Skip to main content

Last November, Joe Lieberman wrote his now-famous op-ed in the Wall Street Journal defending George W. Bush's Iraq policy. In recent days, the Journal editorial staff has repaid the favor--and with above-prime rate interest.

Today's editorial page includes a column entitled "Liberal McCarthyism" by veteran Democratic mandarin and Lieberman supporter Lanny Davis.

The bottom line: Davis has equated liberal Democrats with not only Joe McCarthy but Ann Coulter as well. His logic has more holes than the offensive line of the Detroit "Lions."

During the past few weeks, Davis spent some time sifting through anti-Lieberman posts. The posts he inserted into his column--three here on dKos and two on the Huffington Post--cover a range of dates from last December to last month, which means he's done enough cherry-picking to qualify for an honorary membership in the United Farmworkers Union.

One post that offended Davis, by tomjones, read as follows:

"as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on"

An inexcusably ugly post to be sure, but tomjones is a relatively infrequent poster here, and has not put up a diary. And he represents exactly .001 percent of dKos membership.

Davis offers two other poset by Kossacks as evidence that Lieberman's opponents are no better than Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, or Rush Limbaugh.

ctkeith wrote:

"Joe's on the Senate floor now and he's growing a beard. He has about a weeks growth on his face....I hope he dyes his beard Blood red. It would be so appropriate"

And greenskeeper wrote:

"Joe Lieberman is a racist and a religious bigot"

In the words of sportscaster Keith Jackson, "hold the phone!"

Let's play a little compare and contrast here. Here are a few of the many bons mots that Coulter has unleashed in the name of discourse:

On the art of gentle persuasion: "I think a baseball bat is the most effective way [to talk to liberals] these days."

Why Joe McCarthy was a wimp: "When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that [American Taliban supporter] John Walker [Lindh] is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors."

High crimes and misdemeanors: "[Clinton] raped a woman and molested interns in the White House."

On women: "We're not that bright." This from a member of the Law Review at U-M Law School.

"Loonie" views of our neighbor to the north: Canadians "better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent."

On winning Muslims' hearts and minds: "America should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.'

When complaining to the ombudsman doesn't work: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

Finally, Ann's version of Article III of the Constitution: "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee."

Can you say false equivalence? I though you could.

Davis also made this lame attempt to tie Ned Lamont to the most hot-headed figures in the blogosphere:

Moreover, the support he gets from these haters should not be attributed to Mr. Lamont--nor should he be blamed for their extremism, bigotry and intolerance. But he ought to denounce them. He hasn't as yet.

Oh? And what about Joe Lieberman's new-found friends--the right-wing figures who hold him up as "the good Democrat" for reflexively supporting a war of choice against a country that didn't pose an imminent danger? The Lord of Stamfordshire hasn't disavowed them.

Davis closes with these words:

Mr. Lamont and all other liberal Democrats should remember the McCarthy era and not fall into the trap of the hypocrisy of the double standard--that it's not OK when Ann Coulter dispenses her venomous hatred, but it is OK when our side's versions of Ann Coulter do.

Par for the course for a columnist who seeks to tar an entire community for the intemperate posts of the likes of tomjones. Davis needs to visit a Home Depot, and in a hurry. The brush he's using to paint Lieberman's opponents is much too broad.

Update: As a number of posters mentioned, the comment by tomjones was a snarky response to another comment that was troll-rated. Either Lanny Davis wasn't doing his due diligence, or he figured he could skate on this one. Hat tip to all of you who pointed this out.

Originally posted to Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:14 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Great minds think alike (6+ / 0-)

    but you have done a better job of 'contexting' these quotes.

    Kudos!

    (look one diary down on the 'recent' list!)

    Abe: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star!

    by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:08:23 AM PDT

  •  What he is doing (5+ / 0-)

    Is trying to make us feel uncomfortable in our own backyard.  By pulling out the most egregious examples of hyperbole and outrageous comment (yes, outrageous) he is trying to make us censor ourself for fear that we will look bad.

    That said, I try to always say what I mean and mean what I say...and they can quote me on that.

    There are bagels in the fridge

    by Sychotic1 on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:09:30 AM PDT

    •  They did that to Kos himself (4+ / 0-)

      Whenever right-wingers or Democratic hawks attack this site, they inevitably bring up Kos's remark about military contractors in Iraq--which, by the way, was taken out of context.

      "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul."--George Bernard Shaw

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:11:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Problem is ... (14+ / 0-)

      in this open community, all except the most extreme voices remain as part of an open, permanent record.  

      And, I've never tried -- but if TUs can search hidden comments ...

      It is extremely easy to cherry pick from within Daily Kos to then have "weapons" with which to attack it.  

      Now, the "real" equivalent might be if one quoted along the lines of "I heard someone on the street say ..." since this is a community. The larger polity of the United States, however, does not yet recognize the openness of the discussion space within the blog world -- and, especially, here at Daily Kos.  Thus, there is a power for citing "tomjones" ...

      But, the true disgusting nature of Lanny Davis is that he totally quoted Tomjones out of context.  Check the post with its parent:

      Why Should Joe Care (0.97 / 40)
      ....about a bunch of goyim dying in Iraq?

      It's not like anybody he cares about is suffering as a direct result of the war.

      by greenskeeper on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 01:53:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      right (3.63 / 11)
      because as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on
      by tomjones on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 02:04:20 PM PDT

      In other words, TomJones was responding with sarcasm to a post that was troll rated!!!  Talk about selective quotation!!

      PS:  Should speak for him/herself, but I see "TomJones" is probably Jewish based on some of the posts that I saw.

      4 July 2006, Independence Day ... Day 1757, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

      by besieged by bush on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:23:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And Kossacks shunned the bigoted poster (7+ / 0-)

        Forty ratings that netted out to an 0.97 can fairly be described as a strong indication that the poster's views are not shared by this community.

        "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul."--George Bernard Shaw

        by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:25:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course ... (10+ / 0-)

          The other comment that Lanny Davis quotes, of course, was Greenskeeper's response to TomJones sarcasm:

          Lieberman Marched for Lieberman (1.57 / 28)
          ....because he saw political advantage. More recently, he has supported the racist views of Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve.

          In 2000, while running for VP, Lieberman made public statements to the effect that belief in god is the only basis for morality and ethics.

          Joe Lieberman is a racist and a religious bigot.

          And as I have argued elsewhere, Lieberman is as representative of Jewish people as Strom Thurmond was of white Christian Americans. No more and no less.

          White Americans of good faith publicly separated themselves from Thurmond and his ilk. It is incumbent on Jewish Americans of good faith to publicly distance themselves for Joe Lieberman, lest they wish to be thought apologists for his racism, religious bigotry, and callous indifference to torture and carnage.

          by greenskeeper on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 02:12:04 PM PDT

          Note that this had a 1.57 rating with 28 raters (can't get to the list to see who gave recommend).  And, what were responses to Greenskeeper, how about:

          so let me get this straight... (none / 0)
          ...you're suggesting that since you believe Lieberman is a bigot, that makes it okay for you to be a bigot right back???

          Brilliant.

          by odum on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 02:21:01 PM PDT

          There was no mention of Lieberman's merits or lack thereof, just a throwaway post.

          The post didn't make the case that Lieberman was a bigot, it simply put his jewishness front and center as a standalone attack in-and-of-itself.

          When challenged by the suggestion that this wasn't an adequate basis for an attack, he then justified the post with the after-the-fact argument/suggestion that Lieberman was a bigot, and therefore the attack was justified. Again, the original attack was based ONLY on his ethnicity. It was one line.

          ...and then, he further demanded that all other Jews should stand up and be counted against Lieberman lest they be judged harshly.

          This aint good.

          by odum on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 04:59:27 PM PDT

          and

          Wrong. (4.00 / 5)
          Once upon a time Joe literly risked his life by going down South to help register black voters so your Strom Thurmond remark is particularly disgusting.

          Joe is a great disappoint to us all on Iraq but that doesn't mean that he is a bigot or a racist.

          by Sam I Am on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 03:27:57 PM PDT

          or

          today's recipe (none / 1)
          one stupid asshat, lightly broiled

          See ya, punk

          by shpilk on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 04:48:24 PM PDT

          And,

          I think (none / 0)
          that this is an utterly reprehensible comment.  There should be no place for anti-Semitism on this site.
          by mattinla on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 07:27:54 PM PDT

          Lanny Davis merits a factual counterbalancing -- with serious letters to the WSJ calling for fact checking against their deplorable OPEDs.

          4 July 2006, Independence Day ... Day 1757, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

          by besieged by bush on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:40:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, surely you are mistaken 'cause Lanny (0+ / 0-)

          Davis said we are equivalent to McCarthyites, and your find would negate the esteemed and self-righteous Mr. Davis.

          I've said before that I used to think a great deal of Mr. Davis until his appearance on C-Span in behalf of Lieberman last week or the week before wherein he called many of the callers bigots and dismissed their comments.

  •  Ouch. Posted on same topic at roughly the same (4+ / 0-)

    time. Sorry. We deal with some different aspects, though, so maybe it wasn't too duplicative.

  •  The tomjones comment (12+ / 0-)

    I found it. It was very clearly snark, in response to a troll-rated anti-Semitic comment. Davis took it out of context.

    •  The response to his comment was troll-rated, too (5+ / 0-)

      You'd think a lawyer as smart as Lanny Davis would have done better-quality research than that.

      "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul."--George Bernard Shaw

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:17:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why let a silly thing like facts (5+ / 0-)

        get in the way of your pre-conceived narrative?

        He is smart, just lacks scholarly integrity.

        Democrats are the party of those who are working, those who have finished working, and those who want to work. -- Elizabeth Edwards

        by philgoblue on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:19:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A lawyer 'defending' a client ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dump Terry McAuliffe

          and presenting a case ... not a scholar investigating/documenting an issue.

          This was an OPED (in the WSJ), not an article.

          4 July 2006, Independence Day ... Day 1757, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

          by besieged by bush on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:28:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So you're arguing that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            besieged by bush

            there ought to be no standard to judge the honesty of authors and that there comments need not be within the realm of possibility, that they can just take things completely out of context?  Yuk.

            Democrats are the party of those who are working, those who have finished working, and those who want to work. -- Elizabeth Edwards

            by philgoblue on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:42:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No ... No ... NO ... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              philgoblue, vcmvo2

              But, it is worth noting that Lanny Davis makes no pretense to be a scholar ... he is a lawyer ... and he is presenting a "case" on an OPED page.  We should attack him for his misrepresentation in how his "truthiness" is not truthful.  He merits that attack.

              I believe in judging authors re "truthful" -- "truthiness" is for Colbert, rather than a reality-based community.  I was just noting the reality of the situation.

              4 July 2006, Independence Day ... Day 1757, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

              by besieged by bush on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:45:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  You probably want to update the diary (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dump Terry McAuliffe, jfadden

        with this.

      •  True, Truthiness ... but not Truthful (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dump Terry McAuliffe

        Davis did not lie in the OPED ... but simply presented a rather skewed perspective of reality.  What he presented was true and met his need for truthiness, but absolutely not truthful.

        A lawyer is supposed to present a case to win for his/her client. There is an obligation not to directly lie ... but there is not, as I understand it, a requirement to move beyond true (and truthiness) to full disclosure and absolutely truthful.

        This is the thread.

        It would be great if TomJones were willing to write a LTE to the WSJ taking on Lanny Davis -- even it is after the election (by definition).

        We should all do so.

        4 July 2006, Independence Day ... Day 1757, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

        by besieged by bush on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:27:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Troll-rating? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dump Terry McAuliffe

        What's that? (snark)

        I'm sure that Davis didn't comb the site himself.  More likely, somebody who doesn't understand sarcasm sent it to him.

        "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." Steven Wright

        by gsbadj on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:32:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What makes you think he didn't know that? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dump Terry McAuliffe

        A lawyer as smart as Lanny Davis will use whatever evidence he can for his position.

        Providing context is much more difficult.  He knows that and he knows that the rebuttal will necessarily be more complex.  

        Some DC reporter over the weekend explained how difficult it will be for the Democrats to explain why they voted against bill raising the minumum wage even though it was tied to a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.  

        Davis is smart enough to know that he can be contemptuous of the value of having a civil discourse because he knows he will not be called on it.  

        The wise are driven by reason; ordinary minds, by experience; the stupid, by necessity, and brutes by instinct. Cicero

        by MoDem on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 08:45:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Davis cherry-picked his evidence (0+ / 0-)

          I wonder if he expected people to double-check his work and call him out on it. Not that it matters very much; his column appeared on the pages of a newspaper that is read by millions of people.

          "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul."--George Bernard Shaw

          by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 08:51:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Holy shit! (4+ / 0-)

      That is outrageous. That is exactly how it reads - a real comment like that would get troll rated to oblivion. It must have been obvious to Davis as well.

      Bad enough he would compare a few random posters to Ann Coulter. But this demands a retraction.

    •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)

      Lanny Davis doesn't include the title to the comment (which was "Right"), and the comment it was in response to was clearly anti-Semitic and trollrated to death.  The tomjones comment was dripping with sarcasm.

      Lanny Davis also fucked up by adding "[by Lieberman]" to the "propanganda" --- there is nothing to back that up, and indeed it makes far more sense to be read as all that supposed propaganda in general from those "damn" jews who participated in the civil rights movement. (Lanny Davis will, of course, miss the snark here).

      This level of stupidity makes me want to take a rope, choke Lanny Davis, and hang him from the nearest tree (LD will also miss this snark and obvious reference to the vitriol from the right, who really do want to lynch political enemies).

      FUCKING RETARDED.

      "I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium." - Jon Stewart

      by Slim Tyranny on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:18:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I could tell it was sarcastic without needing the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dump Terry McAuliffe, jfadden

      context you provided. What's his problem?

      If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.

      by jhecht on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:24:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Davis is fundamentally correct (0+ / 0-)
    ... but the case requires further explanation.

    None Dare Call It Stupid!

    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:15:14 AM PDT

    •  What the fuck? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dump Terry McAuliffe, vcmvo2

      RonK, you fall into stupidity often trying to  be I don't know what.

      But  you have never gone this far.

      So are those criticisms of McDermott's conducr prior to the Iraq War "essentially correct?"

      This is inexcusable from you.

      It seems to me if Davis is "essentially correct" then you really should disassociate yourself from this site.  

      Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

      by Armando on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 10:09:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've been wondering (0+ / 0-)

        that lately myself. RonK often makes these cryptic statements but this one is inexcusable, imo.

        The men who question power determine whether we use power or power uses us- JFK 10/26/1963

        by vcmvo2 on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:09:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Good example of McCarthyite logic (0+ / 0-)
        If I agreed with something Lanny Davis said this morning, I must have agree with everything he ever said.

        Is that the unstated major premise of your attack? Pure McCarthyism.

        How about Kos's announcement that Davis was in frat with Bush, and that explains everything? Classic McCarthyism.

        dailyKos has evolved into a hate site with a bad case of War Fever. Not the sickest on the planet, but probably the sickest of its size.

        My role here is that of pariah and village idiot, who knows no better than to speak plain truth.

        None Dare Call It Stupid!

        by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:45:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What you agreed to this morning (0+ / 0-)

          is what I am objecting to Ron.

          The STATED objection is you embrace of the New McCarthyism that Davis spilled.

          I ask you if you do not see what should be obvious to any sane person - that which you endorsed today is the type of thinking that smeared McDermott.

          The type of thinking that leads Lieberman to call people like McDermott "the antisecurity wing of the Party."

          There is something pathetically sad about your attitude here. And so inherently contradictory that you must be in moral and logical tangles the entire day.

          Defending the likes of the New McCarthites like Lieberman and Davis while at the same time working with the objects of their attack - McDermott.

          I sympathize with you. Your head must explode every day.

          Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

          by Armando on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:57:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't find any record of Davis (or Lieberman)... (0+ / 0-)
            ... criticizing -- much less smearing -- McDermott for anything. (If I missed something, please advise, though I have difficulty understanding how it applies to this exchange.)

            I take it you object to my agreeing with Davis, because his thinking is LIKE that which people LIKE Davis engage in when they criticize people LIKE McDermott.

            Yes, I'm familiar with that kind of McCarthyite guilt by thirdhand association. It was commonplace in McCarthy's America, and persists even today among his remnant heirs, successors and assigns.

            Now, what about this analysis of yours distinguishes me from "any sane person"?

            None Dare Call It Stupid!

            by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 01:18:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Because you are foolishly blind (0+ / 0-)

              Pssst, Ron, McDermott is part of the antisecurity wing of the Democratic Party.

              You are so stupid Ron.

              Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

              by Armando on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 01:26:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Has Lieberman ever said 'antisecurity wing'? (0+ / 0-)
                Help me out here, Armando.

                What are you and all the other sane people raving about?

                None Dare Call It Stupid!

                by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 01:41:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Uh yes (0+ / 0-)

                  Today as a matter of fact Ron.

                  Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

                  by Armando on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 03:12:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ah - this, yesterday? (0+ / 0-)
                    NYT:
                    "They are anxious to say the left wing is taking over, the antisecurity wing," Mr. Lieberman said of Republicans.

                    As in this well-known litany?

                    If you are not anti-capitalist, anti-life, anti-white, anti-rich, anti-heterosexual, anti-morality, anti-security, anti-sovereignty, anti-freedom, anti-liberty, and generally anti-American today, you’re not a Democrat today.

                    So Lieberman says the Republicans will be calling Democrats "antisecurity", and guess what? The Republicans are already calling us "antisecurity"!

                    So, Mr. Lieberman's usage is quite correct ... don't you agree?

                    None Dare Call It Stupid!

                    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 03:57:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  {sigh} (0+ / 0-)
                3.0 version still has lotsa bugs.

                "Where some have found their paradise,Others just come to harm.."

                by Miss Devore on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 01:58:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Why ya got to bust on the Lions DTM? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe

    Come on Detroit already has the regular season winners in two sports (Redwings and Pistons, don't talk to me about the playoffs), and chances are good in another (Tigers), so why not assume miracles can happen (who would have thought the Tigers would be where they are or the Redwings would have thrived in the new NHL?).

    Go Lions!

    Though, as always, far more importantly, Go Blue!

    And, nice smack down of Lanny!

    Democrats are the party of those who are working, those who have finished working, and those who want to work. -- Elizabeth Edwards

    by philgoblue on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:17:53 AM PDT

    •  With the 'Lions,' it goes back decades (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      philgoblue, Tom Ball

      Ever since I moved to Michigan more than 30 years ago, the local media have spouted the party line that it was your civic duty to root for this team and that any criticism of its ownership or front office was tantamount to sedition. The late J.P. McCarthy, color commentator Mike Lucci, and especially sports talk-show host turned right-wing shill Frank Beckmann were the worst offenders. I wasn't amused by their antics.

      But on a brighter note, yesterday was Media Day at Michigan Stadium. Before you know it, they'll be playing football at the Big House.

      "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul."--George Bernard Shaw

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:22:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Honestly, I've never been much of an NFL fan (0+ / 0-)

        I didn't grow up in Michigan (just went to school and ended up here).  I'm too busy with Michigan to pay much attention to the Lions, and by the time Michigan is done playing, the Lions are out of it.

        Democrats are the party of those who are working, those who have finished working, and those who want to work. -- Elizabeth Edwards

        by philgoblue on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:28:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I prefer college ball to the NFL (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tom Ball

          That's probably because I grew in the NYC area and when I first got interested in sports, the NY Giants were God-awful (they once gave up 500 points in a 14-game season) and the Jets were still a minor-league franchise.

          Oh, and college teams don't play exhibition games, unless you count games like Eastern Michigan at U-M.

          "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul."--George Bernard Shaw

          by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:30:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Don't get too optimistic about 9/16... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dump Terry McAuliffe

        Could be a tough day for the Wolverines when they visit South Bend.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 08:07:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Notre Dame: a nightmare for Wolverine fans (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tom Ball

          Since the series resumed during the 1970s, Michigan has its share of heartbreak against the Irish, both at home and away. As Hunter S. Thompson might say to Wolverine fans about that game, "heavy duty for you guys."

          "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul."--George Bernard Shaw

          by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 08:13:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's a tough series... (0+ / 0-)

            I attended the '78 resumption of the series as a student, and it wasn't a pleasant day.  I also attended the '82 game, which was better from my perspective, as an alum.  My roommate at ND was a Detroit area native who swore by the Tigers, the Lions, Stroh's, and Bob Seger.  He got a PhD from UM.

            Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

            by RFK Lives on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 08:34:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I understand the Big House is (0+ / 0-)

        even bigger than last year.

  •  oh fuck him (3+ / 0-)

    Davis used to be one of G. Gordon Liddy's favorites on his wingnut WJFK radio show- for the sole reason that Liddy could take him apart so easily.  Davis is full of shit.    

    •  All of these 'centrist' operatives, (0+ / 0-)
      Davis is full of shit.

       the DC ones and the ones in their tiny state or county kingdoms, are full of shit. After years of reading their crap here I've concluded that being full of shit is an employment  prerequisite. They've always been threatened by the blogs and they've always impotently tried to control them. Perhaps we can figure out a way to outsource them to India.

      "...the definition of a gaffe in Washington is somebody who tells the truth but shouldn't have." Howard Dean

      by colleen on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 09:15:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lanny, if you want a party of conformists (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe

    where people don't question the leadership, become a Republican. It's one thing to vote against what most of the party supports, it's another thing entirely to always be the frontman for the opposition. It's not just his vote on the war that turned voters against him, it was his supreme arrogance in believing he has a birthright to this Senate seat.

    If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.

    by jhecht on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:22:14 AM PDT

  •  It's just like I posted in a similar diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    colleen, Dump Terry McAuliffe

    They fear what they can't control.

    If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.

    by jhecht on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:25:31 AM PDT

    •  They'd pre-approve voters if they could (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      colleen, Tom Ball

      Both parties are guilty of having a guild mentality regarding who can participate. The fact that we don't buy into it drives the mandarins up a wall.

      "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul."--George Bernard Shaw

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:27:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not so in my state (0+ / 0-)

        The NH GOP has several initiatives to suppress voting. They challenge college students, and they passed a law -- vetoed by Governor Lynch -- that would have required picture ID not just at registration tome but at the polls.

        The Dems have no initiatives to suppress voting here.

  •  My letter to the editor (9+ / 0-)

    Of course, this will never (otherwise) see the light of day, but will be baselessly described as a "death threat" that Lanny Davis received in response to his "speaking the truth."  But whatever, got to at least try and fight the bullshit.

    Lanny Davis needs to be a little more effort into his google searches.  One of his supposed examples of liberal hate was, in fact, a clearly sarcastic response by 'tomjones' on December 7, 2005 to an actual anti-Semitic remark.  His addition of "[by Lieberman]" is completely inaccurate, and he failed to notice the actual anti-Semitic remark, which was blasted by the Kos community as anti-Semitic garbage.

    Lanny Davis really needs to try harder when he goes out and smears the entire left by haphazardly picking out disgraceful comments.  First, he should make sure the comment doesn't fly over his head thanks to a failed Sarcasm Detector, and second he should look at the community's response to such hateful comments.

    When rightwing sites trash "ragheads" and "brown preachers," other right wingers seem fine with it.  Say something hateful on Dailykos.com, and expect to be confronted about it.

    Seriously, I don't expect this to be published, but you should pass this along to Lanny Davis, along with a dictionary to look up "snark" and "sarcasm."

    "I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium." - Jon Stewart

    by Slim Tyranny on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:26:36 AM PDT

  •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe

    Since when does Lamont vouch for everything that's written here?  Does he clear everything that gets posted?

    Moreover who the hell is "tomjones" and since when does he have the notoreity and book sales of Coulter?  Nice comparison, Davis.

    That aside, candidates/politicians don't need to distance themselves from the idiotic statements of the fringes of their supporters.  

    Assuming that you could consider Coulter a fringe player, let's hope some WH correspondent asks W at his next press conference whether he thinks 9/11 widows are greedy harpies who were about to get divorced, whether McVeigh should have bombed the NYT building and whether we ought to invade and convert all Muslim countries.

    If he doesn't denounce every last word of her statements, then crank up the media machine and accuse him of agreeing with her and everything she's ever said.

    Davis is such a DLC shill.

    "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." Steven Wright

    by gsbadj on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:28:34 AM PDT

  •  Tricky Dick (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe, vcmvo2

    Atrios sez Lanny's "friend" is probably tricky Dick Goodstein, loudmouthed DC Lobbyist extrordinaire. That would fit. Same cocktail parties, no?

    And Davis is trying to play some sort of rabid blogger anti-Semitic card, taking obvious sarcasm literally? On the hallowed pages of the WSJ editorial page?

    My conclusion: The DLC is fucking scared. They have to win today. Lots of cocktail weenies at stake.

  •  Beltway insiders and talkling heads (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe

    They're fear losing their influence over the MSM.  That's why they're squealing so loudly.

    The Republicans. The party of fear and smear.

    by Paleo on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:35:26 AM PDT

  •  Additional color on another comment (6+ / 0-)

    I know Lanny Davis wants to use these comments to show that the liberal community is as hateful as the right, but let's actually do some investigating.

    "Joe Lieberman is a racist and a religious bigot" (by "greenskeeper," posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).

    So, according to Lanny Davis, this greenskeeper quote applies to the entire liberal/Dailykos community.  What, then, was the community's response to this comment?

    13 ratings.  13 troll ratings.  13 ratings of a 1 out of 4.  13 responses from the Dailykos community which said, "no thank you with your hateful speech."  This makes sense in context, given that greenskeeper's earlier comments in the same thread were very anti-Semitic (tied to the sarcastic tomjones response).

    AND WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?!?!? Lanny Davis pulls random quotes, context-free, from December 2005 and we have to sit around and dissect them because Lanny Davis is too stupid to do it right the first time?!?!?

    What a joker!

    "I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium." - Jon Stewart

    by Slim Tyranny on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:35:30 AM PDT

    •  some people don't understand how the internets (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Slim Tyranny

      work.

      p.s. which one of you is The Troll?

      Given a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, Americans will choose the real Republican every time - Harry Truman

      by tiggers thotful spot on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 08:05:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, the quote he used proves the exact (2+ / 0-)

      opposite of what he claimed. That commenter was overwhelmingly rejected, including by Tom Jones.

      He needs to retract that and to post an apology and a true account of what happened in that thread.

      Someone should send him this thread and maybe Kos should send him a lawyer's letter.

      While Tom Jones may not have a case, this board has been slimed erroneously in a very ugly way.

  •  So what to do? (0+ / 0-)

    The Wall Street Journal just published an editorial from a Democrat that inaccurately and misleadingly paints liberalism in general and the Dailykos community in particular as anti-Semitic.

    It's out there.  Will they print a correction?  Fix a couple of the quotes they fucked up?  Probably not.  Print an editorial response?  Doubt that.

    Now it's out there.  Lanny Davis did his job.  Right wingers who hate "ragheads" and "brown" people can now happily link to "proof" that liberalism is all about hate.

    Truth is having a tough time these days.

    "I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium." - Jon Stewart

    by Slim Tyranny on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:42:43 AM PDT

    •  Yesterday's WSJ edit page was worse (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tom Ball, Slim Tyranny

      Martin Peretz, the editor of The New Republic, wrote a lengthy op-ed about why Lieberman was an asset to the Democratic Party and how it would be a mistake to chase him out of public life.

      Needless to say, I didn't agree with his analysis.

      "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul."--George Bernard Shaw

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:46:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True, but.. (0+ / 0-)

        It's one thing for an op-ed page to give faulty, moronic analysis (would we expect anything less from the WSJ? or the NYPost?).  It's another thing for an op-ed page to allow inaccurate, false accusations of anti-Semitism based on the writer's failure to grasp the complicated concept of "sarcasm" and NO analysis of the community's response to any hateful comments.

        This is beyond poor analysis, this is irresponsible stupidity in action.

        "I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium." - Jon Stewart

        by Slim Tyranny on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:51:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  There's a bit of a difference that Davis (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe

    ignores.... "tomjones" and others are just people expressing their views.  Ann Coulter is a paid pundit, columnist and author.  She makes her remarks to incite and make money for herself.  "tomjones" respresents himself (or herself) and is venting, Coulter is influencing millions with her hate, and she is given an aura of respectability by the MSM to do it.

    There is no comparison.

    Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

    by landrew on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:45:25 AM PDT

  •  Lanny David, you're no democrat! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe, vcmvo2

    And you might as well be part of Mel Gibson's flock, because those who falsely accuse others of antisemitism are actually giving cover to real antisemites.

  •  Has Davis yet offered a POSITIVE defense of Joe? (2+ / 0-)

    This race has a positively bizarre dynamic.  As should be expected, the incumbent is the defining issue in this race.  The debate, however, is not about the relative merits and demerits of JoeMentum's Senate career.  The debate is about the Joe bashers and those who bash the Joe bashers.

    Why does Davis support Joe?  What are the signal achievements of Joe's 18 years that should encourage others to support him?  What positive legislation clearly bears his stamp?  What negative legislation did he play a key role in thwarting?

    I've yet to see Davis state a positive case for Joe.  I have a hard time recalling another supporter who has done so.  Gergen's known Joe for 40 years, yet he studiously avoided addressing Joe's Senate record in his column Sunday.  

    I'd also like to note the irony of Davis being featured on the WSJ op-ed page.  The very idea of Davis ever being featured on that page would've been unthinkable during his heyday in the Clinton WH.  The political androgony of the Clintons and the FOBs is always fascinating.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:54:38 AM PDT

    •  The Clintons cast a long shadow over this race (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      colleen, Tom Ball

      If Lieberman falls, (1) the DLC will have suffered a serious defeat in the fight for control over the Democratic Party and (2) Hillary Rodham Clinton's pro-war stance will become a lightning rod in her presidential campaign.

      The stakes are high for Bill Clinton, a founder of the DLC and for Senator Clinton, who thinks triangulation is the winning strategy in 2008.

      "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul."--George Bernard Shaw

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 08:03:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The stakes are VERY high for both of them... (0+ / 0-)

        in the shorthand political calculation that passes for "analysis" in the MSM, supporting continuation of the war becomes a total loser for any Dem candidate if JoeMentum falls.  HRC already started her repositioning by attacking Rummy last week.

        Triangulation was not a good strategy in the 90s, and it has been a total disaster in this decade.  JoeMentum, HRC, and the rest can no more effectively "triangulate" w/ W, Cheney, Frist, DeLay, et al than Chamberlain could effectively triangulate w/ Hitler in the late 30's.  I'm almost counting the hours now hoping that that morally and politically bankrupt "strategy" is laid to rest tonight.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 08:14:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I sure hope Joe loses (2+ / 0-)

    because the post-Joe-loss punditocracy hysteria will be even more hilarious.

    If Joe loses the general election some of their heads might actually explode.

    Given a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, Americans will choose the real Republican every time - Harry Truman

    by tiggers thotful spot on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 08:07:35 AM PDT

  •  The big question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2

    Will Lanny Davis ever find out how badly he fucked up the particulars of his smear job?

    I mean, he missed sarcasm and didn't take into account the community's response to hateful comments.  His smear job worked, of course, because it's in the WSJ and no meaningful correction will ever occur.  But the actual examples he used were totally bogus.  Will he ever find out?

    I found contact info, but it's his work email, and I would not want to email him there (out of, perhaps, misplaced professional courtesy).  Will the WSJ pass along any letters to the editor that point out his fuckup?  Will he wander over to Dailykos to read comments?  Will he sit, red-faced, at his computer as he realizes he has less a grasp of sarcasm than the average 10 year old?

    Wow I want to rub this in his face.

    "I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium." - Jon Stewart

    by Slim Tyranny on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 08:16:34 AM PDT

    •  He already knows (3+ / 0-)

      This was scheduled to run on Election Day, guaranteeing that there is no time for his duplicity to be exposed before people vote.

      And the tomjones cite was clearly out of context.

      •  I don't doubt the timing (0+ / 0-)

        The same with the NY Daily News editorial, make sure there is no time for a response.

        That said, given the silliness of his search (and obviously false claim that "these are the nicer ones"), I think he ran a shitty search, took what he could and failed to investigate the context and the community reaction (after all, why search out flaws in your argument?).

        Willful ignorance is my guess.

        "I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium." - Jon Stewart

        by Slim Tyranny on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 08:44:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Oy vey, Lanny! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe

    Aside from the fact that he uses snark comments to support his thesis, he also leaves out the fact that when the truly hateful, anti-semitic comments do show up here around here, they are smacked down almost immeidately.  I guess -- like the Administratioon -- he thinks that facts tend to get in the way of things.

    Lanny has made a name for himself as a Washington Insider.  To that end, he pals around with Republicans and Democrats alike.  It doesn't hurt him all that much when Bush and the neocons are victorious, because he is just as comfortable making a living with that crowd as he is with the Democratic insiders.  What really hurts him is when the Washington insiders lose.  That's what is at stake for him.

  •  Lanny Davis is Hillary's man. Why is her (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe

    camp forever distorting who online progressives are and what we stand for?  It's like she doesn't want our support or votes.

    "How am I not myself?" -- I ♥ Huckabees

    by Joelarama on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 08:55:20 AM PDT

  •  Kos encourages free speech and ideas (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe

    something Davis seems to have missed that when he made the comparison. McCarthy was afraid of both.

  •  RESPOND TO WSJ PIECE (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe

    Go HERE
    to post a response to the Op-ed piece.  They have currently posted a handful of responses, all from the rightwing.  Time to explain to the WSJ that they cannot publish false information without the truth being sent to it, one response at a time.

    Polite, to the point, blah blah blah.  We all already know they can go fuck themselves ;)  so let's tell them something useful.

    "I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium." - Jon Stewart

    by Slim Tyranny on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 09:20:27 AM PDT

  •  I Agree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe

    That Gene McCarthy was one evil SOB.  That Clean Gene lable just a front.

  •  Chill out? (2+ / 0-)

    >>>>
    Lanny Davis merits a factual counterbalancing -- with serious letters to the WSJ calling for fact checking against their deplorable OPEDs.
    >>>>

    Now this is a reasonable response to Mr. Davis's sins...unlike so many other 'responses' I've been reading here--everything from "Let's clean up our act" to "Let's make it easier to drive someone [call them 'trolls'] out of this discussion". What's next..."Let's hire a team of legal consultants to screen all posts"?  "Let's just concentrate on making ourselves 'look good' for the Enemy, lest S/He say something vile or untrue about us?"

    People seem to be taking themselves--and their public pronouncements--too seriously.  First off, I take responsibility for my own words...occasionally, I even have to eat them.  Anyone else posting here who feels that my posts reflect negatively on him/her needs to get over him/herself.  It's called 'free speech', and I can't think of any more appropriate place to exercise it than on a political blog.  I think our Founders were onto something when they wrote the Constitution.  The more free speech, the better.

    When we start talking about editing, self-censoring, and other impediments to candid discourse, we are succumbing to a "chilling effect"!  It might be a good idea to give a bit of credit to our "audiences" and our fellow posters.  

    I always assume that everybody out there is at least as smart as I am...they're capable of judging things for themselves, rather than expecting any one of us to tailor our remarks or dress them up to guarantee they will be inoffensive.  No one posting here speaks for anyone but him/herself when you come right down to it.  Lanny Davis might do his best to portray people as something they are not; but the evidence is there for anyone who wants to look.

    "You go to war and you could lose your heart, your mind, your arms, your legs - but you cannot win. The soldiers don't win." -- Anonymous Soldier

    by aybayb on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 09:24:51 AM PDT

    •  and it's even easier to say... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dump Terry McAuliffe, aybayb

      "many liberals claim," than it is to actually cherry-pick a post.  and that's what the right usually does anyway.

      no need for self-censorship--they just make crap up if they can't find it written somewhere.

      •  Let Rush be Rush...Let Lanny be Lanny (0+ / 0-)

        >>>
        and it's even easier to say..."many liberals claim," than it is to actually cherry-pick a post.  and that's what the right usually does anyway.

        no need for self-censorship--they just make crap up if they can't find it written somewhere.

        by jrcjr
        >>>>>

        Exactly, jrcjr!  There's really no reason to fear these pricks...or to try to anticipate exactly how your words (or your meaning) will be twisted by the other side(s).  It's a good idea to stay outside the heads of such as Lanny Davis.

        "You go to war and you could lose your heart, your mind, your arms, your legs - but you cannot win. The soldiers don't win." -- Anonymous Soldier

        by aybayb on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 09:46:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Davis rhetorical weakness (0+ / 0-)

    Davis seems to want to conflate liberal bloggers with their commentators in order to find evidence of McCarthyism. While he cannot, apparently, do even that accurately, there is a point that must be addressed.

    McCarthy was a problem because he had power. We will always have flakes and )#$* on both sides of the political spectrum, the question is whether those people are accepted by their communities and given power.

    The comments by greenskeeper were clearly disapproved of by the community; while he continues to write comments he clearly hasn't acheived any kind of prominence or repute.

    Davis' right wing examples of hate speech - Coulter, Limbaugh, and Michael Savage are approved of. They have power. They say things far more objectionable than even the comments that Davis was able to dredge up using extrodinarily loose standards. They are not merely accepted, but they are heroes to many in the right wing community and have great wealth obtained by peddling their viciousness.

    They're the problem, not anonymous errant posters disavowed by the rest of us on DKos.

    "Agitate . . . Agitate . . . Agitate" - Frederick Douglass

    by Fides on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:12:59 AM PDT

  •  A Diplomat Davis is not. n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Ah, Lanny, Lanny, Lanny--I remember when you were (0+ / 0-)

    a stalwart defender of Bill Clinton when the right was choosing to use selective facts, magic ellipses to take quotes out of context.

    And now you use those tactics in defense of Holy Joe--and against another Democrat.

    All's fair, huh, Lanny?

    I do feel sorry for the way you are handling this primary challenge--you didn't have to attack fellow Dems, unfairly at that. You could have made genuine arguments, shakey as they are, for Ol' Joe. But, no, you have to do the Rethuglican thing.

    And, guess what, Lanny, it's not only descriptive to use the word "Rethuglican," but it is fun!  What you missed by cherry--or rather skunk cabbage--picking quotes was actually reading the threads and getting the context. Since we blog commenters must get our message across using only words, we do often use casual language, even very informal language to make points.  We use sarcasm, sometimes referred to as "snark."  Some people even add a note if they feel their sarcasm might be misinterpreted--as tomjones should have done--if he'd only know you would take his words out of context.  Even greenkeeper's remarks are not as awful as your selective use implies.

    Alas, dear Lanny--we thought we knew you well.  You helped keep me sane during the Monica debacle, impeachment, the sad MCM* treament of Al Gore, you did some good work defending John Kerry.  

    I'm sorry you felt the need to turn on us--using not only the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, but their tactics as well.

    *Mainstream Corporate Media--we also use acronyms for commonly used phrases, to save time typing them out in full.  

    Hey, Lanny, maybe you should read some of the lefty blogs! You might get some good ideas for dealing with the Rethug attacks! And find you don't need to attack blog readers.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site