Thank God a real conservative like William Buetler is on this week.

This sounds like it could be a replacement curseword, like the sound a Republican makes when he realizes how low his party has fallen.

Quoting mmacklem: This sounds like it could be a replacement curseword, like the sound a Republican makes when he realizes how low his party has fallen.

"Huck or Mitt" is the new "Bush and Dick."

Great to see William back. Good reporting, as always. I recommend, to anyone who hasn't already, having a look at William's new blog, The Wikipedian. Actually, it's probably not for everyone, of course; I guess I fall in William's target demographic -- geeks who want to know more about the machinations behind the scenes at Wikipedia. But if the concept sort of sounds interesting to you, give it a look. It's off to a good start. And remember ...

Look what just passed:

... the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and SECURITY Act, 219-212 — eight Republicans voting Yea, 44 Democrats voting Naw.

[Added] Here is the statement/press release from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. [Added2] Here is the roll call for the vote.

William, here, it's real simple: one party (yours) places a high emphasis on sexuality as it pertains to their perceived morals. The (mine) more or less doesn't care what goes on in somebody's bedroom. When a GOP politician runs for office they are not only selling themselves as champions of morality and by necesity implying that they are clean and good, but they are also saying that they are going to actively push for laws that will uphold our traditional values even at the risk of encroaching on personal privacy. When I vote for a Democrat, I don't think about whether they cheat on their spouse or had pre-marital sex or whether they are gay. They've sold me on their policy ideas and how they plan to enact legislation that promotes values that I believe in. But those rarely have anything to do with anybody's social life. So of course, conservatives are going to feel it worse when their guys get caught being naughty. They are the party of "not being naughty", at least in theory.

RUSH: You want to hear something funny? Go to sound bite No. 11. Yesterday when the Mark Sanford stuff hit, I happened to say on the program: "Oh, no, he could have been our JFK. He could have been our JFK." Chris Matthews didn't understand. MATTHEWS: Rush Limbaugh said today his reaction to the Sanford news. Let's listen to Rushbo. RUSH: Oh, Sanford could have been our JFK. Oh, another career down the tubes. Nobody caught him! Nobody caught -- nobody caught him in the act! He came back: Yeah, I was screwing off, literally, south of the border, girl from Ipanema, comes back and admits it. (Shanklin parody Love Client No. 9) I wonder if Sanford thought that he was going to get away with this. They all do, I guess. Could have been our JFK. Could have had it all. MATTHEWS: What do you think he meant by that? Rush Limbaugh, it's hard to interpret him sometimes. What did he mean by, "He could have been our JFK?" Was the potential of Mark Sanford that grand before this moment? RUSH: (Laughing). I don't know that he's -- stupid's not the word. Just tunnel vision. When you mention JFK, you get Camelot. You get great. You get wonderful. Oh, American royalty. So Mark Sanford has never been that in his mind. When you mention JFK in the context of Mark

Quoting rcocean: [...]

I wonder if you noticed that none of us foul-mouthed doctrinaire partisan liberal leftist always-on-the-attack commenters said word one about Sanford on this forum over the past week. Or Ensign, for that matter, before that. Can a DFH get a shoutout?

Quoting bjkeefe: I wonder if you noticed that none of us foul-mouthed doctrinaire partisan liberal leftist always-on-the-attack commenters said word one about Sanford on this forum over the past week. Or Ensign, for that matter, before that.

Can a DFH get a shoutout?

Naw, real liberals are boring. Straw men are way more fun! Keep playing with your imaginary liberal friends, wingnuts!

I think MSNBC only mentioned Sanford 10,345 times in the 24 hours before Jack-O passed. I think that's 10,345 more times than they've metioned Barney Frank having a gay teen prostitution ring running out of his house. And the difference between the condemnation of Sanford as opposed to that by liberals of Frank is striking.

Quoting harkin: I think MSNBC only mentioned Sanford 10,345 times in the 24 hours before Jack-O passed. I think that's 10,345 more times than they've metioned Barney Frank having a gay teen prostitution ring running out of his house.

And the difference between the condemnation of Sanford as opposed to that by liberals of Frank is striking.

And the connection between Sanford and Frank is what? Random false equivalence, now there's an effective method of argument.

Quoting bjkeefe: I wonder if you noticed that none of us foul-mouthed doctrinaire partisan liberal leftist always-on-the-attack commenters said word one about Sanford on this forum over the past week. Or Ensign, for that matter, before that.

Can a DFH get a shoutout?

"Never murder your opponent when he's busy committing suicide"

Quoting harkin: I think MSNBC ...

Is this a response to my earlier question? Rather than being gracious and acknowledging, that, yeah, maybe, just maybe, it is not true that ALL LIBERALS ARE EXACTLY ALIKE!!!1!? If you can't be big enough to do that, maybe you could at least show some cleverness, a la rcocean.

Quoting rcocean: "Never murder your opponent when he's busy committing suicide"

Heh. I wish we were that coldly calculating.

Quoting harkin: I think MSNBC only mentioned Sanford 10,345 times in the 24 hours before Jack-O passed. I think that's 10,345 more times than they've metioned Barney Frank having a gay teen prostitution ring running out of his house.

And the difference between the condemnation of Sanford as opposed to that by liberals of Frank is striking.

MSNBC does not equal liberal. Sure, they've got Maddow and Olbermann. They've also got three hours of JScar. I'm sure Fox News was hitting the Sanford story pretty hard too. It's a good story!

Is this really the way you want your government to work? I disagree with this not resonating with the American people. And yes Beutler, they ARE well on their way. Funny the lefty faithful here continue to be satisfied by following blindly. Even if in agreement with this bill's idiotic, misleading, disingenuous purpose; I would think the methodology would be embarrassing (or sure should be) to anyone who has preached political morals in the past.

I have been wanting to read that, just have not gotten the chance yet. Seriously, Wikipedia is one of the greatest repositories of human knowledge in human history. You always hear about how unreliable it is, because of its open source nature, but I have used in hundreds if not thousands of times, and it has never let me down. Edit:
Never mind, I thought you were talking about a book I saw in B&N the other day.

regarding: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/207...7:39&out=08:15
The charge of hypocrisy speaks rather to the fact that Mark Sanford called upon Bill Clinton's resignation on the basis of an infidelity while today Sanford refuses to resign after allowing his affair to adversely affect the performance of his duties.

Quoting Whatfur: Is this really the way you want your government to work?

I disagree with this not resonating with the American people.

And yes Beutler, they ARE well on their way. Funny the lefty faithful here continue to be satisfied by following blindly. Even if in agreement with this bill's idiotic, misleading, disingenuous purpose; I would think the methodology would be embarrassing (or sure should be) to anyone who has preached political morals in the past.

WhatFur, without a dingalink it's awfully hard to tell what you're referencing. Special snarky PS: Most of the known universe got over rickrolling in 2005. Adding 40 year old Jim
Nabors catchphrases to the mix isn't an improvement.

Quoting DoctorMoney: WhatFur, without a dingalink it's awfully hard to tell what you're referencing.

Special snarky PS: Most of the known universe got over rickrolling in 2005. Adding 40 year old Jim
Nabors catchphrases to the mix isn't an improvement.

Actually I was going to select a digilink reference to go along with it but after reading what I wrote I figured it could be applied to so many things that I just left it as is. Glad to see though that YOU read what I wrote and were aching for more... PS: You always were special (in a short bus, window licker, kind of way) and snarky as well. The rickrolling is just something I do to push peoples buttons...

Quoting Whatfur:
PS: You always were special (in a short bus, window licker, kind of way)

Well Gollllyyy, Sarge.

I like both Beutler and Scher, and generally enjoyed this diavlog, but while listening I started thinking that at least in the current environment there's a problem with the concept. So many conservative blogs just seem to read as spin for whatever is anti-Obama (and to be written from a scoring political points perspective rather than a particularly thoughtful one, with often much effort lately at message control and attacking conservatives who depart from the party line). Obviously, there are exceptions, but those seem to have interesting things to say from a conservative perspective in the same way that many of the conservative commentators on bloggingheads do. While rolling my eyes while Beutler was reading the post from PunditMom, who managed to be both self-congratulatory in tone and flat wrong on the facts, good job PMom!, I realized that I'm much more interested in Beutler's own thoughts and his defense of his positions. And to be fair, I have no clue who this PMom is or if she has more of a following or the ability to write an interesting blog despite what sounds like fake concern

Quoting stephanie: ... So many conservative blogs just seem to read as spin for whatever is anti-Obama
...
And to be fair, I have no clue

I would be interested in what conservative blogs you frequent while I would also be interested in what specifically Obama has done that we should be getting behind. His tax pledge? His deficit/His so called stimulus spending which has done NOTHING! I understand in 10 years the proposed healthcare plan will cost close to 3 trillion but 2/3s of those without coverage will still be and the rest of us will be paying more and getting less. The "Cap and Tax" that he helped steamroll through the House. Ahh yes I can feeell the transparency. A 1200+ page document that even Obama's energy czar did not read. Matter of fact I would be interested in what liberals should be happy about. Our "immediate" withdrawal from Iraq? The closing of Gitmo (did you hear about Obama's latest Friday afternoon dump?) And I won't even get into the even-handed way the previous administration was handled by all the liberal blogs. There is a bunch more but some prefer "shorter". We tried to warn you that the

Well, I never was as pro Obama as many here, and did in fact think he was mostly flash in a pan, however, I feel has has at least been able to clear the mediocre bar so far, though honestly, that might just be because my standards have become exceedingly low. Regardless, he was the best of the candidates that were offered.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Well, I never was as pro Obama as many here, and did in fact think he was mostly flash in a pan, however, I feel has has at least been able to clear the mediocre bar so far, though honestly, that might just be because my standards have become exceedingly low.

Regardless, he was the best of the candidates that were offered.

Again WHAT? Give me the thing or things that have him clearing this bar. Actually he was the best candidate you didn't know. A candidate for all the kool-aid drinkers who didn't care or fathom what the flavor was as they drank with blindfolds on. The Pandora's Box President.

I guess I just don't have as much contempt for the opinions of 60% of America or the office of the Presidency that you do.

In the last poll that counted, the election, the percentage was 54% not 60%. If you wish to go on popularity polls here is one for you Daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Of course this is one where the demographics are not 2 to 1 in favor of the Democrats.

Quoting piscivorous: In the last poll that counted, the election, the percentage was 54% not 60%. If you wish to go on popularity polls here is one for you Daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Of course this is one where the demographics are not 2 to 1 in favor of the Democrats.

One thing that you should keep in mind is that Rasmussen polls frequently over-represent Republicans in their samples. By "over-represent" I mean that the fraction of self-identified Republicans in the sample is larger than other surveys indicate is the fraction of Republicans in the population overall. Here, for example, is a discussion of this aspect of their methodology from last September. Despite your hyperbole about "where the demographics are not 2 to 1 in favor of the Democrats," I think you will agree that the number of people who self-identify as Republicans has been smaller than the number of people who self-identify as Democrats for quite some time now, and further, has gone down since last fall. This means that if Rasmussen persists in requiring a fixed percentage of Republicans in a given survey, they are going not only to be biasing their sample

Quoting Whatfur: I would be interested in what conservative blogs you frequent while I would also be interested in what specifically Obama has done that we should be getting behind.

As far as the types of blogs I am talking about here (the ones I criticize), I mainly just read The Corner, and then see when they are linked at blogs I enjoy or discussed here. My point was that based on the discussion by the conservative participants here, the blogs that I'm not reading don't seem to be saying anything particularly interesting. Beutler seems a lot more interesting than, say, Erik Erickson. As for the policy questions, you are missing my point. I am quite interested in good faith, thought out, actual conservative arguments. A lot of what is quoted, though, sounds like nothing more than snark and arguments made to the converted, which you already know the easy responses to. (Like the fauxrage about Pitney or the trumped up fear that Obama will be censoring conservatives and all that nonsense. Plus, the refusal to talk about health care other than to repeat claims (ones that make no sense) that it's a sneaky plan to create a single payor program

Besides being flip, I was trying to make the point that dismissing out of hand a huge chunk of society is pretty poor form. If so many people believe something, even if it's only 54% instead of 60% of people, then it's worth taking more seriously than just assuming it's wrong and dredging up a bunch spin to justify that.

This pretty much says it all

while most polls (17) overestimated Obama strength.
Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen and Pew—were
perfectly in agreement with the actual election result (**).

Quoting piscivorous: This pretty much says it all

No, it really doesn't. It says nothing of the kind. I was careful to distinguish between Rasmussen's polling in an election season and their demonstrated behavior on "issues" polling at all other times (emph. added):

Quoting bjkeefe: Further, on "issue" polling (compared to measuring candidate preferences shortly before an election), it is well-known that Rasmussen frequently returns results significantly more to the liking of Republicans/conservatives than do other major polling outfits.

You have basically ignored my entire argument just because you had some handy irrelevant link among your collection of Factoids That Seem To Confirm What Piscivorous Would Like To Believe. Look, pisc, if you want to kid yourself that Rasmussen is the only unbiased pollster out there, and that all the other big-name firms are "liberally biased," be my guest. But I gotta say, that sounds a lot like those yahoos one hears who say, "Fox is the only news source that's balanced."

Quoting pampl: Besides being flip, I was trying to make the point that dismissing out of hand a huge chunk of society is pretty poor form. If so many people believe something, even if it's only 54% instead of 60% of people, then it's worth taking more seriously than just assuming it's wrong and dredging up a bunch spin to justify that.

Sorry pampl, then maybe you would like to enlighten me as to the overriding reason you voted for Obama. His experience? His color? His preacher? His friends? His views on the issues? If its the latter then, which view. Which has he come through with for you? I know he made a bunch of promises to the homosexuals yesterday, but once again just promises. Is that your hot button? Are you happy about the fact that his deficit makes the last administration's (you know, the deficit you all were railing against a year ago) look miniscule? Are you happy about his handlingly of Iran? Iraq? Gitmo? GM? Venezuala? Honduras? Maybe it was his apology tour. And "dredging up spin", did you have something to retort anything I produced?
Come one kids, give me something to work with here ... instead of platitudes and "flip"ent remarks. And I am still

Whatfur, you seemed to be responding to my comments, so I may have made the mistake of trying to understand them as a response. Not knowing what your actual views are, how can I tell you what policy goals or efforts of Obama you should be getting behind? My complaint was about a style of discussion in RW blogs aimed primarily at rightwingers which are not interesting critiques of Dem proposals, but basically just talking points, that it's hard to believe anyone seriously believes. So when someone like Beutler is on, it's sad that he's stuck quoting rather airheaded commentary like that from PunditMom (or that Lewis must go on about the fear of censorship, though at least it seems he believes it) rather than discussing his own views, which sound quite a bit more intelligent. The RW blogosphere at the moment seems subpar. (And, yes, I prefer to read stuff like American Scene and Larison and even Frum on a regular basis rather than the idiocy that is Red State, but have read plenty of links and such.)

Quoting Whatfur: Stephanie can spout that "listing a bunch of issues is not an argument"... you know

Quoting Whatfur: Sorry pampl, then maybe you would like to enlighten me as to the overriding reason you voted for Obama. His experience? His color? His preacher? His friends? His views on the issues?

If its the latter then, which view. Which has he come through with for you? I know he made a bunch of promises to the homosexuals yesterday, but once again just promises. Is that your hot button? Are you happy about the fact that his deficit makes the last administration's (you know, the deficit you all were railing against a year ago) look miniscule? Are you happy about his handlingly of Iran? Iraq? Gitmo? GM? Venezuala? Honduras? Maybe it was his apology tour.

Yes, no, no, yes, yes. No, no, yes, yes, yes, no, yes, yes, yes. Hope this helps.

pampl, Thanks! Now we are getting somewhere. However I can tell you do not really wish to enter into any sort of real discourse with me which actually is about the wisest thing you have evidenced so far. Steph, It wasn't just the topic but the question and the source of the question...regardless though; the President and his staff should not be framing anything prior to a press conference and then pretending that it is
ad lib. I assume it really was done as an effort by Huffpo to actually get selected for the question and I guess beggers cannot be choosers. With that said, you are correct ...not that big a deal. Certainly does not reflect well on the President any more than Sarah Palin seemingly using some of the same words that Newt did...but of course nobody made any hay with that either. As far as Sotomayor, well you reap what you sow as Democrats there. Boring? maybe...but no more so than Alito or Roberts and the result will probably be the same. Of course YOU would not admit here that if either of those two made

Quoting bjkeefe: No, it really doesn't. It says nothing of the kind. I was careful to distinguish between Rasmussen's polling in an election season and their demonstrated behavior on "issues" polling at all other times (emph. added):

Yes it is awful nice to be able to distinguish between polls that can be tested in reality, i.e did they get the election numbers right, and those that can never be verified. It does make for endless argument and little if any enlightenment.

Quoting bjkeefe: You have basically ignored my entire argument just because you had some handy irrelevant link among your collection of Factoids That Seem To Confirm What Piscivorous Would Like To Believe.

Actually one does not need a "handy irrelevant link" to argue that polls are generally notoriously inaccurate and are often no better than a projection of the polling organizations biases. This particular link was the first entry in a Google search along the lines of "accuracy polling election." or something like that and I misspelled the accuracy in the search If I remember correctly. I do believe that we have had the polling argument before so you should be well

Quoting piscivorous: Actually one does not need a "handy irrelevant link" to argue that polls are generally notoriously inaccurate ....

So why did you start this whole thing by trying to use a poll to make your argument?

I thought that the sarcastic tone of my original comment would show through, but perhaps you missed it.

Quoting piscivorous: I thought that the sarcastic tone of my original comment would show through, but perhaps you missed it.

Yep, I guess I did. So why didn't you just say you were being sarcastic after my first rebuttal to your Rasmussen poll?

Quoting Whatfur: It wasn't just the topic but the question and the source of the question

False. It was the source of the question, that's all (so basically like calling on someone where you have a good idea of the topic likely to be of interest). The idea that he would have planted that question is just silly. And, of course, there was no pretense -- Obama made it clear what was going on, and no one tried to hide it. It's this need to misrepresent and spin that I don't get (not you specifically, but in the RW blogosphere). Make your substantive arguments, and you'd get more respect. I respect conservatives who do that without trying to turn everything into some cheap political point, scare tactic, or payback.

Quoting Whatfur: As far as Sotomayor, well you reap what you sow as Democrats there. Boring? maybe...but no more so than Alito or Roberts and the result will probably be the same.

I actually agree with this. I have said to other Dems I know that the Dems brought it on themselves (although I understand why they see it as different -- I don't really, except that some of the rhetoric this time really should be embarassing

I didn't agree with your premise of your argument, hence the link showing that most polls miss the mark, on which you chose to focus on the fact that Rasmussen got it right, ignoring PEW, instead of the 21 of 23 that got it wrong. (17 favored Candidate Obama 4 Candidate McCain) simply because I included a link to a Rasmussen daily tracking poll in my previous post. I can understand that bit of confusion and I probably should have not included that part in the quote.

Quoting stephanie: False. It was the source of the question, that's all (so basically like calling on someone where you have a good idea of the topic likely to be of interest).
...

Wait a minute Steph I thought it was just the topic? Oh I see now you have chosen to include the source also. Is that not what I suggested? As to the specifics of the question, well I guess you don't really have to know the specific question if you are not planning on answering it. Obama never answered the question but merely pontificated with generalities. So I will grant you that neither of us can really claim positive proof here. Pretty hard to ignore the admitted facts that Nico was called the night before, given a prominent spot on the floor, and asked the second question during the session prefaced by the President using almost the exact same words the questioner was about to: THE PRESIDENT: Nico, I know that you, and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the

Quoting piscivorous: I didn't agree with your premise of your argument, hence the link showing that most polls miss the mark, on which you chose to focus on the fact that Rasmussen got it right, ignoring PEW, instead of the 21 of 23 that got it wrong. (17 favored Candidate Obama 4 Candidate McCain) simply because I included a link to a Rasmussen daily tracking poll in my previous post. I can understand that bit of confusion and I probably should have not included that part in the quote.

You sound like you want to have it both ways. You're plumping Rasmussen on their current polling because they happened to come closest to calling the election results (two days before Election Day, wow. Not.), but to every legitimate point I've made about their history regarding issue polling, you're punting with "I don't trust polls" and "I was being sarcastic." No point in carrying this any further.

To continue...

Quoting stephanie: I've read the relevant decisions, so if you want to talk about something specific in them, I'm willing.

Of course, it was the dissent of the decision that was most telling and the fact that it WAS overturned makes the dissent even more so.
According to dissenting Judge Jose Cabranes, the single-paragraph order issued by Sotomayor and her colleagues ignored over 1,800 pages of testimony and more than an hour of argument--ignoring the facts of the case. “(T)he parties submitted briefs of 86 pages each and a six-volume joint appendix of over 1,800 pages; plaintiffs’ reply brief was over thirty pages long," Cabranes wrote.

"(O)ral argument, on December 10, 2007, lasted over an hour,” Cabranes explained, adding that more than two months after oral arguments, Sotomayor and the majority panel upheld the lower court in a summary order “containing a single substantive paragraph.”

Cabranes criticized Sotomayor and the majority for not explaining why they had sided with the city in their new opinion.

“This per curiam opinion adopted in toto the reasoning of the District Court, without further elaboration or substantive comment, and thereby converted a lengthy, unpublished district court opinion, grappling with significant constitutional and

Quoting stephanie: My complaint was about a style of discussion in RW blogs aimed primarily at rightwingers which are not interesting critiques of Dem proposals, but basically just talking points, that it's hard to believe anyone seriously believes. So when someone like Beutler is on, it's sad that he's stuck quoting rather airheaded commentary like that from PunditMom (or that Lewis must go on about the fear of censorship, though at least it seems he believes it) rather than discussing his own views, which sound quite a bit more intelligent. The RW blogosphere at the moment seems subpar.

Just read a recent post from Julian Sanchez (who hates both parties) that reminded me your lament. Here's an excerpt:

I pull up my feed reader in the morning and get the political news of the day as seen through the prism of two-party political conflict. These fall into two central categories. First, there are issues where Obama is only marginally more sane than Bush, but conservatives are outraged that lip service is being paid to sanity. Second, there are issues where Democrats are grinding along with some well-intentioned but probably harmful plan, and the Republican

Ah, Whatfur, you seem to be playing change the topic in your answers. It's always strikes me as odd that people don't think others can follow that they are doing this.

Quoting Whatfur: Wait a minute Steph I thought it was just the topic? Oh I see now you have chosen to include the source also. Is that not what I suggested?

No, you said it was the question. It's always been perfectly open that the whole point was to solicit a question from a particular source (an Iranian). Presumably, if the Iranian had been mainly interested in the amendments to the cap & trade bill, Obama would have answered that. Presumably, he solicited the question assuming it would be about Iran and was (shock!) correct. This idea that that's the same as planting a question, so that in talking about the issue you just can't stop yourself from overstating the case and saying something untrue is what loses all credibility. You simply can't even pretend to care about the true situation.

Quoting Whatfur: As to the specifics of the question, well I guess you don't really have to know the specific question if you are not planning on

And here we have more bait and switch. Whatfur, you made a (ridiculous) comment about the recent 5-4 decision in the Ricci case, and when I indicated a willingness to discuss the case you said:

Quoting Whatfur: Of course, it was the dissent of the decision that was most telling and the fact that it WAS overturned makes the dissent even more so.

Okay, still not elaborating on what is so telling in the dissent. I've read it, and so far see no reason to think you have. You then go on:

Quoting Whatfur: According to dissenting Judge Jose Cabranes, the single-paragraph order issued by Sotomayor and her colleagues ignored over 1,800 pages of testimony and more than an hour of argument--ignoring the facts of the case.

Um, are you trying to connect this to the SC dissent somehow? You do know that Cabranes is on the 2nd Cir, right? And that a majority of the 2nd Cir decided not to hear the case en banc, and that it was that decision -- not to hear the case -- to which Cabranes was dissenting? Thus, to suggest that Cabranes' particular criticisms are somehow the definitive position on anything is bizarre. (You also know that

Heh, too true.

Quoting bjkeefe: Just read a recent post from Julian Sanchez (who hates both parties) that reminded me your lament. Here's an excerpt:

And the statements you quote was followed appropriately by Sanchez saying: "Now, I realize this is somewhat irrational." Everytime I have read anything from Julian; I picture someone who spends a bunch of time admiring himself in the mirror. I CAN see where his comments would remind you of Stephanie however as he too makes a bunch of general statements without backup. But I am not going to argue with someone who admits to giving Obama an undeserved pass as he obsesses about Republican shortcomings.

Quoting stephanie: blah blah etc.

"Lets twist again, like we did last summer" . Sorry sweetie, your misinterpretation does not a point make. I merely was
pointing to the "bizarre" handling of this case when in Sotomayor's hands and that IS what I was originally talking about. Sorry it did not fit your template. Cabrenes' comments merely expounded upon the bizarreness. The mere fact that the Supreme Court even took it up validates his thoughts. The fact that it was overturned drop kicks it over the goal post. How Ginsburg feels about the outcome is inconsequential, is it not? Sotomayor is the topic here. Because she (and others) were so derelict in addressing the case in the first place, it is pretty hard to tell where she really stands. But yeah if you want to defend Ginsburg dissent, have at it. Now thats bizzare.

Quoting stephanie: So many conservative blogs just seem to read as spin for whatever is anti-Obama (and to be written from a scoring political points perspective rather than a particularly thoughtful one, with often much effort lately at message control and attacking conservatives who depart from the party line).

It's not just blogs..

Quoting pampl: It's not just blogs..

Quite so. Here, for example, is the latest insanity from RNC Chairman Michael Steele:

Ahhhh a confluence of comments.

you are completely wrong about this in nearly every single detail. 1) sotomayor was in a panel of judges, so anything you say about her would have to apply to all of the other judges agreeing to it. 2) the Supreme Court took the case to CHANGE the law (judicial activism). the majority opinion states that they are CHANGING the standards used to decide such cases. 3) this explicitly affirms that Sotomayor (and company) decided the case according the understanding of the law as laid out by previous supreme court decisions.

Quoting Whatfur: The mere fact that the Supreme Court even took it up validates his thoughts.

You do know that's a ridiculous statement? I will give you some credit and assume that you do.

Quoting Whatfur: How Ginsburg feels about the outcome is inconsequential, is it not?

You are the one who keeps bringing her up as if she had said something supportive of your point, which she did not. So in other words, you have no response, so give up. That's okay. It you ever want to actually read the case and discuss it, let me know.

Quoting popcorn_karate: you are completely wrong about this in nearly every single detail.
1) sotomayor was in a panel of judges, so anything you say about her would have to apply to all of the other judges agreeing to it.

2) the Supreme Court took the case to CHANGE the law (judicial activism). the majority opinion states that they are CHANGING the standards used to decide such cases.

3) this explicitly affirms that Sotomayor (and company) decided the case according the understanding of the law as laid out by previous supreme court decisions.

a. You say I am wrong but dispute nothing I wrote.
1) That's fine with me.
2) And here I thought it was that there was no disparate impact liability. Sorry champ, there was no "changing" of the law. I guess that is why you clean toilets as opposed to fighting fires. By your criteria, everything the Supreme court hears would be changing the law.
3) Finally, maybe if Sotomayor and company had actually explained why they decided they way they did (you know arguing substantially for disparate impact liability) it would not have gone to the next level. Bottom line is liberals prefer non objective testing methods because it give

Quoting stephanie: ...
That's okay. It you ever want to actually read the case and discuss it, let me know.

You keep saying that but yet have offered NOTHING!!! You seem
very confused. That's ok Stephy...run along now.

actually i've fought quite a few fires, but its clear your just a dick that likes to pretend to be a big man on the internet. have fun, punk.

Quoting bjkeefe: Just read a recent post from Julian Sanchez (who hates both parties) that reminded me your lament. Here's an excerpt:

Following on, here's something from Conor Friedersdorf:

The estimable John Schwenkler offers a useful coinage: prefab conservatives. In construction, a prefabricated house is produced in a factory, shipped out to building sites, and assembled by folks unequipped to design anything better.

The prefab conservative, or prefab-con, brings the same attitude to political discourse: rather than using reason and critical thinking to craft arguments that fit the real world, he trots out prefabricated memes, arguments and conclusions that are passably functional at best. All too often, they are even worse: the typical prefabcon lives in an intellectual house of ugly, wobbly walls that collapse on themselves in slight gusts. Undaunted, he throws up another structure on the same spot, though that wolf named reality is standing right there, ready to huff and puff again.

Worth link-hopping from his post to Schwenkler's to Poulos's, etc., if you're interested in how Not Real Conservative conservatives are thinking about things these days. (h/t: Another Not Real Conservative)

Quoting popcorn_karate: actually i've fought quite a few fires, but its clear your just a dick that likes to pretend to be a big man on the internet.

have fun, punk.

In any case, your latest retort is understandable...having been shown that your initial response was pretty inept. Thanks for playing along Later Smokey.

And the walls came a-tumblin down. Hey Steph, I guess you are going to have to take up your misguided defense of pretty boy Niiiico with Helen Thomas. As I mentioned earlier....a fraud. Lift up the blindfolds and take a little peek. Night kids...Too funny.

Quoting bjkeefe: Following on, here's something from Conor Friedersdorf:

... who has apparently made The Most Deranged Bloggers List. That Mark Levin, huh? (via Sully, aka The Daily Squish) <-- Yeah, that's Levin's, too.

(never thought I would be positively quoting this woman) “Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try."

“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

“I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well--for the town halls, for the press conferences,” she said. “It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.” (cnsnews.com) But what would you expect from an adminstration whose reaction to a 9.5% unemployment rate is to create record taxation programs? Whatever happened to the good old days of Bush bashing because the employment rate was 5.4%?

Michael Barone quoting Yale's Emily Bazelon lamenting about Ginsburg: "She laments that the promotion test rewarded memorization and that it favored " 'fire buffs' -- guys who read fire suppression manuals on their down time." She is outraged that a fire department might want to promote firefighters who know more about suppressing fires, rescuing victims and protecting their colleagues rather than simply promote a predetermined number of members of specific racial groups whose self-appointed political spokesmen back the politicians in office." ...read the whole thing....it should eye-opening (blindfold lifting). Bottom line...why is it that its the liberals who always seem to be the ones perpetuating racisim while projecting it elsewhere??

Quoting Whatfur: "She laments that the promotion test rewarded memorization and that it favored " 'fire buffs' -- guys who read fire suppression manuals on their down time." She is outraged that a fire department might want to promote firefighters who know more about suppressing fires, rescuing victims and protecting their colleagues rather than simply promote a predetermined number of members of specific racial groups whose self-appointed political spokesmen back the politicians in office."

...read the whole thing....it should eye-opening (blindfold lifting).

It did open my eyes. I wouldn't have thought that such a prestigious newspaper as the Washington Examiner would have deliberately misattributed quotations, or that such a clearly earnest and level-headed young man as yourself would fall for this tactic. It turns out, though, you can make up whatever BS you want and there's always a big enough tool out there to buy it.

Quoting pimple: It did open my eyes. I wouldn't have thought that such a prestigious newspaper as the Washington Examiner would have deliberately misattributed quotations, or that such a clearly earnest and level-headed young man as yourself would fall for this tactic. It turns out, though, you can make up whatever BS you want and there's always a big enough tool out there to buy it.

What is the quote that was "deliberately misattributed"? What BS was made up? The only tool here is the one who responds with the wide brush lacking paint.

Quoting Whatfur: What is the quote that was "deliberately misattributed"?

What BS was made up?

The only tool here is the one who responds with the wide brush lacking paint.

There's only one quotation in the passage you copied. It's like taking a multiple choice test except there's only one answer to choose from, and you're still asking for help. I'm speechless. The "fire buffs" line was from a New Haven firefighter, by the way. I don't know why that article didn't just cite the firefighter, he's a dirty Mexican and that's almost as bad as being some uppity liberal woman professor am I right? I guess mentioning that the actual firefighters are the ones complaining about the test being stupid might reveal that the concern here isn't fire safety but using the legal system to get white firefighters promotions.

Quoting pimple: There's only one quotation in the passage you copied. It's like taking a multiple choice test except there's only one answer to choose from, and you're still asking for help. I'm speechless.

Well..."speechless" IS a synonym for dumb. As I provided the source of the provided quote. I, of course, assumed that you might have read the whole article. In any case, your response wreaks of disingenuousness and either shows a lack of said reading or a lack of reading comprehension. There's a multiple choice question for you!

Quoting pimple: The "fire buffs" line was from a New Haven firefighter, by the way. I don't know why that article didn't just cite the firefighter, he's a dirty Mexican and that's almost as bad as being some uppity liberal woman professor am I right? ...

Funny how immediately after I suggest that libs are the ones who perpetuate racist stereotypes and project them to the right...you proceed to what?...Yep...perpetuate racist stereotypes and project them to the right. You must spend a fair amount of time cleaning shit off your shoes.

Edit: I changed my mind, I'm not really interested in just name calling game this morning. Nothing you wrote addresses the dishonesty of that article and in trying to deflect you make yourself just as dishonest. If your devotion to partisan spinning wasn't completely obvious to all readers from your first post, by this point it must be. If you wish people to take you seriously you should try to think more critically about the arguments you're putting forward and not juxtapose laughably ignorant and dishonest arguments with strong ones.

Quoting pampl:

Quoting Whatfur: You must spend a fair amount of time cleaning shit off your shoes.

I guess this is your way of admitting you're full of crap and you just got stomped.

WIN.

Quoting bjkeefe: WIN.

Perez!!!!
I was wondering when Queef boy was going to chime in. Pimple, Yes, probably best that you join Stephy and run along as you are obviously out of your league.

Quoting Whatfur: Perez!!!!
I was wondering when Queef boy was going to chime in.

Sounds like you remain a big Mark Levin fan.

I'm trying to figure out why you can't seem to remember what you actually argued just a few posts ago. However, as long as your own posts continue to refute themselves, go for it.

Quoting stephanie: I'm trying to figure out why you can't seem to remember what you actually argued just a few posts ago. However, as long as your own posts continue to refute themselves, go for it.

You are so obtuse. I refuted nothing I wrote. Ya know you would be far more believeable when making statements like that if you actually pointed to the specifics of what you are castigating. The only thing I backed away from was whether Nico actually shared or was given his question and only because I was big enough to admit that it could not be discerned. You however, made no admission because ...well ...because you obviously are small.

Quoting bjkeefe: Sounds like you remain a big Mark Levin fan.

And it sounds like you remain living in your Mommy's basement.

Quoting Whatfur: And it sounds like you remain living in you Mommy's basement.

Wow. You just make that one up? You're even lamer than I remember.

Quoting stephanie: So many conservative blogs just seem to read as spin for whatever is anti-Obama (and to be written from a scoring political points perspective rather than a particularly thoughtful one, with often much effort lately at message control and attacking conservatives who depart from the party line).

Following up on what pampl said ("It's not just blogs."), Paul Krugman's thoughts (via) on recent WSJ opinionating are worth quoting in their entirety (see his post for the many supporting links).

This morning’s Wall Street Journal opinion section contains a lot of what one expects to see. There’s an opinion piece making a big fuss over the fake scandal at the EPA. There’s an editorial claiming that the latest job figures prove the failure of Obama’s economic plan — something I dealt with in the Times. All of this follows on yesterday’s editorial asserting that the Minnesota senatorial election was stolen.

All of this is par for the course; the WSJ editorial page has been like this for 35 years. Nonetheless, it got me wondering: what do these people really believe?

I mean, they’re not stupid — life would be a lot easier if

DeLong's take:

The best conversation about this I ever heard was one I was not supposed to hear. But it was very entertaining to listen to.

As I remember--and since I didn't write down notes afterwards, I may have some details wrong--I was seated at lunch in Washington DC, and at the table immediately behind me were then-representative Charlie Stenholm (D-TX) and Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH). They started talking about why the WSJ editorial page was what it was. They settled on the conclusion that the Journal editorial writers thought that their role was to make not the strongest but rather the most persuasive case for lower taxes and Republican candidates in every circumstance--that they had a duty not to inform their readers, not even to make the truest arguments for the side that they had been hired to support, but rather to make the arguments for the side they had been hired to support that would strengthen that side the most by convincing the most people.

Then they went on to the second level: why did the rest of the Wall Street Journal allow this? Robert Bartley's (and now

Quoting claymisher: DeLong's take:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/0...answer-to.html

LOL! That went well with the fireworks. [Added] BTW, did you notice that Krugman has now officially become a full-fledged member of the DFH pajama-wearing basement dwelling America-haters? Yes, that's right. He's cat-blogging. (He's been snarking for a while now.) [Added2] And of course, he realizes that blog-fame has its limits.

Quoting bjkeefe: LOL!

That went well with the fireworks.

[Added] BTW, did you notice that Krugman has now officially become a full-fledged member of the DFH pajama-wearing basement dwelling America-haters? Yes, that's right. He's cat-blogging.

(He's been snarking for a while now.)

[Added2] And of course, he realizes that blog-fame has its limits.

PK is even signing off with John Hodgman's trademark "that is all."! And Hodgman is presenting seminars on nerds to the President! We are living in the era of geek convergence! It is the end times of awesomeness! The nerd rapture!

Quoting claymisher: PK is even signing off with John Hodgman's trademark "that is all."! And Hodgman is presenting seminars on nerds to the President!

We are living in the era of geek convergence! It is the end times of awesomeness! The nerd rapture!

I see a lot of bloggers sign off with "That is all." I didn't realize it was original to Hodgman. But yes, I do love that geek is chic.