Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 6, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

THE GOLDEN WINGNUT AWARD....The Wingnut Contest is over and the votes have now been tallied by the prestigious accounting firm of Pollhost.com. So without further ado, the five winners of the Golden Wingnut Award are:

  1. John Hinderaker: "It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius...."

  2. Glenn Reynolds: "Maybe we should rise above the temptation to point out that claims of a 'quagmire' were wrong....Nah."

  3. Michelle Malkin: "The Defeatocrats Cheer"

  4. Ann Althouse: "Let's take a closer look at those breasts."

  5. Kim du Toit: "The Pussification of the Western Male"

Congratulations, wingnuts! And special congratulations to Power Line's John Hinderaker, who ran away with first place by a wide margin — and deservedly so. Also to Kim du Toit, who mounted a last second comeback against veteran wingers Jonah Goldberg and John Derbyshire to nab the final spot. It would be cool if I had a trophy or something to send to each one of the winners, but I'm afraid I don't. My little clipart creation will have to do instead. And since we're all about democracy and the graphical representation of data here at PA, the full results are below the fold in handy bar chart format. The complete list of 14 nominees is here.

A few closing comments are in order. First, several people pointed out that there were countless worthy contenders that got left off the list. I am not unsympathetic to these cries. But you know how it is. Deadlines are deadlines, and after I decided (after consultation with the panel of judges) to limit entries to one per author — well, we did the best we could. But yes, this and this and this deserved consideration. Maybe next year.

A number of conservatives were upset on the opposite score: what happened to the worst of the liberal blogosphere? Answer: get off your butts and create your own award, OK? The field is wide open for some enterprising winger to create a Golden Moonbat Award.

On a similar note, a few people were flustered by the definition of "wingnuttiest." That's understandable. After all, some of the nominees were breathtaking examples of warblogger paranoia; some were just humorously batshit insane; and some were merely unfortunate mistakes with no special ideological axe to grind. But in the immortal words of Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it. And I trust my readers to know it when they see it too.

Finally, a personal note: We live in an age of celebrity, and a blogger who retired three years ago probably never had a serious chance of cracking the top five. Still, history must be served: when they write the dictionary definition of wingnuttery there's going to be a picture of Steven Den Beste beside the entry. So, since this is my contest, I hereby present SDB with a special judges award for lifetime achievement in transnational wingnuttery. They just don't make 'em like that anymore.

Kevin Drum 3:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (170)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I'm thrilled that one of my few electoral victories was John Hinderaker's ode to Bush. A classic entry in a worthy competition.

Posted by: Common Sense on November 6, 2007 at 3:18 AM | PERMALINK

"I doubt that the pact will make any difference to the earth's climate, which will be determined, as always, by variations in the energy emitted by the sun." - Hinderaker

Fantastic. Oh to have stayed in university. I always feel at a loss for vocabulary when trying to comment on the lunacy of the American right. Thanks for the great contest Kevin.

Posted by: rocarpen on November 6, 2007 at 3:23 AM | PERMALINK

A poll of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius.

Posted by: KathyF on November 6, 2007 at 3:40 AM | PERMALINK

The Golden Moonbat would be a much more attractive trophy. I might get myself a blog just for the privilege of winning it.

(Did I mention how much I want to have John Walker Lindh's babies?)

Posted by: MFB on November 6, 2007 at 4:08 AM | PERMALINK

The field is wide open for some enterprising winger to create a Golden Moonbat Award.

Thanks for the invite Kevin! Here's my list:

Kos: "That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."

Ward Churchill: "One of the things Ive suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary."

Huffington Post after hearing about a failed assassination attempt of Vice-President Cheney: "Better luck next time!" Can be read at michellemalkin.com/2007/02/27/assassination-chic-cheney-edition/

Daily Kos on Joe Liberman reported by Lanny Davis at www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008763
"Ned needs to beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an AMerican who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby"

Posted by: Al on November 6, 2007 at 4:13 AM | PERMALINK

Hey way to go Al. That's showin' 'em.

Gimmee an L......

Posted by: jayackroyd on November 6, 2007 at 5:50 AM | PERMALINK

What makes Hinderaker's contribution especially worthy of the prize is the combination of Bush idolatry with the built-in excuse for the failure of the vaunted policy (one might call it the "sunshine in the back"). And, of course, it sounds a typical wingnut meme (carbon emissions do not cause global warming). If only he had blamed climate problems on liberals or accused them of surrendering to variations in the energy of the sun, it would have been perfect.

Posted by: Harry J on November 6, 2007 at 6:41 AM | PERMALINK

Why doesn't the award logo feature a pony?

Posted by: Doug on November 6, 2007 at 6:51 AM | PERMALINK

Hey! A wingnut is a wingnut, not a nut with wings drawn on.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nut_%28hardware%29

They even have a golden one.

Posted by: gkoutnik on November 6, 2007 at 7:30 AM | PERMALINK

Good work, Kevin. I would have said this was a very entertaining venture all around, except that last night I dreamed of Pam Geller and her children (! Nice parenting skills there) braying about their vajayjays. It was a terrible, terrible night, and not for the reasons Pam intended.

Posted by: shortstop on November 6, 2007 at 7:50 AM | PERMALINK

Thank God that's over. Now, it's high time that this blog offer an award to honor the right-wing troll who is deemed by readers to be the most batshit crazy.

upon due consideration, I really have to nominate Norman Rogers, who'll undoubtedly be the heavy favorite, as long as he neglects to take his medications.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on November 6, 2007 at 7:52 AM | PERMALINK

Huffington Post after hearing about a failed assassination attempt of Vice-President Cheney: "Better luck next time!" Can be read at michellemalkin.com/2007/02/27/assassination-chic-cheney-edition/

Gee, Al, I believe that was a comment made by a commenter, not by a blogger.

Oh, and so was this one:

"Ned needs to beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an AMerican who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby"

Did you read the rules, Al? The Golden Wingnut Award was for bloggers. And -- if you want us to go digging into right wing filth to find comments -- well, I'm sure we could do that, except that the bloggers themselves are doing such a fine job.

Posted by: pol on November 6, 2007 at 7:56 AM | PERMALINK

The boy named "Kim" sounds a lot like the overkill machisimo of the boy named "Sue" made famous in a Johnny Cash tune (who, by the way, was a notorious liberal).

I especially like the one where he was going to prove his extreme manliness by shooting his TV.

Empty cowboy hats, the lot of them.

Posted by: JimG on November 6, 2007 at 8:28 AM | PERMALINK

Hindraker richly deserves his award. His myopia is the stuff of epic tragedy, even among the idolators of George Worst-President-Ever Bush.

Posted by: Zeno on November 6, 2007 at 8:32 AM | PERMALINK

Donald from Hawaii,

Yeah, Norman might be the morning line favorite, but rdw should be at least six to five - Normie loves to play; the Drexel Hill Dimwit actually believed his swill - Pulled up one of his very long marathon runs from Dec 13,'05 about the Asia Pacific Partnership - He was raving about the "Wondrous Economy" and how it would trump anything in the coming '06 elections - Yeah, wonder how many of those three car garages are just sitting there with their ARMs called in?

Posted by: bert on November 6, 2007 at 8:45 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

Why don't you name the award in honor of SDB? 'The Steven Den Beste Golden Wingnut Award'.

Posted by: crack on November 6, 2007 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINK

Now, THIS is respectable journalism!:

This Is One Dangerous Man: It's George Bush with Brains
New York's former mayor Rudy Giuliani is living up to his reputation as someone who will do and say anything for power
by Michael Tomasky [The Guardian/UK]

Posted by: Poilu on November 6, 2007 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

Ward Churchill: "One of the things Ive suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary."

But, GEE, Al: Since Churchill was forced out of his tenured position by his academic masters -- owing to relentless pressure from right-wing fruitcakes (like yourself) and their NeoConNazi "minders" -- you KNOW he was absolutely correct about a great many things, including that.

Liars, buffoons, and other loyal incompetents are simply praised and promoted by the Bush Reich, NEVER ostracized!

Get REAL, chum! (Oh, sorry. I momentarily forgot that Reality is not a right-wing "thing".)

Posted by: Poilu on November 6, 2007 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

I think you should make this a yearly event, that way we can crown the most insane posts of the last year. When President Clinton lovingly records their phone conversations, I am sure we will get some good ones...

Posted by: MNPundit on November 6, 2007 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

So, MFB, are you male or female?

Posted by: Carol on November 6, 2007 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

"When you people call pollhost.com a 'prestigious accounting firm,' I fail to detect a hint of irony! I am certain that pollhost.com is NOT one of the major accounting firms in this country and therefore your entire project here has no validity! This is merely more of the time-wasting antics of liberals who would rather attack, attack, attack than devote themselves to the good of this country! I'm going to go back to reading freepublic.com where decent people devote themselves to doing the Lord's Work of undermining the campaign of well-known, documented satanist and man-hater Hillary Rodham Clinton!"

Anyway, I chose 5 winners, including your top three. Naturally, Assrocket's was of course the, uh, "best."

Posted by: Anon on November 6, 2007 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINK

I would guess that John Hinderaker is happy to have upset a group of leftists. In fact, the article seems intended to be a red flag waving in the faces of BDS sufferers.

Posted by: ex-liberal on November 6, 2007 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

That is actually spelled "Assrocket," not "Hindraker."

Posted by: HeavyJ on November 6, 2007 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

Ward Churchill: "One of the things Ive suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary."

The nuttiness of this particular passage was proven out when it was subsequently adopted wholeheartedly by an entire phalanx of right-wing America-haters, led by Philadelphia newspaper columnist Stu Bykofsky.

Posted by: boots day on November 6, 2007 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

"I would guess that John Hinderaker is happy to have upset a group of leftists."

LOL... Dear heart, to be "upset" by Assrocket, we'd have to first care what he writes. We're laughing at him, dear, just as we laugh at you. Do try to grasp the difference, won't you?

Posted by: PaulB on November 6, 2007 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

As an illustration of unhinged, poisonous rhetoric, I'm afraid Al's sampling of moonbat postings far outshines the Golden Wingnut winners. The Wingnut winners' posts are at worst goofy. However, to celebrate the deaths of Americans in Iraq (Kos) or saying America needs more 9/11s (Ward Churchill) is to embrace evil.

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

You know ex-liberal, I spent a lot of time working on various publications when I was in high school. Being high school students, a lot of them weren't very mature and couldn't put together a good argument. Some were naive and/or deluded. And when one of them would publish and article and others would pile on pointing out what poor-quality the article was, the original author would always claim that his/her only intent was to "provoke a reaction" and then pat himself on the back for having "succeeded."

In reality they were just trying to avoid taking responsibility for their own stupidity. rarely, however, did I see someone else trying to cover for the original author's stupidity, as you are doing.

In any case, Norman Rogers is my favorite performance-art right-winger (Al, your efforts are lame in comparison). ex-liberal is more a dull, desperate annoyance, desperately clinging to the right wing in more of a pathetic attempt not to admit that he screwed up, big time, over the last several decades. rdw and Joe Schmore (remember him?) are really the finenst examples of wingnuttiest wingnuttery on the comments here.

Posted by: Tyro on November 6, 2007 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

This is an interesting commentary on one understanding of what a "wingnut" is.

Of the five leading posts, two addressed cultural questions with sexual elements, two were taunts directed at liberals (or at least at people who disliked President Bush), and the winning post led with an encomium to Bush personally. The bulk of the winning post dealt with a fairly obscure international agreement about pollution control technology, but this isn't why it won.

Now, I'm not complaining. I don't really have a dog in this fight. It's just that one would think the liberal's mental picture of what conservative "wingnuttery" is had some relation to conservative ideology, and liberal objections thereto. I actually do think that, but the results of this little contest suggest that ideology isn't really what engages liberals' passions, and sometimes doesn't even get their attention. It's all about George Bush, and what people say about liberals.

Posted by: Zathras on November 6, 2007 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Wait, does Ward Churchill even have a blog?

Posted by: Mithras on November 6, 2007 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Zathras-
It's all about George Bush, and what people say about liberals.

One of the many objections liberals have about conservatives' behavior is that they don't actually seem to practice their stated beliefs, and have been defined in recent years by a loyalty to Dear Leader and hatred for the Other, of which we are part. We're just calling 'em as we read 'em.

Posted by: Mithras on November 6, 2007 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

Tyro, I suspect I'm older than you are. I remember when Truman was regarded as an ignorant haberdasher. Eisenhower was supposedly too busy playing golf to spend time working as President. Ronald "Raygun" was called a mere second rate actor. Today, all three are rated as better than average Presidents.

Yes, an article praising Bush sounds silly today, especially in this venue. But, I think over time his reputation will also rise.

Posted by: ex-liberal on November 6, 2007 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Just read the "Pussification" post for the first time.

"Men shouldn’t buy “self-help” books unless the subject matter is car maintenance, golf swing improvement or how to disassemble a fucking Browning BAR. We don’t improve ourselves, we improve our stuff."

Ahh, brings back memories of high school locker rooms.

Posted by: Manly Man Man on November 6, 2007 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, an article praising Bush sounds silly today, especially in this venue. But, I
I wont attack what Bush has think over time his reputation will also rise.
Posted by: ex-liberal

I wont attack Bush, we all know the missteps, I will instead ask you what his accomplishments have been, which should be an easy task for you.

Posted by: Ya Know.... on November 6, 2007 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

The Poor Man has been ceremoniously handing out Golden Wingers for a few years now. Picked a lot of the same notable moments in the wingosphere for recognition.

Also, no Kaye Grogan or Peggy Noonan?

Posted by: ymr049c on November 6, 2007 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

I do believe that Hinderaker won World O' Crap's 2005 Ultimate Wingnut Challenge with much help from that same post.

This was the top 5 finalists for that years Ultimate Wingnut Challenge.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/2005/12/30.html

Posted by: Tom - Daai Tou Laam on November 6, 2007 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

Hey wingnuts, if you plan to have your own contest, don't forget:

1) must be a blogger, not a commenter, not a columnist.

2) the choices cannot be Ward Churchill, Ward Churchill, and Ward Churchill. Part of the fun of OUR contest was that there were so many choices.

Posted by: dr2chase on November 6, 2007 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

I second (or is it fourth) Norman's nomination. There are a lot of commenters here who are pretty funny, intentionally or otherwise, but only Norman makes me laugh out loud. It's as if Patrick O'Brian was still alive, and ghostwriting for Al.

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Right Wingnut. If they only had one in gold.

Posted by: jhm on November 6, 2007 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

It's the Bush Sycophants who have this unquestioning, child-like adoration of all things George W. Bush are the ones with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Posted by: RobertSeattle on November 6, 2007 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

What ymr049c said. Can you at least give a H/T to the Editors for their good work doing this for the last several years?

See:
http://tinyurl.com/3b4q2r

[Link goes to the 2006 Kippie awards nominations]

Posted by: ImJohnGalt on November 6, 2007 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

ex-lilberal: Yes, an article praising Bush sounds silly today, especially in this venue. But, I think over time his reputation will also rise.

Yes, you keep saying this, with the desperation in your voice rising palpably each time you say it. But sometimes a Grant is just a Grant and a Harding just a Harding. And Bush is the two of them combined x 1,000--now and 100 years from now.

Posted by: shortstop on November 6, 2007 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

How appropriate that a wingnut is also called a thumbscrew.

Posted by: Mithras on November 6, 2007 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

The rest of the story:

When contacted for comment about his victory in the Golden Wingnut Awards, Hinderaker responded, "mmmrff mmnnplrxty mmmrfff". When asked to please respond after taking George Bush's dick out of his mouth, Hinderaker flatly refused.

Posted by: The Fool on November 6, 2007 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

Just went to read "It's the Waiting" which I didn't get to before. Got a noxious screen telling me I wasn't welcome because of where I came from.

Copied and pasted the link, as suggested, and got a weird androgynous Star Trek-like figure telling me the file I want can't be found. The post seems to have vanished down the memory hole.

I love the smell of political correctness in the morning, don't you? Those damn lib... oh, wait.

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

his reputation will also rise

Guy came over to pump out my cesspool the other day. Guess what was floating at the top?

(Hint. It wasn't flowers and candy.)

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Ya Know: I will instead ask you what his accomplishments have been, which should be an easy task for you.

1. Six years of economic expansion, including some huge number of new jobs created, low unemployment, low inflation. He had a very high budget deficit, but that's coming down quicker than expected.

2. Introduced limited prescription drug coverage to Medicare.

3. Overthrew the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

4. Installed democracy in Afghanistan. (However, time will tell whether the democracy prevails over ongoing attacks. It's not looking good right now.)

5. Overthrew Saddam

6. Installed democracy in Iraq (Hopefully it will prevail. If it does, this accomplishment will be particuarly impressive, because it's important and because Bush had so much opposition to the ongoing war.)

7. Defeated al Qaeda in Iraq after OBL had declared Iraq his central battlefield.

8. Weakened al Qaeda worldwide so as to avoid another 9/11 type attack.

9. In particular, it was Bush who recognized that Islamic terrorism was more like a war than a criminal investigation. By comparison, Clinton successfully prosecuted those who planned the first WTC attack in 1991, but his criminal prosecution did little to prevent future attacks.

10. Ramped up spending and effort against African AIDS to a whole new order of magnitude.

11. No Child Left Behind introduced the concept that federal programs actully ought to work, based on some kind of objective measurements. I believe that early results show that NCLB has had some beneficial impact on inner city education.

12. Negotiated an end to Libya's nuclear weapons program.

13. Negotiated an end to NK's nukes. (However, they cheated before, so I don't fully believe that they won't cheat again.)

Ya Know, one can quibble with all of the these accomplishments. Still, I think it's an impressive list. I think a similar list for Bush Senior or for Clinton would be shorter.

Posted by: ex-liberal on November 6, 2007 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

"Hey wingnuts, if you plan to have your own contest, don't forget: . . ."

dr2chase: Sorry, but if it's a matchup of the craziest, most hateful blogposts from the left vs. those from the right, there IS no contest. The left wins that contest hands-down. How does Michelle Malkin's stupid cheerleader routine even begin to compare to Kos' post celebrating the deaths and dismemberments of American contractors in Iraq?

I'm glad you found Kevin's contest to be so much fun and I agree the winning entries look rather silly, but if that's the worst stuff you guys can come up with among tens of thousands of right-wing blogposts, I don't think the results are much of an indictment against the conservative blogosphere.

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal writes:

Tyro, I suspect I'm older than you are. I remember when Truman was regarded as an ignorant haberdasher. Eisenhower was supposedly too busy playing golf to spend time working as President. Ronald "Raygun" was called a mere second rate actor. Today, all three are rated as better than average Presidents.
Yes, an article praising Bush sounds silly today, especially in this venue. But, I think over time his reputation will also rise.

I think ex-liberal is warning us: In the future, we will elect Presidents so abysmally incompetent and/or malevolent that George W. Bush will look good in comparison.

He might be right. <shudder>

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on November 6, 2007 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

I would add to Bush's accomplishment's the following:

14. Vastly increased domestic anti-terrorist measures, including enhanced airline/airport security, creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security, a shift in the mission of the FBI toward terrorism prevention, increased federal-state-local coordination and inter-agency coordination, etc.

15. Deployment of missile defense system protecting west coast.

16. Bankruptcy reform.

17. Class action reform.

18. Securing confirmation of highly capable and respected judicial nominees notwithstanding Democratic obstructionism.

19. Cutting taxes.

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

*

Posted by: mhr on November 6, 2007 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

Rialto, Got any proof of your assertion that there is more "hate" on the left other than your KOS anecdote? If I recall, KOS took down and apologized for his post about the contractors. I don't recall much apologizing from any of the right wing bloggers who have been very wrong about many things over the past 6 years. And by the way, CRITICISM of OUR GOVERNMENT is not "Hate". (And "Hate" becoming a meaningless word nowadays since it thrown around as an epitaph)


Posted by: RobertSeattle on November 6, 2007 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Bush's accomplishments:

1) First stolen presidential election

2) First presidential war criminal

3) Came into office facing a surplus and ran up a huge deficit -- far huger than it appears because the official numbers don't count the trillions that will be spent on Iraq and do count the Social Secutity Surplus

4) First president to preside over the destruction of a major American city (New Orleans of course)

5) Destroyed American reputation around world

6) Severely undermined democracy and freedom with his attacks on our constitutional system of government

7) Launched an illegal war based on a hoax that got thousands of Americans killed, a million Iraqis killed, and forced 2 million Iraqis to flee their own country (Heckuva job Bushie!)

8) Caused a net increase in the number and effectiveness of terrorists by creating the Iraq recruiting and training ground

9) Subverted health care reform in this country by passing a weak prescription drug bill that mainly benefits pharmaceutical companies while forestalling a real reform effort such as single payer which would have provided huge benefits to the poopulation.

10) Did nothing about global warming

11) Encouraged corruption

12) Broke numerous laws including FISA and several statutes that prohibit torture

13) Lied more than any other president in history, thus debasing our national discourse

14) Overextended our military, reducing our ability to respond to actual crises, increasing other countries' incentive to test our strength, and generally harming our security

etc. etc. etc.


Posted by: Junius Brutus on November 6, 2007 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Poor wittle wingnuts. Get all upset that Kevin had his wingnut awards, now watch them all scurry on over here to display all these facts and figures that show Bush really is like Hindrokcet says he is, a genius that history will vanquish as the great changer of the times.

So funny it hurts. Make more lists, wingnuts, please. Tell us MORE!!

Posted by: Paul Raven on November 6, 2007 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

thersites, try this den Beste jewel instead. It's as bad or worse than "It's the waiting..."

Posted by: shortstop on November 6, 2007 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

if that's the worst stuff you guys can come up with among tens of thousands of right-wing blogposts, I don't think the results are much of an indictment against the conservative blogosphere.

The contest is over, Rialto. I know you're disappointed to be left out, but your comments here won't serve as after-the-fact entries, solid though they may be. Better luck next year.

Posted by: shortstop on November 6, 2007 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

You do realize, mhr, that Olbermann is a graduate of Cornell (one of the Ivy League)? Of course not. You're as stupid as two bulls screwing.

Posted by: DJ on November 6, 2007 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

1. Six years of economic expansion, including some huge number of new jobs created, low unemployment, low inflation. He had a very high budget deficit, but that's coming down quicker than expected. [The "huge number" of new jobs actually managed to keep pace with the birth rate in at least four of the 72 months. And the high budget deficit is only "coming down" because the initial estimate is inflated each year and Iraq's humongous costs are not included.]

2. Introduced limited prescription drug coverage to Medicare. [By refusing to let the government bargain on costs, he threw money at the pharmaceutical establishment in bucketsful, and the 'donut hole' in coverage put a lot of people at significant disadvantage.]

3. Overthrew the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. [After first allowing al Qaeda to attack the US mainland, Bush overthrew the Taliban, then took most of our forces into war in Iraq so that al Qaeda would have a zillion new recruits AND a wonderful OJT opportunity at the same time.]

4. Installed democracy in Afghanistan. (However, time will tell whether the democracy prevails over ongoing attacks. It's not looking good right now.) [Democracy installed at the point of a gun doesn't work well, especially when you then remove the gun to go create democracy somewhere else.]

5. Overthrew Saddam [And left so much chaos in his place that even Shiites occasionally long for the good old days of the "devil they knew".]

6. Installed democracy in Iraq (Hopefully it will prevail. If it does, this accomplishment will be particuarly impressive, because it's important and because Bush had so much opposition to the ongoing war.) [Again, democracy installed at the pointing of a gun, especially when the "democratic invaders" practice such outright theft and corruption, is a poor method of creating a democratic country, wouldn't you say?]

7. Defeated al Qaeda in Iraq after OBL had declared Iraq his central battlefield. [Created al Qaeda in Iraq by invading the place, so bin Laden could then say "Go get 'em, boys!"]

8. Weakened al Qaeda worldwide so as to avoid another 9/11 type attack. [There were 20-some hijackers in the first attack. Even a weakened al Qaeda has 20 members, so the lack of an attack is not likely due to Bush's approach to weakening that organization, given that it takes so few to pull off such an attack.]

9. In particular, it was Bush who recognized that Islamic terrorism was more like a war than a criminal investigation. By comparison, Clinton successfully prosecuted those who planned the first WTC attack in 1991, but his criminal prosecution did little to prevent future attacks. [Islamic terrorism was the subject of the Presidential Daily Briefing that Bush ignored, leading to the successful attack on the US. Clinton managed to, despite not putting on a flight suit or bomber jacket, thwart the Millennium attack as well as leave the warning about bin Laden's intentions for the next president to ignore.]

10. Ramped up spending and effort against African AIDS to a whole new order of magnitude. [And spent so much of these funds on abstinence programs, when the people in need of the programs needed a different kind of help. And I don't recall the Republican Congress in Clinton's years going along with any attempt to increase this kind of aid, anyway. If Clinton had had a Democratic Congress, he could have easily ramped up spending, but, of course, it wouldn't have been a tax cut, so Republicans were perforce against it.]

11. No Child Left Behind introduced the concept that federal programs actully ought to work, based on some kind of objective measurements. I believe that early results show that NCLB has had some beneficial impact on inner city education. [MCLB had the co-sponsorship of Democrats (in particular that liberal sinner Teddy Kennedy) and the impact of the law is not universally hailed as positive; in fact, it's pretty universally derided for its straight-jacket approach.]

12. Negotiated an end to Libya's nuclear weapons program. [Hooray! That's one!]

13. Negotiated an end to NK's nukes. (However, they cheated before, so I don't fully believe that they won't cheat again.) [After deriding the Clinton-negotiated deal that NK cheated on, Bush failed to ensure that that country kept its promise. Clinton had that ball in play, but Bush took his eyes off it, and had to make a strong effort just to "make a save."]


Some "accomplishments!"

Ed

Posted by: Ed Drone on November 6, 2007 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

"Six years of economic expansion, including some huge number of new jobs created, low unemployment, low inflation. He had a very high budget deficit, but that's coming down quicker than expected."

Only if by "Economic expansion" you mean "Really screwing up".

1.) Not one net job during the Bush presidency. (%4.2 in Jan of 2001 / %4.5 as of Nov. 2007)

2.) Dollar vs. Euro = 0.6871 USD -an all time low

3.) The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $1.43 billion per day since September 2006.

Posted by: MyPetGloat on November 6, 2007 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

I think Bill Safire should get some sort of pre-blog era historical award for the 1982 column he wrote about Arial Sharon’s invasion of Lebanon. Safire praised Sharon for taking decisive action and finally settling the whole Palestinian issue in just a few short weeks.

Posted by: fafner1 on November 6, 2007 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

11. No Child Left Behind introduced the concept that federal programs actully ought to work, based on some kind of objective measurements. I believe that early results show that NCLB has had some beneficial impact on inner city education.

And I believe that you are wrong. Teaching kids to take tests instead of learning how to LEARN is not beneficial. No Child Left Unpunished has forced school districts to allocate resources away from truly beneficial activities. If there have been any benefits derived, it's from school administration, saddled with Federal meddling, using the tests to determine learning allocations for students down the road, while cotinuing to force-feed the kids this standardized garbage that does NOTHING to enhance their learning abilities.

Posted by: GuyFromOhio on November 6, 2007 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop at 11:58, thanks for the link. What a hilarious waste of my lunch hour! What a sad man this ben Deste must be.

I especially enjoyed And for six years the only women in my life were encoded in JPEG. Poor man. Hasn't anyone told him about MPEG?

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

>

Got any proof that Kos apologized?

>

It can certainly be motivated by hate. In fact, some "criticism" is nothing more than thinly veiled hatred. I think when Rosie O'Donnell (another leftie blogger) spews 9/11 conspiracy theories to her fawning devotees, that has a lot more to do with hatred than it does with a desire to educate and inform the public.

>

I've never seen "hate" used as an epitaph.

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry about the mess. Here's my previous post with the quotes I was responding to included:

"Rialto, Got any proof of your assertion that there is more "hate" on the left other than your KOS anecdote? If I recall, KOS took down and apologized for his post about the contractors."

Got any proof that Kos apologized?

"And by the way, CRITICISM of OUR GOVERNMENT is not "Hate"."

It can certainly be motivated by hate. In fact, some "criticism" is nothing more than thinly veiled hatred. I think when Rosie O'Donnell (another leftie blogger) spews 9/11 conspiracy theories to her fawning devotees, that has a lot more to do with hatred than it does with a desire to educate and inform the public.

"(And "Hate" becoming a meaningless word nowadays since it thrown around as an epitaph)"

I've never seen "hate" used as an epitaph.

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Junius Brutus: Caused a net increase in the number and effectiveness of terrorists by creating the Iraq recruiting and training ground

I see this claim often, although generally without evidence. It has not been widely reported, but according to a Pew pool, during Bush's war in Iraq, al Qaeda has become a lot less popular among Muslims.

Among the most striking trends in predominantly Muslim nations is the continuing decline in the number saying that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians are justifiable in the defense of Islam. In Lebanon, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia, the proportion of Muslims who view suicide bombing and other attacks against civilians as being often or sometimes justified has declined by half or more over the past five years.

The decreasing acceptance of extremism among Muslims also is reflected in declining support for Osama bin Laden. Since 2003, Muslim confidence in bin Laden to do the right thing in world affairs has fallen; in Jordan, just 20% express a lot or some confidence in bin Laden, down from 56% four years ago.

The link is http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=257 You have to scroll about half way down.

Posted by: ex-liberal on November 6, 2007 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

Rialto?
Um, when did Rosie O'Donell become a "lefty blogger?" And will you, ane every other right-wing blogger, take responsibility for the rantings of Michael Savage? (Not that there's any direct equivalance, but you see the analogy.)

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Ed Drone on November 6, 2007 at 12:10 PM

There you go again. Facts are stupid things.

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Got any proof that Kos apologised?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/2/175739/8203

I suspect you won't accept this as an "apology"- it's nuanced, and thoughtful, and therefore could be a foreign language to most wingnuts.

But there you are.

Posted by: pdq on November 6, 2007 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

I see no way these sentences can be construed as celebrating. Lacking in empathy, yes, but no celebration.

Don't let reality stop you, Rialto

Posted by: uri on November 6, 2007 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

Spit take warning need:

When contacted for comment about his victory in the Golden Wingnut Awards, Hinderaker responded, "mmmrff mmnnplrxty mmmrfff". When asked to please respond after taking George Bush's dick out of his mouth, Hinderaker flatly refused.
Posted by: The Fool

ROFLM(now size 8/10)AO

"Some errors of judgment were made in the business itself and within the risk management function." - Merrill Lynch CEO E. Stanley O'Neal

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

There you go again. Facts are stupid things.
Posted by: thersites

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” — Aldous Huxley

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

It's not just what you say or how you say it. It is most of all, the degeee to which you make us think.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O/F in 08 on November 6, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

thersites, try this den Beste jewel instead. It's as bad or worse than "It's the waiting..."
Posted by: shortstop

Too funny by half. Wait! You mean this is not a parody? Holy shit.

"But there is nothing idealized or romantic about the difference between a society whose arrangements roughly serve all its citizens and one whose institutions have been converted into a stupendous fraud. That difference can be the difference between democracy and oligarchy." - Bill Moyers

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

"Rialto?
Um, when did Rosie O'Donell become a "lefty blogger?""

I don't know specifically when she started blogging. It's at rosie.com if you are interested.

"And will you, ane every other right-wing blogger, take responsibility for the rantings of Michael Savage? (Not that there's any direct equivalance, but you see the analogy.)"

I'm not a blogger, first of all. Second, no, I do not "take responsibility" for anyone else's comments, any more than I would expect someone else to take responsibility for my comments. What's your point?

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

What's your point?
Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 1:28 PM

You seem to be ascribing Rosie's idiocy to the whole left blogosphere is my point.

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Whittle's "Tribes" manifesto really deserved better.

It's easily the most horrifying blog post on the list. Maybe that's why it did so poorly--there's really no humor in it, it's just 100% hideousness.

Posted by: hillbilly ragger on November 6, 2007 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

I was really pulling for Tribes, mainly for the part where Whittle, in the guise of a grey sheepdog, dreams about running over Mohammed Atta in a parking lot before boarding one of the three planes, instructing the 'ladies' to throw shoes and cell phones at the hijackers and the men to stomp on their heads because he knows how to land a goddam airplane...

For those so inclined, a little bird posted It's the waiting on Matt Y's blog.

Posted by: seashell on November 6, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

This is awesome! But it's just the Editors' Kippies award in another venue.

Posted by: Gus on November 6, 2007 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Irony alert: "ex-liberal" whines about claims presented without evidence...

Posted by: Gregory on November 6, 2007 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

"I suspect you won't accept this as an "apology"- it's nuanced, and thoughtful, and therefore could be a foreign language to most wingnuts."

It's really more of a defense than an apology. You will note there are no words of apology in Kos' follow-up post, no sense of contrition or real regret. What he's essentially saying is that his extreme anger toward "mercenaries" is justified by the fact that he grew up in a war zone. He does say that "[n]obody deserves to die," but that's such an obtuse comment -- doesn't OBL deserve to die? -- it hardly mitigates the horrible sentiments he expressed toward the Americans who were killed.

Kos is obviously an articulate guy. If he had intended to apologize, I'm sure he could have formulated the words necessary to do so.

Be honest. Let's say you went to a funeral of someone you didn't really like and for some reason blurted out to the deceased's widow that you "felt nothing" over the person's death. Assuming you later felt the need to apologize for such an insensitive remark, how do you suppose your apology would compare, in substance and in tone, to Kos' alleged "apology" for his "screw 'em" blogpost concerning the American contractors in Iraq? I suspect you would go much, much further in expressing genuine regret and contrition than he did.

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

"Yes, an article praising Bush sounds silly today"

No shit, Sherlock.

"especially in this venue."

No, dear, in any venue.

"But, I think over time his reputation will also rise."

Yes, dear, we know, just as we know you're a mindless partisan drone here to provoke reactions and post mindless, unsupported drivel, just as you did in this thread.

Posted by: PaulB on November 6, 2007 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

"I see no way these sentences can be construed as celebrating. Lacking in empathy, yes, but no celebration."

I disagree. In saying, "screw them," he was commenting favorably upon the fact that they had been killed. He made it clear that he felt a lot of anger toward these contractors, that he thought they were bad men, motivated solely by money, who were harming the Iraqi people. "Celebrating" doesn't necessarily imply wearing a party hat.

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Be honest.

I suggest you demonstrate by admitting that you willfully and woefully misrepresented what Kos said in your first comment.

Posted by: uri on November 6, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

seashell at 1:44 PM:

Thanks. A fun read, but not worthy of the top 5 here.

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

He made it clear that he felt a lot of anger toward these contractors

If you can't be honest enough to use the proper term, "mercenaries," then there's no reason to believe that your criticism of Kos is in good faith.

Posted by: Gregory on November 6, 2007 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Too quick to hit post

Should be:

I suggest you demonstrate by admitting that in your first comment you willfully and woefully misrepresented what Kos said.

Posted by: uri on November 6, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Rialto: "I tried to pretend I could come up with a bunch of posts by liberal bloggers that are as insane as the wingnut finalists'. That didn't work. So now I'll move the goalposts to focus obsessively on dissecting what I say is the insufficiency of one guy's apology for one post. Anything to stop you guys making fun of Kimberly, Nuthouse and Assrocket."

Eh. Be gone with you; you've got nothin'.

seashell: [Tribes] easily the most horrifying blog post on the list. Maybe that's why it did so poorly--there's really no humor in it, it's just 100% hideousness.

It's quite, quite horrific, and I suspect that if it had appeared higher in the list, it might have swept the awards.

Posted by: shortstop on November 6, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

"You seem to be ascribing Rosie's idiocy to the whole left blogosphere is my point."

No, I'm not at all ascribing her idiocy to anyone else. There's plenty of idiocy within the left blogosphere to go around.

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

"1. Six years of economic expansion, including some huge number of new jobs created, low unemployment, low inflation."

Dear heart, Bush has had the worst job creation performance of any two-term president, I believe. As for inflation, his policies have had nothing to do with that. Moreover, the expansion was built on mortgaging the future, which means that we will be paying the price for years to come, if not decades. His economic policies have yielded the worst bang-for-the buck performance ever.

"2. Introduced limited prescription drug coverage to Medicare."

Leaving a gaping hole in coverage and preventing the government from using its leverage to reduce costs. The legislation also included fat paychecks to insurance companies, paying them significantly more than the standard Medicare payment for the same coverage.

"3. Overthrew the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan."

Leaving the job unfinished, Afghanistan in turmoil, the drug lords, warlords, and Taliban resurgent, and our handpicked leader not controlling much more than his own capital city.

"4. Installed democracy in Afghanistan."

Selecting a leader and employing enormous pressure to put him in power is not "install[ing] democracy," dear.

"5. Overthrew Saddam"

LOL.... I don't even need to touch this one, given the results of that action.

"6. Installed democracy in Iraq"

Not really, dear, which is why we have some of the problems that we have.

"7. Defeated al Qaeda in Iraq after OBL had declared Iraq his central battlefield."

LOL.... Dear heart, AQI was an after-the-fact creation that resulted from the war! It was never much of a factor and Bush had nothing to do with its "defeat".

"8. Weakened al Qaeda worldwide so as to avoid another 9/11 type attack."

Sorry, dear, but you cannot substantiate this one, as the available evidence indicates that it has not been weakened at all.

"9. In particular, it was Bush who recognized that Islamic terrorism was more like a war than a criminal investigation."

And since that was probably the biggest screw-up of his administration, forgive us if we just laugh at this.

"10. Ramped up spending and effort against African AIDS to a whole new order of magnitude."

No, actually, he didn't, dear. He made big promises that he failed to deliver on. And when he did deliver, he did so either by cutting funding elsewhere (e.g., malaria funding) or by adding strings that made the aid unacceptable (e.g., anti-family planning restrictions and drug restrictions).

"11. No Child Left Behind introduced the concept that federal programs actully ought to work, based on some kind of objective measurements."

Since the measurements were badly flawed and all involved pretty much agree that this has been a failure, forgive us if we're not impressed with this one, either.

"12. Negotiated an end to Libya's nuclear weapons program."

LOL.... No, actually, he didn't. Those negotiations began in the Clinton administration, dear. Bush didn't latch onto them until Iraq started showing signs of trouble and Bush badly needed some signs of success.

"13. Negotiated an end to NK's nukes."

LOL.... Using essentially the same terms that had previously been negotiated by Clinton, with the difference that due to Bush's inaction and intransigence, nuclear proliferation increased and North Korea restarted its program.

"Ya Know, one can quibble with all of the these accomplishments."

Yes, dear, we can, since few of them are "accomplishments" in any meaningful definition of that word. Most of them are abject failues.

"Still, I think it's an impressive list."

Yes, dear, we know you do, but that's because you're a mindless partisan drone.

"I think a similar list for Bush Senior or for Clinton would be shorter."

Yes, we know you do, but that's because you're a mindless partisan drone.

"14. Vastly increased domestic anti-terrorist measures, including enhanced airline/airport security, creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security, a shift in the mission of the FBI toward terrorism prevention, increased federal-state-local coordination and inter-agency coordination, etc."

Dear heart, the DHS was a Democratic idea, and the rest of those accomplishment are either showing mixed results (airport security) or would have been implemented by any President and Congress.

"15. Deployment of missile defense system protecting west coast."

ROFLMAO... You mean that multi-billion dollar boondoggle that doesn't work? That's youre idea of an "accomplishment?" The mind boggles.

"16. Bankruptcy reform."

Oh, yeah, that's quite an accomplishment. Too bad it didn't actually provide any real "reform;" it just placed an undue and harsh burden on those needing to declare bankruptcy. I guarantee that "accomplishment" will not last.

"17. Class action reform."

Since he didn't really provide any real "reform" there, forgive us if we don't take this one seriously.

"18. Securing confirmation of highly capable and respected judicial nominees notwithstanding Democratic obstructionism."

ROFLMAO.... I don't even need to respond to this one.

"19. Cutting taxes."

Have you looked at our national debt lately, dear?

Posted by: PaulB on November 6, 2007 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

"I suggest you demonstrate by admitting that you willfully and woefully misrepresented what Kos said in your first comment."

What are you talking about? I haven't misrepresented anything.

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

I disagree. In saying, "screw them," he was commenting favorably upon the fact that they had been killed. He made it clear that he felt a lot of anger toward these contractors, that he thought they were bad men, motivated solely by money, who were harming the Iraqi people. "Celebrating" doesn't necessarily imply wearing a party hat.

I don't even know how to engage with this. It needs an addendum justifying the torture of the English language.

Posted by: uri on November 6, 2007 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

"dr2chase: Sorry, but if it's a matchup of the craziest, most hateful blogposts from the left vs. those from the right, there IS no contest. The left wins that contest hands-down."

Interesting that you cannot substantiate this, dear heart. With all of those "hateful" blog posts out there, it should be trivially easy for you to come up with dozens of examples, right? And yet not a single one do you provide, other than that old chestnut from DK, which has been adequately covered elsewhere. Why are you having so much trouble, dear?

Posted by: PaulB on November 6, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

"If you can't be honest enough to use the proper term, "mercenaries," then there's no reason to believe that your criticism of Kos is in good faith. "

Why is "mercenaries" the proper term?

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

I demand a recount. "Tribes" is most deserving of The Golden Wingnut Award.

Can we have a do-over?

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on November 6, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter shortstop: "I'm an idiot."

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Why is "mercenaries" the proper term?

Because it isn't a euphemism ("private contractors") designed to disguise the fact that these guys are mercenaries.

Posted by: Gregory on November 6, 2007 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Is there a gnat in here?

Tilli, perhaps next time Kevin can rotate the entries as many people rotate their links, blogrolls, etc. I really hate to see Whittle ripped off like this.

Posted by: shortstop on November 6, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

"I don't even know how to engage with this. It needs an addendum justifying the torture of the English language. "

The English language is not being tortured. Perhaps you feel tortured because you're unable to refute the points I'm making.


Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

There's plenty of idiocy within the left blogosphere to go around.

Waiting for links....

[crickets]

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

"Interesting that you cannot substantiate this, dear heart. With all of those "hateful" blog posts out there, it should be trivially easy for you to come up with dozens of examples, right? And yet not a single one do you provide, other than that old chestnut from DK, which has been adequately covered elsewhere. Why are you having so much trouble, dear?"

I'm not having any trouble. I don't feel it would be a particular good use of my time to pore through and catalogue hundreds of extreme and offensive lefty blog posts just to identify the ones I consider the most obnoxious. What would be the point of such an exercise? It's obvious most of the people here are uninterested in a comparison of extreme moonbat vs. extreme wingnut blogposts or Kevin would have included both sides in the voting in the first place. I'm simply pointing out that the "winners" of Kevin's contest pale in comparison to the examples of moonbat hatefulness listed by Al. (I've also mentioned Rosie O'Donnell's 9/11-conspiracy nonsense as another example from the lefty loonisphere.) If you want a comprehensive study, get me some grant money and we'll go from there.

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

I don't feel it would be a particular good use of my time to pore through and catalogue hundreds of extreme and offensive lefty blog posts just to identify the ones I consider the most obnoxious.

We can see you're awfully busy. We'll settle for a few "middling obnoxious" posts.

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm not having any trouble."

ROFL... Yes, actually you are, dear, since you quite obviously cannot support your assertions.

"I don't feel it would be a particular good use of my time to pore through and catalogue hundreds of extreme and offensive lefty blog posts just to identify the ones I consider the most obnoxious."

LOL.... Q.E.D. Talk about a pathetic excuse....

"It's obvious most of the people here are uninterested in a comparison of extreme moonbat vs. extreme wingnut blogposts or Kevin would have included both sides in the voting in the first place."

ROFL.... Now your inability to support your views is our fault?! I love it!

"I'm simply pointing out...."

Yes, dear, we know what you're claiming. We're simply pointing out your utter inability to support your assertions.

I do so love it when you make our points for us, dear, but you really should try to do better. It would be nice if you would give us a bit of a challenge.

Posted by: PaulB on November 6, 2007 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

"The English language is not being tortured."

No, just mangled by your inability to comprehend what you read.

"Perhaps you feel tortured because you're unable to refute the points I'm making."

Dear heart, you haven't supported any of your points yet, which means that there is nothing to refute! Were you planning on doing this anytime soon?


Posted by: PaulB on November 6, 2007 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Rialto, If the left side of the blog world is so utterly saturated with unabashed hatred you claim, then you shouldn't have a hard time finding just a few posts, right? Right?

But now you claim you don't have the time to find them all. Nice. Keep moving those goalposts, buddy. Further further.

If you want a comprehensive study, get me some grant money and we'll go from there.

In other words, you realized how stupid you sounded the first time by making that assertion and now you cannot offer any proof at all.

What would be the point of such an exercise?

Oh, I dunno, maybe backing up your own little claim that the left side is FAR worse than the right when it comes to 'hateful' posts.

You come here screaming about how bad the left's blog posts are, and then you cannot even offer any evidence to support it.

Too funny.

Posted by: Paul Raven on November 6, 2007 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

That ex-liberal list of Bush's accomplishments is probably the stupidest post I've ever read. Every single one of his, "accomplishments" are abject failures, with maybe mixed results for NCLB.

To believe Bush has been successful as a president shows a complete lack of rationality. ex-liberal wants to believe soooo badly in these failed policies he'll ignore any and all facts to make him feel good.

Posted by: D. on November 6, 2007 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

mercenary ( pl. -naries) a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army. • a person primarily concerned with material reward at the expense of ethics : the sport's most infamous mercenary.

Call a spade a spade.

'"None of this happened by accident. Washington is broken. The system is rigged. Cronyism and corporate interests prevail over fairness and the best interests of the American people. Washington puts Wall Street before Main Street. Pharmaceutical companies before patients. Agricultural conglomerates before family farmers. If you want to think about all this in a very simple way, it's that Washington values wealth over work." - John Edwards

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

Would a small passing acknowledgment of the Poor Man's annual Golden Winger awards be too much? Your contest was different from his, so the oversight didn't bug me until you started calling your award the 'Golden Wingnut'. C'mon, give the C-list (but sometimes inspired) blog its due. He's been at this for years and has built up quite an archive of award-winning wingnutty goodness.

http://www.thepoorman.net/index.php?s=golden+winger

For a while there I thought I must be the only one who reads both blogs, but I see others have noticed the same thing.

Posted by: Doodah on November 6, 2007 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

Re: Shorstop 11:58,

Ah, yes, Steven Van Beste used to be one of my favorites. He had reasonably good observations and then horrible conclusions. For example, shortening you example and paraphrasing "For years and years, my whole life I have had horrible luck with women while those around me seem to do okay. There must be something wrong with the women!"

Geez, Steve, you're a goddamn nerd who has admitted he knows nothing about playing the human mating game and rather than swallow some pride and get some help you quit the game and complain that people play it! Here is a couple hints - no woman likes a whiner. No woman likes a quitter. And NO women in the world is gonna like a guy who is hostile towards her, even if you try to hid it!

Posted by: Tripp on November 6, 2007 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

Me: "Why is "mercenaries" the proper term?"

You: "Because it isn't a euphemism ("private contractors") designed to disguise the fact that these guys are mercenaries."

The problem I have with "mercenaries" is it seems to imply someone who will fight for whichever side pays the most money. In other words, no allegiance to the cause whatsoever beyond the paycheck. Was that true in the case of the contractors who were killed in Falluja? I doubt it, and I certainly wouldn't assume so. For all I know, the victims of these heinous killings were all highly patriotic Americans who believed what they were doing would make America safer and help spread freedom around the world. Again, I don't KNOW that was the case, but I'm not about to assume the worst about them. Perhaps you have some information and can speak to the character and motivations of the particular men who were killed. If so, please share it.

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, Rialto is a parody troll. Nice going, you had me fooled.

Posted by: Paul Raven on November 6, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Can we stop feeding the Rialto troll please. It's a cretin.

"It is generally agreed that casinos should, in the public interest, be inaccessible and expensive. And perhaps the same is true of Stock Exchanges." — John Maynard Keynes

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

It's not just that Hinderaker was wrong about everything, or that he wore his ineptly polemical heart on his sleeve far beyond what could even be considered insanely myopic; it's that he's such a mean, petty, and vicious asshole that makes him so vile. What a lousy citizen, this right-wing nudje. Ugly American indeed.

Posted by: mat on November 6, 2007 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry for feeding the troll, but...

Rialto,

You are taking a statement of dismissal and indifference (screw them) and turning it into an expression of approval (I'm glad they're dead).

You are also taking a word meaning to revel, rejoice and praise (celebrate) and insisting that it applies in instances of mild positive sentiment (affirm).

If you're willing to subject language to that kind of treatment in an effort to save face, it will say whatever you want (torture).

Posted by: uri on November 6, 2007 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

The insistence that I provide further examples of lefty moon-battery is nonsense. I have already pointed out examples (actually Al pointed most of them out first) that are far and away more despicable than ANY of the goofy right-wing blogposts that were the leading vote-getters in Kevin's contest.

I'll repeat a question I asked earlier: How does Michelle Malkin's stupid cheerleader routine compare with the hateful things Kos wrote about Americans killed in Falluja?

Kos' post alone substantiates what I am saying. Some people here claim Kos apologized for his post. I don't agree with that, but all such a claim shows is that Kos's post, unlike Malkin's, WARRANTED an apology. Anyone who doesn't think there are far uglier things being said by lefty bloggers than the things written by the Golden Wingnut winners is either being completely dishonest or has incredibly warped values.

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

How does Michelle Malkin's stupid cheerleader routine compare with the hateful things Kos wrote about Americans killed in Falluja?

Ah, the other bit of dissembling we expect from dishonest conservative trolls ... misleadingly referring to the mercenaries as Americans, thus conflating them with the service members who have no choice to be in Iraq.

Again, Rilto, why can't you be honest enough to refer to them as what they are, mercenaries? Could it be because doing so would validate Kos' post?

Posted by: Gregory on November 6, 2007 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

I have to say, I think the award given for the Glenn Reynolds post is a tad undeserved. Sure, the post looks spectacularly bad now, and the nasty gloating against people who turned out to be right on pretty much every point he gloats they were wrong on is both mean-spirited and impressively shortsighted. But the post, at the time it was written, presented a position that looked pretty presentable. Given the number of posts available that put forward claims that were demonstrably insane when the posts were made, it doesn't seem like a deserving award winner.

Posted by: Alex on November 6, 2007 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

"Rialto, If the left side of the blog world is so utterly saturated with unabashed hatred you claim, . . . "

That's not my claim at all. My claim is that the winners of the Golden Wingnut contest do not even begin to exhibit the same degree of poisonous rhetoric that can be found in the lefty blogsphere, as exemplified by the Kos post and others that have been mentioned.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how Hindraker's comment about Bush being a genius is a more offensive comment than what Kos wrote about the dead Americans in Fallujah.

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

You know, Rialto, the contest was for the "wingnuttiest" comments, not the most hateful. You should probably quit while you're behind, since hate has been spewing from the right blogs like a bad case of diarrhea since 9/11. Unless you consider postings about "terrorist sympathizers" and "hating the troops" to be compliments.

Posted by: smuggler on November 6, 2007 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

gosh i wish u ppl weren't so freakin retarded!

Posted by: sgtscott on November 6, 2007 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

"That's not my claim at all. My claim is that the winners of the Golden Wingnut contest do not even begin to exhibit the same degree of poisonous rhetoric that can be found in the lefty blogsphere, as exemplified by the Kos post and others that have been mentioned."

Dear heart, since you haven't supported either claim, it really doesn't matter. We're still waiting but we're not holding our breath. It's just fun watching you duck and weave and do everything in your power to ignore the fact that you have not and cannot support your claims.

"I'm still waiting for someone to explain how Hindraker's comment about Bush being a genius is a more offensive comment than what Kos wrote about the dead Americans in Fallujah."

Dear heart, it's been explained to you. You just don't like the explanation since you have no answer:

1. "Offensiveness" was not a criteria for Kevin's contest.

2. You are blatantly misreading Kos' original post and his followup.

But then you already know this and are just desperately trying to change the subject since you know you've been exposed as a fool.

Posted by: PaulB on November 6, 2007 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK
My claim is that the winners of the Golden Wingnut contest do not even begin to exhibit the same degree of poisonous rhetoric that can be found in the lefty blogsphere, as exemplified by the Kos post and others that have been mentioned.

Um ... actually, other than the one Kos post, no one has provided a single example of a BLOG POST that contains any "poisonous rhetoric." All I've seen posted are COMMENTS left in open forums -- much, much different than a blog post.

And if we want to start getting into comment trolling, you best go and tell them to shut down FreeRepublic, because that place is nothing but a magnet for xenophobes and racist scum.

Of course, this was never about "poisonous rhetoric" -- it was about the special kind of stupid one finds in the right blogosphere. What's so damn funny is that you moved the goal posts, yet are still unable to split the rhetorical uprights.

You're like the Lin Elliot of trolls ...

Posted by: Mark D on November 6, 2007 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

"Ah, the other bit of dissembling we expect from dishonest conservative trolls ... misleadingly referring to the mercenaries as Americans, thus conflating them with the service members who have no choice to be in Iraq. "

They were Americans. Their names were Scott Helvenston, Jerko Zovko, Wesley Batalona and Michael Teague. They were private military contractors with Blackwater. They were ambushed while assisting with food delivery operations in Fallujah. I believe they were all former special forces soldiers. Helvenston has his own Wikipedia entry that says he joined the Navy at age 16 and was in the SEALs for 12 years.

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

"The insistence that I provide further examples of lefty moon-battery is nonsense."

ROFL.... No, dear, it isn't. We provided examples; now it's your turn. If you cannot support your claims, just admit it and move on, dear.

"I have already pointed out examples (actually Al pointed most of them out first) that are far and away more despicable than ANY of the goofy right-wing blogposts that were the leading vote-getters in Kevin's contest."

No, dear, you haven't, but it's not surprising that you would pretend you have. As for dear little Al, he's a parody, not a real person, and the "examples" he cited were from blog commenters, not bloggers. There's a term for that, dear, and it's always a sign that the person doing the trolling cannot support their claims. Q.E.D.

"Kos' post alone substantiates what I am saying."

No, dear, it doesn't, but thanks for playing. We have some lovely consolation prizes for you.

"Anyone who doesn't think there are far uglier things being said by lefty bloggers than the things written by the Golden Wingnut winners is either being completely dishonest or has incredibly warped values."

ROFL.... Or who has visited sited like Malkin, HotAir, FreeRepublic, Powerline, Hugh Hewitt, LGF, RedState, SDB, and the myriad others from your side of the aisle. We've presented examples, dear; still waiting for yours. I suspect we'll be waiting for a long time.

Posted by: PaulB on November 6, 2007 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

"They were Americans"

Dear heart, what does that have to do with anything? And what does it have to do with the fact that you cannot support your many claims?

Dear heart, it's really funny watching you squirm, but you're really not doing yourself any favors by continuing to dig this hole deeper and deeper. You really should quit while you're behind.

Posted by: PaulB on November 6, 2007 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, Rialto doesn't even appear to understand the concept of the award, which is to find stuff that is so right-wing it's unintentionally funny, not so right-wing it's disgusting. A lot of it is disgusting too, but that's just incidental to the political vein.

So if you're looking for lefty comparisons, don't bother with Ward Churchill biting the heads off chickens or whatever. Find a liberal saying something that offers a bit of insight into his political psyche and is also unintentionally funny.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Posted by: sweaty guy on November 6, 2007 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Note that only 3 of the 5 entrants are conservatives. Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) is a libertarian who was a campaign worker for Al Gore. Anne Althouse is a Democrat.

Posted by: ex-liberal on November 6, 2007 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

They were ambushed while assisting with food delivery operations in Fallujah.

oooh, that's a new one....eliding the fact that these four mercenaries were providing security for -- riding shotgun, for, if you will -- food delivery missions. Why, Rialto makes it sound like they were handing out the food themselves!

It's very simple, Rialto. Repeatedly, you're avoiding the fact that the four who killed were mercenaries -- unlike our troops, who take an oath to defend this county and have no choice to be in Iraq, they were, in fact, serving by choice and for money.

And the fact that you're avoiding these facts despite them having been pointed out to you means that you not only are aware that the real terminology undermines your portrayal of them as some sort of martyrs, but also that you're quite deliberately misrepresenting Kos's posts.

Of course you prefer the euphemisms -- you can't be dishonest without them.

Posted by: Gregory on November 6, 2007 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Who's moving the goalposts? What I said about the winners of Kevin's contest is that it wasn't much of an indictment of the right-wing blogosphere if those 5 examples were the worst you people could come up with out of tens of thousands of right-wing blog entries. You have to admit it's pretty tame stuff.

As for the lefty side, I expressed the view that Al's examples of truly outrageous and offensive posts from the left were far worse than the Golden Wingnuts winners in terms of poisonous rhetoric.

If you want to claim it's an apples to oranges comparison because the Golden Wingnuts competition wasn't really about hatefulness, fine. But then why is anyone trying to defend the Kos post at all?

The fact is, there seems to be a fairly significant contingent here who share Kos' view that the AMERICANS ambushed in Fallujah, who were veterans of our armed forces serving an important support role in aid of the U.S. mission in Iraq, and whose bodies were dismembered, burned, and hung from a highway overpass, don't deserve to be mourned.

I find it disturbing that people here are expressing more outrage toward me, for "trolling" or whatever made-up transgression I am deemed to be committing by posting an opinion here, than are outraged over what Kos wrote and what his lowly defenders continue to stand by.

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Note that only 3 of the 5 entrants are conservatives. Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) is a libertarian who was a campaign worker for Al Gore. Anne Althouse is a Democrat.

Geez, "ex-liberal," it took you that long to think of something sufficiently dishonest to posty, and that hackeneyed bullshit is the best you can do?

Posted by: Gregory on November 6, 2007 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Oooopppppss....sorry, so sorry. I didn't mean to fall into crap pit. Thought it was an intelligent site!

Posted by: Sue on November 6, 2007 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

The fact is, there seems to be a fairly significant contingent here who share Kos' view that the AMERICANS ambushed in Fallujah, who were veterans of our armed forces serving an important support role in aid of the U.S. mission in Iraq, and whose bodies were dismembered, burned, and hung from a highway overpass, don't deserve to be mourned.

Really? By all means, point out a post that says they don't deserve to be mourned.

I, for one, whill say, however, that your conflating these mercenaries, yet again, with the American servicemen and women who have died in Iraq -- and in the service of such dishoenst propaganda, yet! -- dishonors our troops who had no choice but to serve there. Why do you hate the military so?

Posted by: Gregory on November 6, 2007 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

don't deserve to be mourned.

Here I thought their deaths were celebrated.

The backpedaling, it entertains

Posted by: uri on November 6, 2007 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK
As for the lefty side, I expressed the view that Al's examples of truly outrageous and offensive posts from the left were far worse than the Golden Wingnuts winners in terms of poisonous rhetoric.

Actually, all you expressed was your inability to tell the difference between a BLOG POST and a BLOG COMMENT.

As far as Kos' entry goes, I'm not all that familiar with it, so I can't comment on it all that much. I do know enough about it, however, to say that ONE POST from ONE BLOGGER is hardly representative of the entire lefty blogosphere.

And anyone who tries to say different is just clinically fucking stupid.

Posted by: Mark D on November 6, 2007 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Mark D,

It's worth noting that the statement by Kos wasn't even a blog post, it was a comment. Admittedly, Kos isn't your garden variety thread dweller, but the distinction is pertinent.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/4/1/144156/3224/16#c16

Posted by: uri on November 6, 2007 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

You include Derbyshire's comments after Virginia Tech but not Mark Steyn's far crazier comments about the same event - remember, they weren't real men?

Posted by: me itis on November 6, 2007 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

For some reason, linking to Dailykos comments is borked.

Thread: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/1/144156/3224

search "screw them"

Posted by: uri on November 6, 2007 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sure Hinderaker won only because his post had the sexiest quoted line. I suspect most voters didn't read all the posts.

It's hard for me to get on board with the award because, even though Hinderaker's opening line is way over the top and there's some dumb comments about global warming further down, the main point of the post was to celebrate the APPCDC, which -- in my opinion, anyway -- was a pretty decent accomplishment. No, it isn't a complete solution to global warming, but it was a good thing to do.

Of course, I'd say the main credit goes to Bob Zoellick, not George Bush, but Bush deserves some credit for hiring and keeping Zoellick -- one of the two or three guys who survived the Bush Administration with reputation intact.

It seems to me that one of the points Hinderaker is trying to make is that on the rare occasion that Bush actually does something right, everyone is so busy hating Bush that they fail to notice. This poll provides evidence for that point.

Posted by: mdl on November 6, 2007 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Great Kevi!!!!!!!

Hope you get a Sugar Plum gig at this year's Nutcracker. Watch out for Malkin, she'll kick your ass. Bring a hefty handbag for defense Sweetheart.

Bobbo

Posted by: Bob on November 6, 2007 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

Dunno what you're linking to uri, (the link is dead)
Basically, what you're ignoring is how you wingnuts continue to advocate for smaller, less-intrusive, strict constructionist, law & order govt. and violate all those principles for power and control.

So, these wingnut awards go to the heart of the hypocrisy of the right-wing. They don't have any beliefs other than the GOP first and screw the constitution, the military, and anyone else who gets in their way.

Posted by: D. on November 6, 2007 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

>And anyone who tries to say different is just clinically fucking stupid.
Posted by: Mark D

Man, I really like that 'clinically fucking stupid'.
CFS - oh crap those are my initials. And here I thought having my initials. That it also stands for Chicken Fried Steak was bad enough...

Arrgh!

'The US is on a path to economic Armageddon. Shorn of industry, dependent on offshored manufactured goods and services, and deprived of the dollar as reserve currency, the US will become a third world country. ' Greenspan and the Economy of Greed
As the Empire Slips
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09202007.html

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

"Really? By all means, point out a post that says they don't deserve to be mourned."

Do you think they deserve to be mourned?

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

"(Glenn Reynolds) is a libertarian who was a campaign worker for Al Gore. Anne Althouse is a Democrat."

Dear heart, they're both wingnuts, which is what the contest was intended to memorialize. It's rather foolish of you to pretend otherwise, but then foolishness seems to be your stock in trade these days.

Posted by: PaulB on November 6, 2007 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

"Do you think they deserve to be mourned?"

ROFL.... Thanks for admitting that, once again, you cannot back up your claims. Man, you really should have taken my advice and quit while you were behind. This is getting pretty pathetic.

Posted by: PaulB on November 6, 2007 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

Note that only 3 of the 5 entrants are conservatives. Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) is a libertarian who was a campaign worker for Al Gore. Anne Althouse is a Democrat.

Thanks for dropping by, Dr. Helen!


Posted by: Blue Texan on November 6, 2007 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

"Who's moving the goalposts?"

You are, dear, and it's hilarious watching you in action.

"What I said about the winners of Kevin's contest is that it wasn't much of an indictment of the right-wing blogosphere if those 5 examples were the worst you people could come up with out of tens of thousands of right-wing blog entries."

Dear heart, we could have easily found far worse by trolling the comments at, say, LGF or FreeRepublic. What we did, instead, was to highlight the idiocy of some rather well-known and popular bloggers on the right. These were easy to find, which is why we didn't need to spend much time on it or search out obscure bloggers or commenters nobody has ever heard of.

"You have to admit it's pretty tame stuff."

No, dear, it's silly stuff, which was the whole point of the contest.

"As for the lefty side, I expressed the view that Al's examples of truly outrageous and offensive posts from the left were far worse than the Golden Wingnuts winners in terms of poisonous rhetoric."

ROFL... Dear heart, you still cannot grasp the purpose of the contest, can you? Or the difference between a blogger and an anonymous commenter? Thanks for confirming you're an idiot.

"But then why is anyone trying to defend the Kos post at all?"

We're not, dear. We're just pointing out that you're blatantly and stupidly wrong.

"The fact is, there seems to be a fairly significant contingent here who share Kos' view that the AMERICANS ambushed in Fallujah, who were veterans of our armed forces serving an important support role in aid of the U.S. mission in Iraq, and whose bodies were dismembered, burned, and hung from a highway overpass, don't deserve to be mourned."

ROFL.... I love it when an idiot making unsupported claims makes further unsupported ad hominem attacks when challenged.

"I find it disturbing that people here are expressing more outrage toward me, for 'trolling' or whatever made-up transgression I am deemed to be committing by posting an opinion here, than are outraged over what Kos wrote and what his lowly defenders continue to stand by."

Yes, dear, we'll be sure to take your "disturb[ance]" as seriously as it warrants. And we're not "outraged" at you, dear; we're amused by you; we're laughing at you. Do try to learn the difference.

Posted by: PaulB on November 6, 2007 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and Rialto, dear? We're still waiting for all those thousands of examples of offensive lefty posts you claim you can easily find.

Posted by: PaulB on November 6, 2007 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

"Oh, and Rialto, dear? We're still waiting for all those thousands of examples of offensive lefty posts you claim you can easily find."

Liar.

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB: "Really? By all means, point out a post that says they don't deserve to be mourned."

Rialto: Do you think they deserve to be mourned?

Okay, now, that's just embarrassing, even by wingnut standards. This Rialto guy is so dumb he doesn't even realize you could spot his red bottom from outer space after his multihour spanking.

Posted by: express written consent on November 6, 2007 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

This is a very weird place.

Why doesn't everyone just answer the question? Do you agree with Kos or not? The fact that everyone is refusing to come to grips with the question speaks volumes.

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

I'm really disappointed that Ben Domenech of Red Nation came in dead last. Once again the Washington Post proves They Just Don't Get It even when it comes to wingnuttery.

Posted by: yellojkt on November 6, 2007 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

Rialto, just go away, little girl.

Posted by: KJ on November 6, 2007 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

I would like to congratulate ex-liberal on his excellent memory (or research abilities) Quote: "I remember when Truman was regarded as an ignorant haberdasher...".
That remark about President Truman was made by Senator Robert A. Taft (R-OH) upon Mr. Truman's winning the 1948 presidential election. Sen. Taft's full remarks were "I can't believe the people of this country voted for that failed haberdasher!"
President Eisenhower tried to appear to be a non-political, hands-off president; his papers in the Eisenhower Library show otherwise. President Reagan, however, WAS a second-rate actor.
As for GWB; well, let him have his dreams now, he can still be impeached after he leaves office - no pension, no position, can't hold any "position of trust" in the Federal government. (Still want to see him in an orange jumpsuit, though)

Posted by: Doug on November 6, 2007 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

"he can still be impeached after he leaves office "

Um.

Really?

The man, after he leaves office, can be tried in order to remove him from office?

That's brilliant.

Posted by: ugh on November 6, 2007 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

My God, Al, you couldn't find five outrageous lefty blog posts without resorting to two comments and a Ward Churchill?

Worst. Troll. Ever.

Posted by: Alan in SF on November 6, 2007 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

Why doesn't everyone just answer the question?

Because, you dishonest turd, I challenged you to back up your claim that -- and I quote:

there seems to be a fairly significant contingent here who share Kos' view that the AMERICANS ambushed in Fallujah, who were veterans of our armed forces serving an important support role in aid of the U.S. mission in Iraq, and whose bodies were dismembered, burned, and hung from a highway overpass, don't deserve to be mourned

...by pointing out a few examples of this supposed "fairly significant contingent."

Your later questioning whether we agree that they deserve to be mourned is an obvious admission that your mouth wrote a check that your search function can't cash -- and a rather vile, outrageous, and insulting implication at that -- and we're under no obligation whatsoever to do your homework for you.

In short, Rialto, we aren't answering your question because you're obviously not arguing in good faith, and because it's entirely likely that you'd be too fucking dumb to read the answer.

Jackass.

Posted by: Gregory on November 6, 2007 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB: they're [Reynolds and Althouse are] both wingnuts, which is what the contest was intended to memorialize.

D.: these wingnut awards go to the heart of the hypocrisy of the right-wing. They don't have any beliefs other than the GOP first and screw the constitution, the military, and anyone else who gets in their way.

Anyone who considers an Independent and a Democrat to be right-wing must be very far left, compared to the average American.

Posted by: ex-liberal on November 6, 2007 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone who considers an Independent and a Democrat to be right-wing must be very far left, compared to the average American.

Anyone who takes Reynolds and Althouse's claims to be an Independent -- much less a libertarian -- or a Democrat at face value, in comparison with their right-wing blog postings, is either an idiot or dishonest....oh, hi, "ex-liberal"!

I know you like to post in bad faith, "ex-liberal," but that one's low even by your standards. It must have given you a special sick thrill to post such insultingly obvious bullshit. You almost make the Instahack seem intellectually honest.

Posted by: Gregory on November 6, 2007 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

You think calling someone a "turd" is arguing in good faith? Or how about KJ calling me a "little girl"? I believe that kind of argument is called ad hominen.

Your comrade PaulB flat-out LIED in asserting that I said I could "easily find" "thousands of examples of offensive lefty posts," only to then taunt me for failing to produce those thousands of posts. Is that what you mean when you talk about arguing in good faith?

The problem with arguing in good faith in this particular forum is finding someone -- anyone -- who is willing to engage in such an argument without resorting to name-calling, dishonesty, or evasions.

But here's a proposal that may make us all happy. No snarky replies, please; this is a serious proposal: You guys kindly direct me to a well-trafficked blog or forum in which I can engage in SERIOUS debate and discussion with lefties, in which people don't resort to ad hominen attacks, distortions, evasions, etc., and in which a legitimate exchange of opposing views is appreciated, and I swear I will never visit this site again. Everybody wins: I find a forum where serious debate is welcome, and you guys can eliminate the intrusion of an opposing point of view into your precious little echo-chamber.

Posted by: Rialto on November 6, 2007 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

Hello, Drum....anyone home?

Nope....

Nominate this post for the most cheesiest self-serving crap I've seen in 50 years of journalism.

If this is the "new media" we're screwed.

Posted by: Jack Moss on November 7, 2007 at 12:08 AM | PERMALINK

Rialto, you could try the Straight Dope Great Debates board. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=7

Posted by: ex-liberal on November 7, 2007 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK

Irony alert: "ex-liberal" offers an opinion on a forums in which good-faith debate takes place.

Further irony alert: Rialto, who has failed to back up assertions when called on them, complains about "finding someone -- anyone -- who is willing to engage in such an argument without resorting to name-calling, dishonesty, or evasions."

I believe that kind of argument is called ad hominen.

No, Rialto, that isn't an argument, it's an insult (and it's called ad hominem, dipstick). Its an insult, and one you richly deserve from your behavior in this forum. Once again, dickcheese, you insulted everyone in this forum by claiming -- and again I quote, with emphasis mine:

there seems to be a fairly significant contingent here who share Kos' view that the AMERICANS ambushed in Fallujah, who were veterans of our armed forces serving an important support role in aid of the U.S. mission in Iraq, and whose bodies were dismembered, burned, and hung from a highway overpass, don't deserve to be mourned

Let's leave aside the fact that, once again, you misrepresented Kos' statement yet again, despite having been corrected over and over. Let's leave aside the repetition of emotionally-charged buzzwords designed to -- as yet again was pointed out to you -- conflate the mercenaries with legitimate American soldiers. I challenged you to cite an example of this so-called "fairly significant contingent," Rialto, and have had nothing but evasions from you. Making assertions -- and insulting ones at that -- that you can't back up when challenged isn't "a legitimate exchange of opposing views," tool. If you want a forum where you can spew your phony right-wing garbage and not get challenged on it, call Rush Limbaugh's show. Assholes like you deserve each other.

Given your repeated bad behavior in this forum, your persistent dishonesty and your utter failure to defend your assertions, your petulant, foot-stamping temper tantrum is utterly hilarious.

Jackass.

Posted by: Gregory on November 7, 2007 at 5:38 AM | PERMALINK

Gregory, your feelings of being insulted are duly noted. However, you are barking up the wrong tree. All I was looking for was some express acknowledgment by Kos' defenders that they did not in fact share Kos' view, as expressed in his initial post, that the Americans killed in Fallujah were unworthy of being mourned. (That is not, BTW, any kind of misrepresentation of what Kos wrote, as any honest person would admit.)

The reason I have asked people here to state whether or not they agree with Kos is because while people have expressed all kinds of hostility toward me for criticizing Kos, nobody has explicitly criticized Kos for what he wrote. Thus, it seems reasonable to ask forthrightly whether you guys agreed with Kos' statement that the Americans killed in Fallujah did not deserve to be mourned, which would of course give everyone the opportunity to take a clear stand on the matter. Remarkably, nobody here is willing to answer the question. Instead, what I am left with by way of responses is: (a) accusations that I have somehow misrepresented the facts of the Fallujah ambush by referring to the victims as "Americans" (although they were all undeniably Americans and military veterans at that); (b) accusations that I am being dishonest by virtue of my completely reasonable refusal to refer to the victims as "mercenaries" (the basis for which refusal I explained in some detail); (c) accusations of dishonesty based on my completely reasonable unwillingness to accept Kos' follow-up post as an apology (again, the basis for which I have explained in some detail); (d) responses from people like PaulB that contain outright lies about what I have posted, evidently fabricated by him in order to give him some material that would be easy to refute; (e) a continuous barrage of ad hominem attacks; all topped off with (f) patronizing drivel from you accusing ME of being the person here refusing to argue in good faith!

Any reasonable person would discern from the comments I have received, as well as from your refusal simply to disassociate yourselves from Kos' ugly and evil comments, that you, PaulB, and others here are largely in sympathy with Kos' sentiments and are being hostile to me primarily because I have made it clear I strongly disagree with those sentiments. It is obvious that your issue with me is not on account of my alleged violations of the standards of civilized debate, because it is clear from your ad hominem attacks and willful misrepresentations of what I have written that neither of you adhere to any such standards. You are verbal Brown Shirts.

Which brings me back to my original point: It is not me who is insulting you; you are insulting yourselves (and Kevin, I suppose, because he probably doesn't enjoy seeing his blog being brought down to the level of an intellectual cesspool).

Anyway, please continue to wallow in anger and hatred, as this is clearly the way to win people over in the long run.

Before I go, thanks to ex-liberal for the advice on another forum to check out. This one's done.

Posted by: Rialto on November 7, 2007 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

All I was looking for was some express acknowledgment by Kos' defenders that they did not in fact share Kos' view, as expressed in his initial post, that the Americans killed in Fallujah were unworthy of being mourned.

No, Rialto -- once again -- and since I've quoted you twice already, I'm just going to paraphrase this time -- you first asserted that many in this forum did believe that the mercenaries were unworthy of being mourned, and then, in lieu of providing any examples, you then asked the participants you weigh in on the issue. You did not "ask forthrightly whether you guys agreed with Kos' statement that the Americans killed in Fallujah did not deserve to be mourned"; you asserted that we did.

Provide evidence, in the form of an actual statment to that effect -- not criticism of you for your misrepresentations, if you please, nor refusal to comment on the matter after you made your assertion -- or admit you were wrong. There's simply no other course available to you.

And leaving aside the point that you've proven yourself unqualified to comment on wjhat an honest person would admit, it's already been demonstrated to you that your interpretation of Kos's post is off base.

Once again, you're reaping the criticism due you for misrepresenting Kos and for making any number of other false and misleading statements as demonstrated upthread. Now you're misrepresenting the entire course of the debate -- not to mention the fact that you made an assertion you can't or won't support -- in a feeble attempt to change the subject.

Whether anyone agrees with Kos or not is irrelevant to the fact that you misrepresented Kos, continued to do so after being corrected, continued to avoid the accurate term "mercenaries" in favor of emotionally-charged, hagiographic and misleading terminology for the mercenaries -- again, after the practice was pointed out to you -- and made an assertion about the participant's beliefs that you failed to support when challenged.

(Again: Although it's true that the victims were Americans and military veterans, as has been pointed out to you time and again, they were mercenaries, and your continued avoidance of that fact, combined with what can only be a deliberate attempt to conflate them with legitimate American troops afte your proactice was pointed out to you, is simply dishonest. You did provide an excuse for not using the accurate term mercenary, but it is not reasonable, nor are you entitled any more to a presumption of good faith nor the benefit of the doubt.)

The point is, Rialto: You made an assertion about the participant's beliefs that you failed to support when challenged. There's simply no way that proactice qualifies as good faith debate. If you can support your assertion that the participants here believe the mercenaries don't deserve to be mourned with an actual citation, do so, but you don't get to use the fact that no one will help you with your fishing exhibition -- again, in lieu of an actual citation -- as evidence one way or another.

Again: You don't get to make a positive assertion about the opinions of those here, get challenged to back it up, and then use the subsequent refusal of anyone here to disassociate themselves with Kos as evidence that your original statement was correct. That dog just won't hunt.

You made the assertion. Support it if you can; until then, there's no reason to regard you as anything but another bad-faith Republican apologist, and we get far too many of those to show you good humor you don't deserve.

In short, Rialto, yes, you are arguing in bad faith. At best it's because you're simply an idiot with poor reading comprehension and an unwarranted faith in right-wing propaganda. Take heart -- in calling you dishonest, the participants here are giving you credit for at least some intelligence. If you'd rather plead to being an idiot, though, that's fine with me.

Posted by: Gregory on November 7, 2007 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

"This is a very weird place."

Actually, it's not even remotely weird. It is, however, populated with intelligent people who know bullshit when they see it and who are well aware of the usual tricks, fallacies, and inanities of those who cannot support their arguments. Guess where you fall, dear?

"Why doesn't everyone just answer the question?"

Because it's a stupid, irrelevant question? Because it's a question designed to disguise the fact that you made a personal attack that you cannot support?

"Do you agree with Kos or not? The fact that everyone is refusing to come to grips with the question speaks volumes."

LOL.... Yes, dear, it speaks "volumes" that we know shit when we see it and we refuse to play your silly little games.

Posted by: PaulB on November 7, 2007 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

"However, you are barking up the wrong tree."

No, actually he's not. You were called on your crap so you resorted to a lame ad hominem attack. When you were called on that, you resorted to this pathetic tactic.

"All I was looking for was some express acknowledgment by Kos' defenders that they did not in fact share Kos' view, as expressed in his initial post"

No, dear, that's not what you were looking for. You not only completely misstated Kos' views, you insisted that the people here shared that distorted view. When it was pointed out to you that you had zero evidence for either of these assertions, you resorted to this pathetic, and quite transparently revealing, tactic. And when we wouldn't play your silly little games, you childishly stamped your feet and vowed to take your ball and go home.

"(That is not, BTW, any kind of misrepresentation of what Kos wrote, as any honest person would admit.)"

ROFL.... Yes, actually, it is, as any honest person would admit.

"The reason I have asked people here to state whether or not they agree with Kos is because..."

... you got caught making claims you cannot support and this is your last-ditch effort to save some face. It really is just that simple.

"(d) responses from people like PaulB that contain outright lies about what I have posted, evidently fabricated by him in order to give him some material that would be easy to refute;"

ROFLMAO.... Oh, the irony....

"(e) a continuous barrage of ad hominem attacks; all topped off with"

ROFLMAO.... Oh, the irony....

"(f) patronizing drivel from you accusing ME of being the person here refusing to argue in good faith!"

Dear heart, the truth hurts, doesn't it?

"Any reasonable person"

Dear, I don't think you know the meaning of the word, "reasonable."

"and are being hostile to me primarily because I have made it clear I strongly disagree with those sentiments."

No, dear, we're "hostile" to you (and laughing at you and mocking you) because you're an idiot posting mindless partisan drivel and are wholly unable to substantiate or support a single claim.

"It is obvious that your issue with me..."

... is that you're a idiot posting mindless partisan drivel and are wholly unable to substantiate or support a single claim.

"Anyway, please continue to wallow in anger and hatred, as this is clearly the way to win people over in the long run."

ROFLMAO.... Dear, what part of "laughing our asses off" are you having trouble understanding? You're funny dear. We love mocking and watching your pathetic attacks and your pathetically digging that hole deeper and deeper. There was never any hope of winning you over in the long run, dear, as your very first post on this thread revealed. All you're fit for is mockery.

Posted by: PaulB on November 7, 2007 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Steven Den Beste didn't really retire. He now makes blog posts ogling anime characters. This sudden change happened right around the time the Iraq War started to fall apart and the sheen of George W. Bush as visionary Churchillian Warrior-Genius started to fade.

Posted by: Joshua on November 7, 2007 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Send them two dildoes and a wetsuit.

Posted by: horatius on November 7, 2007 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Upset that he didn't win, Kim du Toit has posted a new entry: It's because we are Americans that we can torture.

Posted by: Easter Lemming on November 8, 2007 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

Nominate this post for the most cheesiest self-serving crap I've seen in 50 years of journalism.

Fifty years in "journalism", Jack (or is it Hack?) Moss and no one has ever heard of you? Nice "fifty years in journalism". Congratualtions.

Rialato, your tactic of demanding that those you are debating take a certain position, i.e. they admit the "contractors" should be mourned, is a hackneyed right-wing tactic used constantly by media clowns like Sean Hannity. It is not an argument or a debate.

And since you've highjacked the comments to talk about the Blackwater employees, I don't doubt these were decent men for the most part, but they were not "contractors". They were, in fact, mercenaries doing a dirty job for big pay. The possiblity of sudden and horrible death is part of the job description. They knew that very well.

They were not heroes. The real heroes do worse jobs in Iraq for about $24,000 a year and do multiple fifteen month deployments. They were also employed by the same firm whose employees recently shot up a public square in Baghdad killing scores of civilians. The U.S. Army doesn't much like Blackwater "contractors". You can imagine how Iraqis feel about them.


Posted by: Pug on November 9, 2007 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

Why bother? Let's just euthanize all of the contestants and start over next week again!!!!!

Posted by: Marty on November 9, 2007 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

You know, I think the wingnuts are just mad that recent events have vindicated Kos's "Screw 'em" comment.

Posted by: The Truffle on November 21, 2007 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly