use growing some thicker skin.
Well, like I said, I’m not going to respond, but, between you and me, that’s how I might approach it. Anyway, I don’t want to waste the time to do it. And, I don’t want Marc to ban me, either. Even rlc doesn’t want him to! I’m too valuable to the education of many here.
On his good points, Marc does know a lot about fishing and gambling.
Now, onto more important things, with six runs in less than two innings, the Dodgers knocked the starting Phillies’ pitcher out of the game. A little later, the benches emptied when they threw behind Ramiriz, but no punches were thrown. It sure is hard to write and watch a baseball game at the same time. Thank goodness for the commercials. The Dodgers are going to win this one. Congratulations, Dodger fans!
October 12th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Woody Troll, I read about 30 words of your silly, whiny screed. Marc’s been too nice to you, but I won’t be. Your comments are a waste of space. Your “website”, if you can call it that, is a perfect example of “completely nuts”. You do nothing but spew inane hyper-partisan comments, both here and there, and have proven time and time again that you are not interested/able in participating in reasoned debate. I’m not sure why Marc puts up with you here, because it’s really embarrassing that a brilliant, funny, and superb political journalist is actually giving space for your cretinous comments on a fascinating blog. It would be like the New England Patriots coaching staff allowing a pre-schooler to call offensive plays, which is probably happening in real life.
Go away. You are a complete and absolute bore, and have zero to contribute.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Samuel, each to his own. Anyway, why should I care what you think? I simply took up the challenge of Listener. Utilize your PgDn button, as I do with your comments unless I see you making reference to me.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
“Anyway, why should I care what you think?”
Precisely the question you should be posing to yourself. No one cares about what you think here, because you have proven yourself a troll, who does not care to think. You are irrelevant, and serve only to repeat soundbites and slogans. I think you should be hired by the military for interrogations–being subjected to your pointless repetitions would be much more effective than waterboarding, though it might induce insanity before any useful information could be extracted.
Again: go away. No one here cares what you think, and no one will be convinced by anything you say, because you choose only to speak in partisan slogans.
October 12th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Projection.
Projection.
And, still more projection.
As I said. If you had successfully spun the allegations to which Marc objected, you’d have imploded. I wasn’t worried that you would succeed. The only reasonable response to someone saying, “You have insulted me in my own home,” is “I’m sorry.”
And. you. could. not. do. it.
You can’t, because, for you, it is axiomatically true that it is never your fault, and you are never wrong. Never.
You have typecast yourself as a sniveling, whining, pitiable lump. And, your 1,000+ word defense is one spectacular illustration.
You have nothing to defend. Civility 101. You insulted the host. You owed an apology. It is the only socially acceptable response regardless of race, creed, religion, nationality, gender, age, political persuasion, educational attainment, or sexual orientation.
And, instead of offering what was due, you piled on a whole new array of insults. I am not amazed. That’s what you do.
I score your effort an F.
October 12th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Listener,
What I’ve been saying for years. FWIW, I wouldn’t want to ban Woody. It’s important to keep your eye on someone who comes into your house and defecates on your furniture.
You might want to try disemvoweling him when gets out of hand.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:13 am
To Randy Paul, Listener, et al.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:06 am
On the subject of offensiveness, I have to say that I’ve been shocked by the kind of attacks we’ve seen against Palin. Rather than focusing on her qualifications (let’s agree that they’re nil), they show a visceral, atavistic even pathological rage against her as a woman. T-shirts calling her a c**t, calls for her to be raped, and a myriad other insults whose only purpose seems to be violent, gender-based humiliation. Even the focus on her lipstick. And the picture in question also gives a queasy feeling of physical, even sexual humilation, although this is more subjective. Dan Quayle was certainly lacking in qualifications and he never came in for this kind of punishment. To a lot of her most vicious attackers she must represent the cheerleader/prom queen who was supposed to fade into oblivion in adulthood and now being offered the top slot seems like a cosmic violation of the social contract.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:29 am
“FWIW, I wouldn’t want to ban Woody. It’s important to keep your eye on someone who comes into your house and defecates on your furniture.”
I don’t know, Randy. I think I understand your point, but that seems more like an argument for locking the door tight. My own feeling is that this moron is just acting out his own utter irrelevance and ignorance in a public place. The spectacle of his crashing and burning is a minor, absurdist metaphor for the collapse of the Bush administration. When W was riding high – on hot air and hubris – guys like Woody were on a roll. Now they’re kicking and screaming and turning their bile on Obama. It’s like pus oozing from a wound. Like Roper, he’s pretty much shot his wad here. The unhinged attacks on Marc are the end of his rope. If Marc wants to leave him hang here, while we all watch a wingnut corpse rot, that’s fine. If he wants to cut him down and spare us the stench, I don’t much care. There’s no matter of principle involved in dealing with this crap. I have pretty much made an ass out of myself over the years by taking more umbrage over Woody’s disgusting spew than it was worth. Now I pretty much don’t feel any need to respond to him directly because he’s so obviously shouting from a very deep hole.
I am increasingly amused, however, at how – as an American couch potato and bleacher-butt – so much of Woody’s life is devoted to getting vicarious pleasure from watching groups of men who, polling demographics would suggest, lean very heavily toward Obama. Maybe the screeds here are just his way of working out a deep-seated inferiority complex. (He never answered me when I asked if he’d ever, himself, played football.)
October 13th, 2008 at 5:40 am
I would suggest, at this critical moment, that the agitated Atlanta accountant immediately turn his attention to Sweden and organize angry wingnut screeds against Paul Krugman’s Nobel Prize for Economics. More evidence of End Times for the crazies.
October 13th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Hester:
The vitriol you find a Palin-McCain rallies is of a whole different quality from what you’d find at, say, an ANSWER protest and far and away more hateful than what you’d see at an Obama event.
I have been to a number of liberal, left and Democratic party-oriented rallies, and there are always some fringe radicals. I recall none, though, that expressed the kind of ignorance on display at the Palin-McCain event.
More important, perhaps, there is a rich history of political violence originating on the right wing. Sure, there was a brief period in the 1960s when the virus spread to lefty trendoids. But it was rather quickly extinguished and hasn’t been heard from since.
On the other hand, we have Timothy McVeigh, the Michigan militia and so on and a long list of assassinated liberal leaders from the Kennedy brothers to MLK and Malcolm X.
You are correct that both sides have fringe nutters. But given America’s history and the state of the union today, the kind of things you hear at Palin rallies are objectively a lot scarier.
October 13th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Can’t you guys stay on topic rather than focus on me? I’m not the subject of Marc’s posts.
But, Marc, if you truly are upset by what I wrote, I’m not too big to say that I’m sorry, so I apologize to you.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:03 am
BB, you’re basically right above, but, before Woody points this out, the assassinated-politicians part doesn’t work. JFK was assassinated by a communist who thought he was helping Cuba, RFK by a Palestinian refugee over his support for Israel. Whatever you might say about the Nation of Islam, which was likely responsible for Malcolm X’s killing, it is at least problematic to say it is “on the right.”
October 13th, 2008 at 8:14 am
reg, I spent plenty of time on the sidelines and in the pressbox. The highest level of football that I played, which had more to do with my weight rather than ability, has nothing to do with anything except to give you some false satisfaction. However, my dad played college and professional sports and my brother worked for the most successful coach in college football at the time. I doubt that you did anything similar.
My participation and spectating in sports has more credence than your wasting time on blog sites pretending that you’re a player in politics.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Oh, if the question crossed your mind, reg, I couldn’t put on weight, plus I was younger than everyone else in my class. Tell me where you played in college, even though you don’t have a degree. I guess that football scholarship didn’t come through, huh.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:52 am
“Hester:
The vitriol you find a Palin-McCain rallies is of a whole different quality from what you’d find at, say, an ANSWER protest…”
You are joking, right? A.N.S.W.E.R.?
This is my position, bb. There are nuts on all sides. I am not going to get into who has more or who is worse. But please do not claim that you are looking at the bizarro comments heard at SOME of the McCain/Palin rallies objectively. It is quite obvious by your comments that your goal was to show the Republican right has more crazies.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:15 am
The reason the question came up is because of your nonsensical assertion many threads back that there would be no Obama supporters at some football game you were headed off to. And one person slyly responded that, of course, they’d be on the field making the touchdowns. That was one of the best dumps on your lawn I’ve seen yet here. So I asked if you’d actually ever played and you never responded.
I just played some B-team ball in high school and I sucked
‘cuz I was a runt compared to most of the guys out there. But I tried. So I know first-hand what it’s like to have a bunch of guys run you down and knock your ass into the dirt. I found that experience much more valuable than any spent sitting on my butt watching sports on television. Guys like you are ridiculous, blowing off about sports as if being a couch potato was some sign of “manhood.”
October 13th, 2008 at 9:18 am
hester – I know the Republican right has more crazies by reading William Kristol’s columns in the New York Times or checking out Andrew McCarthy, Kathryn Jean Lopez and the rest of them at NRO. McPalin’s mobs are just the poor dumb bastards who believe the shit those cynics and nincompoops serve up.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Very objective of you, reg. Just what this country needs in a time of crisis. One side has all of the answers and the virtues, right?
October 13th, 2008 at 9:37 am
>One side has all of the answers and
>the virtues, right?
Well, one side has been dominant for almost thirty years and created a 25% drop in median wages, and complete disasters in foreign policy, economics, education, health care, consumer safety, disaster relief, infrastructure… Oh yes, and also ran up so much debt that our economic policy is contrained by our debt to China, and so much that the state may not have the resources to save the financial system from complete collapse. When reality is that one sided, it’s just the truth for rhetoric to be one sided, too.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:53 am
reg: I just played some B-team ball in high school and I sucked…
W – Figured. Did the other players enjoy the favor?
reg: I was a runt compared to most of the guys out there.
W – Like you are in political discussions.
reg: your nonsensical assertion there would be no Obama supporters at some football game
W – I checked the parking lots. No Obama bumper stickers. Also, we sang “God Bless America” and “The National Anthem” before the game. Everyone I saw was singing and saluting with hand over heart, so I knew that they couldn’t be for Obama.
reg: one person slyly responded that, of course, they’d be on the field making the touchdowns.
That can be changed. You’re like those who claim that athletic scholarships are like slavery and would deny an education to minorities. It must be envy.
reg: I know first-hand what it’s like to have a bunch of guys run you down and knock your ass into the dirt.
W – It was good preparation for the results of debating me.
Now, can you stay on topic?
October 13th, 2008 at 10:01 am
No, hester, but the blinding stupidity on display in “serious” rightwing venues since, at least, their near-insane campaign against the Clintons, through their crackpot cheerleading for the Iraq war and now the crap they throw at Obama – not to mention the fairytale explanations for the financial crisis – are pretty hard to find parallels to among the Krugmans, Kuttners, Corns, Marshalls, etc. who I follow for liberal punditry. There are all kinds of nuts out there, but even at the margins Michael Moore is not by a long shot as dishonest and venal as Ann Coulter, there is no liberal on radio I’m aware of as posionous as Michael Savage, Al Franken on Air America was no match for Rush Limbaugh in the vulgar propagandist department, and William Kristol would have – uniquely among American “pundits” – made a great Soviet Ambassador to the UN, given his capacity for shameless apologetics no matter how transparent. Nor is there, at the Nation, any writer I’m aware of quite as ridiculous as Kathryn Jean Lopez.
If you want to know where the nuts are gathered, consider that in all of her years of writing right-wing blather for public consumption, Kathleen Parker NEVER received the amount of hysterical hatemail she got for suggesting that Sarah Palin might drop off the GOP ticket. Considering that even you seem to think that Palin dropping off wouldn’t be a bad idea, the fact that Parker was shocked at the unprecedented ugliness of the response tells us something about the reservoir of crudity and ignorance on the right that Palin has actively tapped into.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:04 am
“my brother worked for the most successful coach in college football at the time. I doubt that you did anything similar”
Nor did you…
October 13th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Stu DeNimm said:”When reality is that one sided, it’s just the truth for rhetoric to be one sided, too.”
I have voted for Democrats and I have voted for Republicans and I have often made quixotic votes for third party candidates and I can say with reasonable certainty that the current mess we are in cannot be laid at the door of one party or one group of ideologues. I do not have the stomach for this sort of debate, anymore. It is pointless and simplistic. So yes, of course you MUST be right. It is all the fault of the evil Republicans
October 13th, 2008 at 10:47 am
reg said: ” Considering that even you seem to think that Palin dropping off wouldn’t be a bad idea, the fact that Parker was shocked at the unprecedented ugliness of the response tells us something about the reservoir of crudity and ignorance on the right that Palin has actively tapped into.”
” Considering that even you….”
Okay.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:49 am
But, reg, you’re the one who brought up the football heroics. You’re the one bragging and attacking. I wasn’t the one making a point of it. So, you have no basis of coming back to me for something you haven’t done yourself.
But, yes, I did a little work for the same athletic department and for the school. I still see some of the old coaches–coaches and players from national championship teams, and talk with them. You didn’t and don’t.
Let it drop before you appear any more stupid, if that’s possible–and, quit reading and responding to me.
October 13th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
mark c said: “On the subject of offensiveness, I have to say that I’ve been shocked by the kind of attacks we’ve seen against Palin. Rather than focusing on her qualifications (let’s agree that they’re nil), they show a visceral, atavistic even pathological rage against her as a woman.”
Excellent point.
October 13th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Woody why don’t you fly to LA and meet Marc in a well known cafe.
Marc can take pictures and post them on the website.
Since Woody is such a clever conservative I’m sure a round trip ticket, hotel and expenses won’t make a dent—even in this unfortunate market.
C’mon Woody. Be a mensch. Arrange to meet Marc. Stop hiding and show yourself.
cluck cluck cluck cluck cluck.
October 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Of course, I am assuming that Marc will find meeting Woody no less unpleasant a challenge than a day in the park with Pinochet.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
On the subject of offensiveness, I have to say that I’ve been shocked by the kind of attacks we’ve seen against Palin. Rather than focusing on her qualifications (let’s agree that they’re nil), they show a visceral, atavistic even pathological rage against her as a woman.
Could you link to some video of Obama rallies where this has taken place?
October 13th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
“…He supports Marxists and worked with the communist government of Salvador Allende. He writes for The Nation, which can’t admit that the Rosenbergs were guilty.
He publicly mocks Christians.
He endorses anarchy at the border. He’s a strong supporter of unions. He even admitted to having no problem paying a car tax.”
OMG this is hilarious. If I didn’t know better I would swear this is John Cleese having a rave up.
I am sending it in to Countdown.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Woody is just big ol’ poof.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Woody is in the closet. Posting is his way of interacting with other men and flexing his…
Note his style of expression. Heterosexual men don’t write with that overtly hysterical, cat fight syntax. He’s just all high dudgeon.
Poor Woody. Its ok. You can come out now. Remember: you are on a liberal blog– and we are not homophobic.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Anna, get a life.
October 13th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Look, Anna, if you want to know, I’ve got some serious masculinity issues. As I explained above, I was the runt in the family, and always felt incompetent around my more physically-endowed family members. I’ve been attempting to compensate for my lack of “manhood” by assuming a loudmouth internet persona, but somehow it always comes across as just catty and whiny.
So are you happy now? You’ve exposed me. Just wait for my next wave of impotent internet rage. Meowwwww! Hiss!!!
October 13th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Could this be Anna trying to impersonate me? How gay.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Woody, time to exit…stage (hmmmmmm) right?
You have crossed a line where it should make you feel ashamed to post. Unless you keep up the priceless comedy writing.
Hysterical, hate bating puerile link posts are not going to be a corrective to your “masculinity issues” (or sociopath issues)
Sniping, clawing, tit for tatting and bitch slapping does not impress people it only disgusts them.
I suggest you create a portfolio of your posts and hustle them to script writers in Hollywood. Seriously.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Randy Paul -
Oh, come on, this stuff is all over the internet, whether it takes place at rallies is beside the point (by the way, you can’t prove that it doesn’t). Anyway, my point was really non-political, as even prominent conservatives are abandoning the ticket because of Palin. It’s just interesting from a psychological standpoint.
October 14th, 2008 at 7:13 am
by the way, you can’t prove that it doesn’t
Logic 101: You cannot prove a negative.
October 14th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Oh, come on, this stuff is all over the internet, whether it takes place at rallies is beside the point
You’re busy drawing a false equivalency. To wit: Obama supporters are just as bad because someone somewhere (not at an Obama rally, unlike what has been done at McCain and Palin rallies) sad bad things about Sarah Palin and because I doubt you, when you have supplied no specifics, I can’t prove you wrong.
If you’ve proved anything right here, I can’t prove you wrong. You have to prove your argument first. You’ve proved n-o-t-h-i-n-g.