I’m a Brilliant, Original, and Idiosyncratic Thinker But Don’t Ever Disagree With Me
Much like Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, I write for a living. Primarily about U.S. politics and public policy. I write about these things because I think they’re important. And, obviously, the essence of the matter is that people have strong feelings about these important issues and disagree in crucial ways. Thus, though my understanding and expectation is that my audience consists largely of people who agree with my basic political orientation, I hardly expect each and every reader to agree with each and every thing I say. I like to think that some of the time I persuade people to change their minds about issues on which we disagree, but I don’t flatter myself that I’m so enormously convincing that this will happen 100 percent of the time. Nor do I flatter myself to think that I’ll be right all the time. Because of all this, it doesn’t surprise me that my comment section and my inbox are often full of people disagreeing with me. It’s all in the game, and even though criticism is often annoying it’s also often helpful — it’s how I learn. And I would assume that if I were given a much more prominent platform for an important national newspaper, then the volume of criticism would get larger, which is at it should be. Cohen, though, doesn’t see it that way:
“I used to get a lot more on the right,” said columnist Richard Cohen, who broke with liberals when he supported the Iraq war. More recently, the left has picked apart columns that are perceived as being favorable to John McCain.
“If you’re a little bit critical of Barack Obama, you get really a pie of vilification right in the face,” Cohen said, adding that his liberal critics “were born too late, because they would have been great communists.”
It’s extraordinary how commonplace these kind of sentiments are among prominent media figures. Cohen clearly relishes his self-conception as an independent thinker. And presumably the whole reason he’s glad to be a Washington Post columnist in part because that gives him a large audience of people who care about politics. Given all that, of course people will sometimes disagree with him! But that’s now how he sees it, and certainly he sees no need to engage with his critics on the merits — instead, they’re just like Communists!
The whole mindset is bizarre but also bizarrely widespread. You’d think that people who write for a living about public affairs wouldn’t be so thin-skinned.
78 Responses to “I’m a Brilliant, Original, and Idiosyncratic Thinker But Don’t Ever Disagree With Me”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 25th, 2008 at 8:48 am
I disagree! You’re correct 100% of the time, and no one ever disagrees with you, and….oh.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:52 am
You think you’re upset - as the organizer of the monthly “Communists Who Love Richard Cohen” meetup, I’m heartbroken. *sob*
August 25th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Of course they are insecure and thin-skinned - that’s why they took jobs lobbing their self-important, one-way grenades from behind the safety of the newspaper wall. Explains why they are so apoplectic about commenting on their columns on the Web … before they could dismiss letters to them as coming from cranks. Now the feedback is instant, pointed, and sometimes personal, and they don’t like being held to standards or their previous words. Nothing but mewling babies, these print and tv pundits.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Richard Cohen makes David Broder look like Flavor Flav.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Yet another whine from a newspaper pundit.
These guys really don’t want to actively engage their readers in public forums. I’m amazed at how frightened they get at the prospect, so much so they imagine all the plebian demons of the Red Scare want to tear their pampered pundit arses to pieces on the tips of sickles and pitchforks.
Blogs breed Bolsheviks!
(*chortles*)
August 25th, 2008 at 9:15 am
This sentiment is very common among wing nuts. I am always labeled as a communist because I vehemently disagree with them. But this is how people are brought up in this country. For right wingers, there is a divide and if you dont agree with them, you are on the other side. Media promotes it as well.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:17 am
To be charitable it might depend on the way the disagreement is expressed, not so much the fact of disagreement. Here, there’s a bit of a problem — few will waste time writing a thoughtful rebuttal to someone they doubt will read it, so Cohen’s mailbox is full of snarky one-liners expressing his readers’ frustration. The occasional thoughtful gem is drowned out.
So, that sounds like the cadres at a self-criticism session, and it sounds like people who’ve closed their minds off to criticism of their own point of view.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Communists. Eff Richard Cohen and his fellow re-invigorated Cold War kooks.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Cohen is entitled to his opinions. What infuriates liberals like me is the probability that, when discussing the addition of a liberal to the Post op-ed page, Hiatt or someone like him says,”well, we already have King and Robinson and Cohen“; i.e., Cohen counts as one of ours, though no one on the right side of the aisle at the Post has anywhere near Cohen’s “independence”.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:24 am
It’s not just that he’s thin-skinned. It’s that he’s so often horribly wrong so often. He thought the Plame outing was just ho-hum. Called Stephen Colbert “a bully” for making jokes about Bush.
And thought that Bush would unite the country better than Gore.
He came up with the idiotic quote, about the absolute certainty there was WMD in Iraq Only a fool — or possibly a Frenchman — could conclude otherwise.”
But really, if I saw Cohen I’d explain wny people get pretty worked up about him by quoting this:
–Richard Cohen, Nov. 2000
Quote that to him every time you see him.
People don’t want the opinions of that asshole to influence an election. If they’re Democrats I can’t blame them. He’d get a better reception at the GOP because his idiocy is their kind of idiocy.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Besides being stupendously wrong and thin-skinned, his columns lately have been a meandering set of sentences that don’t seem to have any relation to each other or larger purpose (other than to meet his deadline).
August 25th, 2008 at 9:49 am
An enthusiastic supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton during the primaries, Armstrong said that “even on MyDD, which is a liberal blog, every time I criticize Obama, I get a huge amount of slack from his supporters.”
Armstrong will one day become Cohen.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:50 am
It’s been a long, long time since Cohen had anything worthwhile (or remotely interesting) to say. I gave up reading him, not because I didn’t agree with him, but because his columns are boring, stupid, inane, ridiculous, absurd, banal, and a complete waste of time — both to write and read.
There are plenty of mainstream columnists whose columns earn similar words of description, but few who are so consistently painful to read. Occasionally, I will get sucked in by a column title and begin to read a Cohen piece, but I seldom if ever finish. One paragraph is usually enough to reinforce my reasons for giving up on him.
It’s hard for me to believe that anyone outside his immediate family and profoundly committed masochists bother to slog through Cohen.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:50 am
I think the hardest thing for these old media pundits to deal with is not the criticism that comes into their offices via email and snail mail, but the public criticism that is posted online in blogs. Public ridicule is a lot harder to deal with than a mountain of negative private correspondence, and the negative letters, even if there are a lot of them, can be cherry picked by the editors for publication on the letter page. Columnists and their newspapers have lost control of the ability to manage the columnists’ reputations and authority, and with that some of the columnists have lost a lot of power. Cohen, in particular, probably has a lot less influence than he once did on what prominent people think.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:51 am
I suspect Cohen uses the rude or snarky emails as an excuse to dismiss all of them. It’s all too apparent that Cohen isn’t interested in changing anything he does.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:57 am
How many houses does Cohen own?
August 25th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Look at him … everything about him screams “Old media.” The white hair, the reference to communists, etc.
I recently left the daily newspaper world after many years, and I tell ya, newsrooms are full of these guys. They became columnists in the pre-email world (never mind the pre-blog world) and they’re still not used to instant feedback. In the past, a sternly worded letter to the editor that arrived three days later was all they had to worry about.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Maybe Cohen can get Dana Millbank to rate his whine for him.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I still want to know who in the United States government told this asshat that he should have been walking around with Cipro before the anthrax incident occurred…
August 25th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I suspect that he also flatters himself that he’s so even-handed, because he got criticism from both the left and the right.
Why doesn’t anyone in the media ever come to the conclusion that this means everyone thinks you’re wrong?
August 25th, 2008 at 10:07 am
The newspaper business, and Cohen in particular, is part of a failing business model. The Post’s natural audience doesn’t want what they are selling, but the institution is guided by a publisher and editor who don’t appear to want to change. That is stressful.
Under that stress, people with an authoritarian personality see the world one dimensionally - the “with me or against me” mindset is actually hardwired. Therefore it does no good to write to him; no matter how persuasive the argument he literally can’t take it in. Instead, Cohen should be ignored and the Post should be avoided. Let the process of creative destruction run its course.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:09 am
I think Dan Kervick gets this right in 14.
It’s not that these people are thin-skinned. It’s that the old model for building a reputation, a readership and influence, ie, a career in journalism, is being broken down. You don’t get ahead by brown nosing your editors in the online world. You have to actually write interesting things. And if you’re frequently wrong, you’ll get criticized so much that very few other influentials will take you seriously after a while. This kind of fear of blogging is not a misplaced fear, I feel.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:10 am
The real problem for Cohen and his ilk is that they and everybody else can now see how mundane and mediocre the Cohen’s of the media world are. There are a bucketload of blogers that are more insightful and better writters than Cohen, while writing far more often than he does.
Mike
August 25th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Huh. Does Armstrong not know what “to get slack” means, or has the meaning spinned 180 degrees when I wasn’t looking? (Anything’s possible with slang.)
August 25th, 2008 at 10:13 am
“There’s nothing left but the flagpole.”
August 25th, 2008 at 10:19 am
I love how the thin-skinned conservative commentators are always calling people “Communists”. It’s the red menace! Better dead than red, right? It’s like falling back on school yard insults when you can’t refute an argument.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:24 am
He doesn’t relish “independence”. His characterization of people who criticize him is so over-the-top that it’s disingenuous. Has he ever said that his critics on the right would have made nice little Nazis? The question answers itself.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Cohen is just a hopeless asshole, and he’s been one for a very long time. 30 years of GOP shit has hopelessly tainted our public discourse and Cohen is just part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I cannot WAIT until these guys have all retired, and, maybe, just maybe, a more liberal/progressive point-of-view is represented in what’s left of our newspapers. It took the right-wing decades to destroy our public discourse. It’ll take decades for us to build it back again into something useful.
When Cohen uses the word “communist” he appears not to have the faintest idea what he’s talking about.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:48 am
I think Armstrong must have meant “flak” instead of “slack.”
August 25th, 2008 at 10:55 am
“these kind of sentiments are” should be “this kind of sentiment is”, “Sentiments of this kind are” or “these kinds of sentiments are”.
The content however is irrefutable.
So why are they so thin skinned ?
My number 1 hypothesis is that they are used to dealing with people who are afraid of them. Cohen can’t get back at mr anonymous e-mailer or even ms non-anonymous e-mailer. That scares him.
This reminds me of a weird article criticizing the Obama campaign which quoted Adam Nagourney complaining that they criticized his idiotic “Obama hasn’t healed the racial divide yet” article. He was quoted as saying something like”if you have a problem with something I write, tell me, I’m a big boy I can handle it, but don’t attack me on the web”. Just imagine his reaction if Obama had said that to him in response to a critical article. Nagourney thinks that he is the judge and it is contempt of court to treat him as a defendant or even a lawyer. He believes in public accountability for others but not for himself.
I think that the shear volume of criticism made possible by e-mail is overwhelming. Richard Cohen can’t respond reasonably to all of it (even you would find it challenging to respond to that volume of criticism and you are uhm smart).
He could pick 5 complaints at random (at least he could if he were able to use a pseudo random number generator) and respond to them.
There is also, in principle, a distinction between criticism and vilification (and don’t I know it. I live in a country where the constitution declares that there is freedom of speach and the criminal code describes the prison sentences for various kinds of vilification (villipendio)). You seem to have let “trust fund scumbag” get under your skin, for example.
Now the reasonable thing to do with vilification is to ignore it (and especially not waste precious space in the Washington Post whining). Also it is tempting to ignore criticism because it is mixed with vilification, even if they are only mixed because they are in the same e-mail inbox.
I think I would understand these people better if they reported some vilification they received (after anonymizing the source of course). I’d really really like that. But I can’t remember the last time a complaint of this source was mixed with evidence (might be this one I haven’t read the op-ed). I would guess that the communist-like vilification isn’t reported, because it is a lot more convincing than a claim that, say, Cohen is an objectively pro-McCain right deviationist. My betcha is that he counts quotes of his op-ed on Powell’s testimony as vilification.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I have a long simmering dislike for Richard Cohen but he’s right about one thing, if you dare criticize Obama, expect to be called everything from a closet Republican to a racist. I’m a life long Democrat but I won’t vote for him. I won’t vote for him because I am not a racist and being called one over and over again is more than annoying, it’s condescending and arrogant. It assumes there are no valid reasons for opposing him. There have been much written about the divide between Clinton and Obama supporters. Most of it assumes it’s Hillary’s job to unite the party. Not so. Obama is the nominee. It’s his party now. It’s his job to unite the party. Obama may win in spite of his weaknesses and aloof nature but he’s going to make it much closer than it ever should have been. Conditions don’t get much better for Democrats. If he does win, he’ll have to govern. Maybe he’ll rise to the occasion. Maybe he will show a backbone that’s been sorely lacking in him thus far. If he doesn’t, he will eventually disappoint even his most faithful supporters and usher in another decade of Republican misrule.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:16 am
expect to be called everything from a closet Republican to a racist. I’m a life long Democrat but I won’t vote for him. I won’t vote for him because I am not a racist and being called one over and over again is more than annoying….
Fuck you, you are an idiot. Get over your fucking self or don’t and no one gives a shit.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Dissent=totalitarianism?
I though the way you knew how to recognize totalitarianism was that there was no dissent.
If you dare criticize Obama, expect to be called everything from a closet Republican to a racist. I’m a life long Democrat but I won’t vote for him. I won’t vote for him because I am not a racist and being called one over and over again is more than annoying, it’s condescending and arrogant. It assumes there are no valid reasons for opposing him.
We’ve all heard this a lot, and I just wanted to point out that in most contexts, it’s the result of bad logic. People hear statements like: “The only reason Obama isn’t doing better is racism” as “Only racists oppose Obama.” They’re worlds apart. The first statement just proposes that, given the gap between support for the generic Democrat and the support for Obama, enough of the opposition to Obama personally is based on racial suspicion that it probably makes a difference. You can argue that point on its merits, of course, but it’s not the same as saying that if you oppose him you’re a racist. What I don’t get is how what would seem to be a blindingly obvious point–a few percentage points of Americans are probably racist enough to resist supporting a black candidate–gets taken so personally by everyone who opposes him. Sorry, but if you oppose Obama, you’ve got some racists on your side. It’s not your fault, and Obama has other kinds of haters on his side, too. But that doesn’t mean it’s an insult to you personally to talk about it in your presence.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Mmmmm… Pie of Vilification…
August 25th, 2008 at 11:54 am
The old model for the opinionator like RCohen is that the guy/gal no longer has to work at the craft of journalism: reporting, writing, editing, squeezing text around ads for autos & lingerie. So throwing out 300 words of self-important opinions from the mountaintop in an era when the only feedback was a printed Letter to the Editor (a page managed by your friend) was a pretty good gig. Whatever you felt, it seemed like some sort of power, plus a decent paycheck. Now you’ve simply become a target for everybody, none of whom fear your supposed power. People who know both more & less than you can trash your hallowed opinions 24/7. Even so, being a WashPo opinionator beats working, though you still have to kiss Fred Hiatt’s ass.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Anyone here read Greenwald? Now THERE’S a dude who’s touchy about comments he doesn’t like. Do any other bloggers go in their own comments sections and shout down the dissent by name?
August 25th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
“There have been much written about the divide between Clinton and Obama supporters. Most of it assumes it’s Hillary’s job to unite the party. Not so. Obama is the nominee. It’s his party now. It’s his job to unite the party.”
It’s always interesting to see how the infantilization of citizenship crops up every now and again. The idea that Hillary supporters should have to look at the issues, think about what’s best for the country and who would be more likely to bring it about and act on those principles is alien to some folks. They seem to think that if Obama doesn’t pat them on the head and rub them tummy and tell them they’re just the bestest little voters in the world, by crackey they’re going to vote for McCain.
There’s virtually nothing a Hillary-supporter can like about McCain on the issues, unless you think a more beligerant, no-nothing foreign policy than George W. Bush is exactly what America needs.
Mike
August 25th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I don’t know that this attitude is that surprising; if people like Cohen had wanted to deal directly with the rabble, they would have remained reporters instead of becoming Political Columnists.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Prof. Darkheart,
” but if you oppose Obama, you’ve got some racists on your side. It’s not your fault, and Obama has other kinds of haters on his side, too. But that doesn’t mean it’s an insult to you personally to talk about it in your presence.”
I oppose Obama on policy. Or rather his inability to stick to any given policy. His opposition to the war has been painted by the media as a bold and risky move but he was a state senator from a very liberal district in Chicago where opposition to the war ran at about 70%. When he had to appeal to a broader audience during his ‘04 Senate run, he said he wasn’t sure how he would have voted if he were in the senate at the time of the Iraq resolution and that he and GWB weren’t that far apart on the war. He supported gun control as a liberal state senator and denied he supported gun control when he had to appeal to rural voters in the Democratic Primaries, going so far as to lie about it until his handwriting was found on the margins of questionaire. During the primaries, he promised to filibuster the FISA bill and yet when the time came to lead on the issue, he ran in the opposite direction. On issue after issue, Obama has shown he’s willing to compromise his principles for the politics of the moment. He is hoping to coast to victory. He’s assuming Republican mismanagement of the Federal Government will be enough reason for most voters to overlook his weak and indecisive nature and take a chance on him. He may well be correct. Republicans have so soiled the bed they don’t deserve to win but Obama is allowing them the slightest glimmer of hope when there should be none at all. If he eventually loses, his rabid fans will blame “unloyal” Democrats like me and toss all sorts of fecal matter at Hillary for not doing enough. They will be wrong. The blame for missing this opportunity will belong to Obama and his supporters who nearly always over estimate the depth of his appeal. Like I said, Obama may end up victorious in spite of flaws that would doom most candidates. If he does, he can thank George W Bush.
Ed Marshall,
I find it hilarious that people like yourself feel comfortable saying things that would cost you a few teeth if you said them face to face. Tough talk from an anonymous doofus with the vocabulary of a ten year old doesn’t impress anyone. Vote for who you like and I’ll vote for who I like and remember to keep your idiotic commentary confined to blogs.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
This is one reason I’ve come to respect Joe Klein. Not that I think he’s always right - but his blog is open to comments, and I think it’s made him take greater care that what he writes is intellectually defensible. There’s nothing like a good feedback loop to improve the quality of one’s work.
Richard Cohen essentially repudiates the idea of that feedback loop, and Lord knows how long it’s been since he’s opened himself up to critical feedback from people who think quite differently from the way he does.
Which is why he so completely and totally sucks.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
The difference between Greenwald and Cohen (aside from the obvious fact that Cohen is a fucking idiot) is that Greenwald hast that comments section, and, more importantly, that he uses it to address specific commenters’ specific criticisms. Cohen, meanwhile, whines to Politico that he gets mean emails from people who love Stalin.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
it’s the same game everywhere in the So-Called Liberal Media.
blame the democrat for every republican fault.
blame the democrat for every republican failure.
blame the victim for every republican act against them.
whine like hell when you’re called out on your BS.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
ny nick wrote,
No, it’s your job to realize that the Senate records of Hillary and Obama are very similar, and hence any Democrat who’s thinking of not voting for Obama because they preferred Hillary is a blithering idiot.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
ny nick wrote,
Most politicians do that to some extent. The question is: how much?
IMHO Barack did it less than Hillary. And neither of them flip-flopped nearly as much as McCain.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
MBunge wrote,
Exactly.
Has there been this kind of widespread, bitter, bizarre delusion in the aftermath of a past Democratic primary season?
If Hillary and Obama were really different ideologically, maybe it would be plausible. But they’re really pretty close, which makes it just insane.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Hey ny nick,
Thanks for explaining your positions. Did you notice that people are taking them up and challenging you on them? Without calling you a racist once.
Of course the notion that Obama has finessed his positions in some uniquely dramatic way among previous candidates for the office is laughable on its face. As is the notion that it’s “unprincipled” to emphasize different aspects of your positions for different audiences (the FISA bill is an exception here; that was a Fail, to be sure). So it does seem like either you’re not very familiar with presidential politics or you’re applying some exaggerated standard to him.
At any rate, in your first email, you wrote:
I won’t vote for him because I am not a racist and being called one over and over again is more than annoying, it’s condescending and arrogant.
If, as you now say, you oppose Obama on the issues and not because you feel that you’ve been badly treated by his supporters, can you see how the first explanation might have seemed pretty unreasonable to some people?
August 25th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
ny nick - “I oppose Obama on policy.”
So, you’re going to be voting for John McCain on policy?
Look, this isn’t a totaletarian state where everyone has to line up behind the Maximum Leader no matter what…but it’s odd how guys like ny nick seem completely oblivious to the fact that opposing Obama is supporting McCain.
This is a zero-sum game right now. Hillary’s not going to be the next President. Neither is Nader or Barr. It’s either going to be Obama or McCain. If you actually think McCain is the better choice, that’s one thing. But to prefer him in The White House because your feelings were hurt during the nominating process or because Obama isn’t “pure” enough…you need to grow the hell up.
Mike
August 25th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Uh . . . yeah, most bloggers that I read do exactly that, if by “shout down” you mean “actually argue intelligently with.” Which, in the case of Greenwald, you must be.
Difference between Greenwald & Cohen is the fact that Greenwald uses source material correctly: he quotes directly, quotes in context, never uses the fabled “some say” without providing at least one example, and actually reads his comment section and responds.
Cohen, by contrast, positively sucks.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Prof. Darkheart,
“Did you notice that people are taking them up and challenging you on them? Without calling you a racist once.”
Actually, the only thing people have challenged me on is that opposing Obama is defacto support for McCain. That’s probably true. McCain is, to me at least, the least objectionable Republican of the major candidates. I don’t buy into the notion that he’ll amount to a third Bush term. McCain, restrained by a Democratic congress, will govern from the center. Any honest reading of his history will conclude he’s worked across party lines on many issues, something Obama talks a lot about but hasn’t done much of. We make decisions about whom we admire and support on policy but emotions do also play a part. I’m not denying that my dislike for Obama has in part been fueled by some hard feelings left over from the primary but so what? They’re as real as the emotionally fueled feelings of many Obama supporters who view him as something more than the sum of his parts. Obama, as the Democratic standard bearer, still has an opportunity to convince me and others who think as I do to support him but the decision to do so is his, not mine. The thinking here on the part of many is that voters like me should get in line and get over our disappointments. Okay but if Obama thinks the nearly thirty precent of Hillary voters who say they won’t vote for him are bluffing, he may find himself on the losing end of that bet. He appears to think just that.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
“McCain, restrained by a Democratic congress, will govern from the center.”
I’d call those famous last words, except you’re just parroting what a lot of folks said about voting for George W. Bush the first time around.
Mike
August 25th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Ny nick-
Good point McCain will be a “compassionate conservative” who “unites rather than dividing” and “works across the aisle”, I mean look at his record as Governor of Tex.. er, Senator from Arizona, seriously if after the last 8 years you really believe that a Republican president isn’t a big deal, then you should probably think about keep your mouth shut– not for silence, but rather to keep from drowning when it rains.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
It’s not fair or clarifying to compare yourself to Richard Cohen, Matt. You sometimes know what you’re talking about.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
The dirty little secret of the “Nutroots” is that they’re generally just as thin-skinned, if not more so, than the Richard Cohens.
Just try posting your disagreement on the Obamaniac-dominated Daily Kos. Try telling the Clintonites at “Talk Left” that they’re a bunch of whining dead-enders. Show the liberal flag at Red State or at Free Republic.
The Internet is far more tribal than the “dead-tree” media, and infinitely more self-righteous.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Scoraticsilence,
What is this pathology that leads normally rational people to behave like idiots? McCain has a record of bipartisanship, Obama does not. Do you want to argue with facts or shall we just insult each other?
August 25th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
¿Qual es mas progresivo? Michelle Obama’s $317,000-a-year makework job steering the poor away from medical care at U. Chicago Med Center, or Biden’s kid’s $100,000-a-year makework job as daddy’s bagman at MBNA, screwing the poor a little harder by ‘reforming’ bankruptcy? Or maybe it’s Bush flooding the country with illegals to keep wages down, NAFTA-With Free-Home-Delivery. What a country! To me, nothing says Power to the People like a hot new pair of $400-to-$900 Jimmy Choo pumps. We are the spare change we’ve been waiting for…
August 25th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“What is this pathology that leads normally rational people to behave like idiots? McCain has a record of bipartisanship”
1. A President Obama will sign legislation that is far more progressive and liberal than anything a President McCain would sign. Why settle for half a loaf when you can have the whole thing?
2. Have you not noticed McCain’s record of never being happy with anything less than total war? He wanted troops on the ground in Kosovo, clearly doesn’t care if U.S. forces ever leave Iraq, thinks it’s funny to joke about bombing Iran and basically thinks sabre-rattling is the best response to any foreign crisis.
3. Dick Cheney had a reputation for being a sober, responsible foreign policy mind before he became VP.
4. It’s dubious to accuse others of irrationality when you’re on record preferring a candidate who opposes almost everything you claim to believe in because the candidate who shares your values hasn’t kissed your pretty behind enough.
Mike
August 25th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
ny nick wrote,
Because we use a “first past the post” voting system, and because there are two viable candidates, if you don’t vote for Obama (by abstaining or by voting for a 3rd party candidate), you’re in essence splitting a vote between McCain and Obama.
That’s like saying “So and so is the least objectionable of the …” If they’re all objectionable—and they are, because today’s Republican party is a party of criminal extremist rightists—your point has little practical meaning.
That’s because you apparently refuse to consider how the candidates stand on actual issues.
It’s possible, just like it was possible that Bush would have. But Bush didn’t, and the recent Republican history is one of trying to get away with as much as they can, rules or no rules.
Yes, emotions do play a part. The point is whether they should play a part.
Do not commit the error of confusing “is” with “ought”.
So what? So: you’re doing your small part to help elect John McCain, with whom (a) there’s a real danger of us getting into a fighting war with a nuclear power over Georgia, a state we have no national interest in, (b) there’s a near certitude will appoint justices to the USCS who think that female victims of rape should be forced to bear their assailant’s child, and (c) thinks that extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich is a good thing.
OK, I understand. Two wrongs make a right. (Disclosure: I was never impressed with Obama in the manner you allude, even if others were; and my main beef with him is that (like Hillary) he’s too far to the right.)
LOL! The burden is on Obama to satisfy whatever bizarre deep-seated, sick psychological need you and the rest of the twisted subset of erstwhile Hillary supporters have.
Yes, because they’re about 10 orders of magnitude less important than keeping another Republican monster out of the White House. (Truth be told, I think McCain is far more dangerous than Bush, in matters of war and peace. Now that’s saying something.)
August 25th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Dan Kervick has a good point above. It is the public nature of the blog criticism that stings him.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
when a liberal runs out of bright and stimulating ideas they then metamorphose into a conservative.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
“LOL! The burden is on Obama to satisfy whatever bizarre deep-seated, sick psychological need you and the rest of the twisted subset of erstwhile Hillary supporters have.”
The burden is on Obama to earn the most votes. If he does, he wins, if he doesn’t he loses. If he wants voters to choose him, he should make an attempt at addressing their concerns. If he’s too aloof for that or thinks those voters don’t matter, that’s a choice he’s making.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
“The burden is on Obama to earn the most votes. If he does, he wins, if he doesn’t he loses. If he wants voters to choose him, he should make an attempt at addressing their concerns.”
And how, exactly, does Obama earn your vote? Other than resign from the campaign and hand the nomination over to Hillary, of course. Because your opposition to him appears to be based neither on policy nor on a legitimate issue like experience. You just seem pissed off and I don’t know how Obama is supposed to magically make you not pissed off, especially when you seem to be pretty invested in staying pissed off.
Mike
August 25th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
ny nick wrote,
That’s wrong, given the hidden meaning. The correction statement reads: “If he wants voters to choose him, he should make an attempt at addressing any of their reasonable concerns.”
Your concerns are not reasonable; they’re bizarre and irrational.
He’s not too aloof; certain demented Hillary supporters claim he’s too aloof. (The idea that you can really gauge how “aloof” someone is by their public personal is downright silly, BTW.)
And it’s not that that subclass of voters don’t matter; it’s that they’re nutso, and no rational, reasonable attempts at placating them are possible.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
“public personal” should be “public persona”
August 25th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
“And how, exactly, does Obama earn your vote? Other than resign from the campaign and hand the nomination over to Hillary, of course.”
He could start by acting like votes from the Democrats who oppose him matters to him. Beyond that, he can show me some backbone. Republicans are going to make this election an referendum on Barack Obama and he’s letting them do it. This election should be about Republican mismanagement of the Federal Government, not about the cult of personality. He seems more comfortable talking about his bio than he does about policy. I don’t care how pretty he is or how much he is adored. I care about whether he plans to roll over when the going gets tough. Republicans haven’t unilaterally disarmed. He’s too willing to compromise, not willing to stand and fight it out. I’d rather have a leader who’s wrong but strong than one who’s right and weak.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
So, in summation.
ny nick apparently wants Obama to personall stop by his house and beg for his vote.
He also would rather vote for a Republican who’s wrong than a Democrat who’s right based on how belicose their public pronouncements are.
Yeah, you’re not at all irrational.
Mike
August 25th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Having Cohen Red-baiting his left wing critics fits right in with the Fox News reporter who tried interviewing welcoming committee demonstrators in Denver. He was getting blown off by everyone he stuck a mike in front of, leaving him milling about shouting “don’t you believe in free speech?”
As it turned out, they did, and began to chant “fuck fox, fuck fox”, live.
August 25th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
MBunge,
“He also would rather vote for a Republican who’s wrong than a Democrat who’s right based on how belicose their public pronouncements are.”
No, I’d rather vote for a more conservative leader than a liberal follower. Pronouncements and positions posted on a website are poor substitutes for real leadership. Obama can’t take a position and hold it. He’s the proverbial candle in the wind. Blowing which ever direction the political wind takes him.
August 25th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Liberal,
“He’s not too aloof; certain demented Hillary supporters claim he’s too aloof. (The idea that you can really gauge how “aloof” someone is by their public personal is downright silly, BTW.)”
So, if you can’t gauge how aloof someone is by their “public personal” (whatever that means), how do you know he’s “not too aloof”? Or did you mean only YOU can gauge it?
August 25th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
I find it hilarious that people like yourself feel comfortable saying things that would cost you a few teeth if you said them face to face.
Well, I’ve got no idea without looking at you if I’d said it to your face or not. There would be some point on the continuum between short, fat, nobody and Thor where the responce would have moved away from “fuck you”, but that’s entirely within the realm of the possible. You live in NY. What you think your WATB bitching is going to do is beyond worrying about. Obama is going to lose NY because of this? Get over yourself.
August 26th, 2008 at 5:07 am
Richard Cohen and Robert Novak need to be booted from the WashPo columnist ranks. No insight, just faux-”independent” commentary and reliable airing of ancient personal grievances. They write like old crotchety tenured professors who have lost interest in their area of study.
Samuelson at the WashPo also seems to constantly rewrite the same column (”our debt is too high, both candidates are panderers”) although I haven’t read enough of his work to know how long he’s been stuck in this rut.
Not a fan of Krauthammer either — he is reliably mean-spirited, condescending, and semi-feral — but at least he still has sharp analytical skills.
On the other end of the spectrum are Eugene Robinson at the WashPo and Gail Collins/Frank Rich/David Brooks at the NYTimes. All of their columns are worth reading, and are quite reliably brilliant. Both papers also have plenty of respectable contributors, like Ignatius/Broder/Marcus/Applebaum at WashPo.
August 26th, 2008 at 5:20 am
Well, Matt, you called me a troll just for trying to get you to commit to a position on Iran. Then you lied about it by claiming you didn’t know what the questions were, after I had emailed them to you when you explicitly asked for emails.
Talk about thin-skinned.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:32 am
ny nick
Check out McCain’s record from before… say… 1996 (before he decided to run for President). He wasn’t that centrist.
And no one runs on policy anymore. It’s all soundbites and bios. McCain’s is “POW!,” Sen. Hillary’s was “Clinton” (and the prosperity of the 90’s… but saying that “gee, things were great back then” isn’t really policy). George Bush ran on the “I’m a glorified frat boy” platform. It’s hard to vilify Hopey for it, as disappointed as it makes me.
And Sen. McCain, this election, hasn’t flipped more times than a 14 year-old gymnast at the Olympics?
August 26th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I don’t like Santa’s new eyeglasses.
January 18th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
laptop battery
laptop batteries
March 11th, 2009 at 5:13 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:46 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Good evening. Every day you may make progress. Every step may be fruitful. Yet there will stretch out before you an ever-lengthening, ever-ascending, ever-improving path. You know you will never get to the end of the journey. But this, so far from discouraging, only adds to the joy and glory of the climb.
I am from Algeria and too bad know English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Buy airline tickets and buy cheap plane really cheap plane ticket online! Airline tickets to germany can even got from the counters at the airport in the.”
Thank you very much :D. Alena.