Maybe!

Best of all is the implied test for a worthy Democratic candidate: But I'm not swooning until I hear Obama to tell Democrats something they maybe don't want to hear. It might have been more succinct if he'd just said, "A good Dem candidate is a hobbled Dem candidate." I eagerly await his application of the same test to the nutters running for the Republican nomination.

Maybe? Has he read Kausfiles, like, ever?

It's certain he never proofreads, anyway. Long before the contrarian schtick got old and predictable, it was Kaus' absolutely horrific "writing" that put me off ever reading his shit. I never understood how a guy who cranked out nothing but drivel rated anybody's attention. On a somewhat related note, does anyone know how badly Slate's readership numbers have plunged over the last few years? Not too much worth seeing on that site....

Not too much worth seeing on that site....

That's an interesting point. I don't read Slate at all anymore. I never made a conscious decision not to read it; there just wasn't any reason to point my browser in that direction.

Kaus isn't a self-hating Democrat, he's just a Republican.

I find myself in the same boat as sglover and SomeCallMeTim - I used to read Slate on at least a weekly basis; now I rarely visit the site.

Maybe I'm an old-fashioned Joe Kleinish Clintonian self-hating Dem. [Ed-- Check the archives.] Oh yes, I remember now! I'm Even-The-Liberal-Mickey-Kaus!

Being Clintonian would constitute a major step up for Kaus. But anyway, I too have dropped the Slate habit. I guess the rise of the blogs did it, and especially coming across TAPPED.

I remember Fred Kaplan as being good, and way back in 2001 there was Robert Wright dismantling the Bush SDI arguments. As for the rest -- not good, not bad, except for the really dreadful bits, such as Kaus.

Slate has become synonymous with "hackery with a patina of contrarianism".

No Mickey, you are not "an old-fashioned Joe Kleinish Clintonian self-hating Dem."

You are an unhinged, right wing republican writing a blog that is a cross between Newsmax and Freak Republic.

Your "concerned Democrat" act is stale. Nobody is buying it.

"I used to read Slate on at least a weekly basis; now I rarely visit the site."

Me too!

I used to read Slate regularly. Now I rarely bother.

I don't know remember the turning point. Either when Michael Kinsley left or when they got bought by the Washington Post. It used to be interesting. Now it reads like the WP op-ed page. Boring.

How could any rational individual call either Joe Klein or Mickey Kaus "Clintonian"? Both of them hated Clinton, largely because Clinton seemingly had sex on occasion. Being "self-hating" doesn't cover being a Clinton hater, unless you're a Clinton yourself.

I was fairly stunned when, after having read Slate and Kausfiles (off and on) for over a year, I discovered that Kaus was a Democrat. From reading what he wrote with no prior knowledge of his history or personal political beliefs, I always just assumed he was a Republican conservative.

I don't read him any more. Aside from the horrible writing, the unnavigable syntax, and "Clinton's penis!" style of gotcha journalism, he's just completely vapid and devoid of any good ideas or original observations. If, before my time, he was somehow an interesting commentator on politics, there's certainly no evidence of it today.

Shorter Mickey:
Democratic goals by Republican means.

You're wrong on that. Its Republican goals served up by Lieberman Democrats. I'd have a hard time coming up with one issue where Kaus agrees with the Democratic party. Maybe abortion? But he probably holds the Saletan view on that as well.

I've only been reading MK for a year, but he's a self-hating Democrat in the same way that Rich Lowry and Jonah Goldberg are self-hating Democrats. Kaus attacks every Democrat's positions, statements and personal integrity, and on the rare occasion he criticizes a Republican it's on a matter of political tactics (he's afraid they'll lose) or of not being sufficiently loyal to Conservative orthodoxy.

Klein is an unabashed Clinton lover. Even after the Lewinsky scandal.

I ve stopped reading Slate as well, but I do it with some guilt.

On the rare occasions I do visit the site, I do find a couple of interesting articles.

Kaus makes me want to kill kittens though.

"Klein is an unabashed Clinton lover."

And "Primary Colors" was just a mash note . . .

Maybe I'm an old-fashioned Joe Kleinish Clintonian self-hating Dem.

"Or maybe I'm a reactionary Zell Millerish Bushian Republican pretending to be a Dem. I report, you decide."

The fullness of the loathing of Kaus in the comments is depressing. It's good for Dems to have someone challenge them on big issues isn't of just going along with the it's-that-simple arguments on immigration, unions, etc. I'm struck by how it is assumed that he's either a) lying about being a Democrat; or b) hunting for ways to appear contrarian rather than someone who genuinely disagrees with the conventional wisdom. Go after him on the substance of what he says, don't just dismiss him.

Trouble is, Chris, that with Kaus the "substance" tends to be fluff and bullshit and lies. During the '04 election Kaus was obsessed with Kerry's hair. More recently, if Sullivan's site is any guide, "Brokeback Mountain" seems to have caused the Mickster great, almost clinical, angst. There's something twitching around in Kaus' head, but it ain't an honest and fair-minded search for truth and "substance".

chris, mickey kaus didn't simply appear yesterday: he's been telling us what he thinks for ever, and most of what he thinks is just plain dumb.

he had one big idea - welfare reform - and when not everyone in democratic and liberal circles embraced it the second mickey did, he turned into the pathetic little character that he's become.

meanwhile, the day that mickey criticizes a republican for not challenging republican orthodoxy will be one of those cold days in hell....

"Self-hating"--that's hilarious. There are few hacks out there whose self-regard oozes through every sentence quite the way Kaus' does.

What he means is he's a Democrat who hates every Democrat who isn't him. I don't know what the technical term for that is, but "self-hating" ain't it.

Go after him on the substance of what he says, don't just dismiss him.

Let him offer some substance. To the best of my knowledge, he still thinks the invasion of Iraq may turn out to have been a good idea, and he thinks "Iraq the Model" is insightful. "Genuinely disagrees with the conventional wisdom" doesn't cover it. Most especially because he responds to Dem "conventional wisdom" not with his own criticisms, but by pointing to and repeating those of the most dishonest right-wing hacks. I'd love to know what a fair over/under is on the number of citations to PowerLine that he's had.

Jeebus.

Kaus has nothing of substance to say.

He just like to play word games in which he manages to trip himself up.

Kinda lost in all of this is how honestly terrible Carson's article was.

For Kaus to say it was a 'fresh' idea is absurd.

MJ is right -- Klein was only jealous that Monica got to fellate the Clenis, and not him.

Klein is not a self-hating Dem. He is simply an asshole.

I still read Kaus and watch him on bloggingheads.tv, where he's kind of interesting. He's smart and has a supple mind, when he gets clear of topics on which he "acts out." Unfortunately, these are some big topics, like immigration or like wanting Democrats to win some elections.

He's a smart guy with a bundle of twitching neuroses. Don't take him too seriously, and he can be fun to read, in my opinion.

But his immigrant obsession is creepy, to the point where he cited "evidence" from an article on VDare.com, which is a natavist website, isn't it? What's been happening in his part of LA? Is he the only one left who speaks English, or what?

Oh, and his soft spot (hard spot?) for Ann Coulter is revolting.

"The fullness of the loathing of Kaus in the comments is depressing."

Mouth breathers on the left aren't that different than mouth breathers on the right.

They both firmly agree with George Bush that you're either with us or against us. Shades of grey make them break out in an allergic reaction. A state of cocooning is the ultimate goal.

I believe the good people at Lawyers Guns & Money had a couple of posts tracking Mickey's pathetic attempts to prove that America was not ready to embrace TEH GAYS by parsing "Brokeback Mountain"'s box office receipts. Among other things, he asserted that Dr Pepper's hometown, Plano, TX, was secretly full of liberals because there are rich people there.

They both firmly agree with George Bush that you're either with us or against us. Shades of grey make them break out in an allergic reaction. A state of cocooning is the ultimate goal.

If only David Broder could save us from this, eh, Petey?

"If only David Broder could save us from this, eh, Petey?"

One can be a brain dead centrist just as easily as one can be a brain dead leftist or rightist. Broder proves this quite nicely, of course.

"Go after him on the substance of what he says, don't just dismiss him."

There is no substance to Kaus to go after.

"There is no substance to Kaus to go after."

Since you don't read him, how do you know? I guess you must share George Bush's ability to peer into a person's soul.

(Though to be fair, Bush needs to be in the same room as someone to perform that mentalist trick. But Nan can do it through the ether!)

Seriously the Kausification of the media is nauseating and he has the gall to....

Wow. I hope I never meet him for the sake of his face.

Yes Petey such Kausian insights about how Kerrey really does look French need to be taken seriously.

"Yes Petey such Kausian insights about how Kerrey really does look French need to be taken seriously."

Well, considering that Kerry lost a very winnable election largely due to his personality and manner, I tend to take such factors pretty damn seriously.

-----

Y'know, I tend to disagree with Kaus more than I agree with him. He obviously is contrarian to a fault, and his ideology tends to be considerably more centrist than mine. But he's a smart cookie, and I learn stuff by reading him. And as a bonus, he's an entertaining read too.

Folks who don't want to read anything that doesn't perfectly line up with their beliefs invariably end up as idiots.

Y'know, I tend to disagree with Kaus more than I agree with him.

Is this like how, no, seriously, you were against the war? Most of us remember that Kaus (and Brooks) bought into and publicized the Kos Konspiracy about which you muttered much. If a Democrat, Kaus is a DLC Democrat. That you find him insightful is not remarkable. Next up: Christopher Hitchens, Genius!

"Is this like how, no, seriously, you were against the war?"

Y'know, you keep insinuating that I was pro-war, SCMT, despite my having told you quite clearly that I wasn't. (And while I understand that you feel no particular compunction to color within the lines of the truth, I don't allow myself that particular 'freedom'.)

I've been commenting on leftie blogs since pretty early 2003, always with the same moniker. (FWIW, I first found out about dKos at an anti-war rally.) Nothing ever disappears from the internet. In the age of Google, everything is searchable. Go find something to back up your insinuation, or shut the fuck up.

I read all sorts of things I don't agree with. Sometimes I come away with something to think about, sometimes it's an exercise in rhetoric to cut the thing apart, I don't read you much, Petey. I would read Mickey Kaus first, but I'd understand this: He has his little brain working, it might cough out a bunch of horseshit, but it's his thoughts. He arrived at them using his own little 2.0 hp briggs and stratton reason. Unlike you, he didn't arrive at them based on:

1) An incredibly myopic belief that Americans voted for things on long, thought out consideration of CW.

2) That he was smart enough to understand that it was all garbage, but that John Edwards and him had it all triangulated exactly to fool the rubes.

"Unlike you, he didn't arrive at them based on ... an incredibly myopic belief that Americans voted for things on long, thought out consideration of CW."

Huh? If I were to reduce my electoral weltanschauung to a sentence, I'd get the exact opposite of this.

You are right, I stand mistaken. That would be an overstatement of your opinion of the average American voter. Not careful consideration of CW, but slavish obedience to CW, would that correct my mistake?

petey, i'm not especially interested in your antiwar bonafides - i'll assume in your own way, even though you believe that antiwar politics are detached from reality, you were opposed to the iraq fiasco - but the idea that we need to read kaus in order to keep from turning into idiots is a thought on par with the notion that kerry lost a "winnable" election because of his "manner."

life is short, and when someone like kaus demonstrates, as he has in detail, that he is a puerile little game-player, i feel no obligation to keep reading him (and hell, i've even read his book). in fact, i regard continued investment of time in reading kaus (or the wsj editorial page, or prof instanitwit, or stanley kurtz, or donald luskin, or a load of others) as an act of idiocy.

the fact that monkeys produce shakespeare is not a reason to keep reading random monkey typing....

"would that correct my mistake?"

Ed, if your basic objection is that I think the average voter doesn't make particularly well-informed decisions about which candidates to support, then I'm completely guilty as charged. I think style and symbolism has an outsize importance.

"petey, i'm not especially interested in your antiwar bonafides"

You may not be, but SomeCallMeTim is. He's spent the past 6 months repeating over and over that I supported the Iraq war, despite it not being true. I'm willing to accept responsibility for things I've said and done, but I'm not willing to accept responsibility for SomeCallMeTim's delusions.

Nooooooo...that's not true.

I've seen you act up over the years, it's not just style, it's policy. No one with a sane mind thinks Joe Lieberman has an iota of style. His "symbolism" isn't just symbolism, it has a long and death dealing reality. You were big on him.

You'd kill an infinite amount of middle-east folks for style points and point poison pen at those who would disapprove if the correct people were signing the bombing runs as DEFSEC.

That's what puts me off my dinner.

"I've seen you act up over the years, it's not just style, it's policy. No one with a sane mind thinks Joe Lieberman has an iota of style. His "symbolism" isn't just symbolism, it has a long and death dealing reality. You were big on him."

As to me being 'big on Lieberman'.

I would've voted for Lieberman during the primary for tactical reasons were I a Nutmegger.

During the primary, I said that I thought Lieberman was a douchebag, but that folks ought to vote for him anyway, and offered my reasons (which I think have largely been proven correct).

I've pretty much always thought he was a douchebag.

And I would've voted for Lamont during the general election were I a Nutmegger, which I said too.

By my lights, none of this makes me very 'big on Lieberman'. Your mileage may certainly vary.

Nothing ever disappears from the internet. In the age of Google, everything is searchable. Go find something to back up your insinuation, or shut the fuck up.

Blow me, Petey. You asking for links, evidence, or examples is pretty rich. I tell you what: point to a single comment you made about the Kos Kontroversy that you tried to substantiate with links. Or point a comment above where you pointed to something useful that you learned from Kaus. Or, hell, just point to something, somewhere, that backs up a claim you'll make that people might disagree with. Just to show that you understand the concept. About anything. Politics, the NBA, anything at all. Or don't even link--give examples. Anything, big guy, anything at all.

I doubt your anti-war bona fides for same reason that people--even good friends, apparently--doubt Kaus is a Democrat: it doesn't seem to fit with the wealth of material he spews. I should note that I don't doubt that you're against the war now; I think even the DLC thinks that the splendid little invasion hasn't worked out so well.

Tim, if you wanted to provide evidence on the first-order issue rather than metaphorically soliciting fellatio and going all meta, this might've been the kind of thing to link to.

You don't find Petey saying "I support the Iraq War" there, but he has always been more interested in strategy than actual policy, and I can't see how the Democrats could occupy the strategic positions Petey's talking about and oppose the Iraq War. (Also, the strategic advice he gives Democrats on foreign policy looks pretty wretched today.)

"You don't find Petey saying "I support the Iraq War" there, but he has always been more interested in strategy than actual policy, and I can't see how the Democrats could occupy the strategic positions Petey's talking about and oppose the Iraq War."

What I say there is "hawkish on defense". I've got no problem with that, and I see no contradiction between that and opposing the Iraqi Misadventure.

I'm basically an Al Gore Democrat on national security - largely, as you note, for strategic reasons. This gives me a more hawkish profile than many of my friends, but again, I see no contradiction between being an Al Gore / Dick Holbrooke Democrat on national security and opposing Iraq.

And in reading over that 12/04 thread, god, no wonder some folks dislike me. I certainly can be blunt to a fault when the mood strikes me.

But in my defense, I wasn't very happy about losing an '04 election I thought we should have won. And the primary reason I wasn't happy is that I fully understood that losing that election meant that we'd end up much exactly where we are today vis-a-vis Iraq.

Well, I do agree that Petey is more interesting than Mickey Kaus.

I'm all for reading different views and I think I could list quite a few people I read that I disagree with on things big and small, but I bailed on Kaus in summer 2004. I think most things he wrote were driven by emotion and a fairly skewed sense of reality. His "Brokeback Mountain" comments illustrate this pretty well.

I used to think he was driven crazy the day the Democrats nominated John Kerry, who Kaus was gleefully burying. But maybe he was always that way.

Kaus basically leaves the world of facts behind to read the tea leaves of various people's spin and I don't think he reads them particularily well.

Maybe I should give him another try, but I hate wrestling with Slate's terrible web site. It's almost not worth it for Jack Shafer.

"Also, the strategic advice he gives Democrats on foreign policy looks pretty wretched today."

I'd disagree on that. I still think that the challenge for Dems today, much as it was in 2004, is to avoid becoming perceived as "The Anti-War Party" while opposing Iraq. Being able to pull of that particular trick is the precise reason why we all love Jim Webb.

If not being perceived as the anti-war party means not being seen as a bunch of dudes who smoke pot with Michael Moore after they're done holding up their "US out of Kosovo" signs, granted. But that's sort of obvious.

What I'd expect of somebody who opposed the Iraq War is that at that moment, you'd be looking for some kind of Jim Webb way to navigate the situation. That really doesn't come out in the linked material.

Count me in with the former obsessive slate readers, who haven't read that in months (I'm pretty sure it was the 2004 election that did it).

"But that's sort of obvious."

But it wasn't obvious to most at all in '04, hence my fury. Note the various party flirtations with Moore during the campaign. And note the extreme reluctance of the official Kerry campaign to grapple with creating some kind of minor Souljah moment to force perceived distance.

"What I'd expect of somebody who opposed the Iraq War is that at that moment, you'd be looking for some kind of Jim Webb way to navigate the situation."

I'm uncertain precisely which "situation" you're referring to. (I'm actually unsure how to parse a couple of different things in that sentence.)

(And I'm semi-out the door, so any re-reply from me make take a few hours.)

Let's see,

Kaus was against Iraq War
Kaus is is for Universal Healthcare
Kaus is for increaased taxes to pay for this
Kaus is for raising the minimum wage

Seems to me that Kaus is a Democrat.

I'll also note that in the past you've been able to get your Yglesias earlier over at Kausfiles.

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/10/the_radicals.html

Skip

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/10/the_radicals.html

I made the decision to stop reading slate when they ran "why americans hate democrats" in 2004. as if democrats aren't americans. deleted slate from my bookmarks. never been back.

www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
Sağır Oda
dizi izle
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
dizi izle
resim galerisi
haber
forum
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması
uzaktan eğitim
r10 seo yarışması
DrCetinerDotOrg - DrCetinerDotOrg
DrCetinerDotOrg
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar