Frederick defends his Obama/Osama comment as “true.”

Jeff Frederick refuses to apologize for trying to tie Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden, Bob Lewis writes for the AP. Frederick—the gift that just keeps on giving—admits that it was “stupid,” but says that the statement was true.

The embarrassing comment was recorded by Time as: “Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon. That is scary.” John McCain himself responded to the statement, calling Frederick “an obscure party official” on the “outer most fringe” of the Republican Party, and declaring “that his comment was not appropriate.”

Whether or not the statement is true is irrelevant. I can play the “saying things that are both true and inappropriate” game:

  • Both Jeff Frederick and Adolf Hitler enjoyed a steady rise to power accompanied by a significant loss of support from a major chunk of their constituency. That is scary.
  • Both Jeff Frederick and Eric Rudolph have possessed explosive materials and showed a real glee in discharging them. That is scary.
  • Both Jeff Frederick and Jeffrey Dahmer have an primal drive to cook and eat flesh. That is scary.

Apologize? Never! Everything that I said is perfectly true. Getting in a bigger-asshole competition is how we wound up with “Little Bo Peep.” I can come up with factually true, totally misleading statements all day long.

In short: God bless Jeff Frederick. I should send him a Christmas card or something.

60 thoughts on “Frederick defends his Obama/Osama comment as “true.””

  1. I pray to God that the rest of the RPV takes its cue from John McCain and decides that the position of state party chair is so obscure that wasting an hour deciding whether or not to fire him at the “advance” isn’t a worthy use of their time. Plus, um, we only make fun of him because of how terrified we are of his expertise as an operative. Yeah. The more we make fun of him, the more effective he is, and vice versa.

    No kidding.

  2. Plus, um, we only make fun of him because of how terrified we are of his expertise as an operative. Yeah. The more we make fun of him, the more effective he is, and vice versa.

    I see we’re on the same page here. :)

  3. When capable and moderate Republicans abandon the Party you get Republican leaders like Sarah Palin and Jeff Frederick. That is scary.

  4. Gee, thanks for the advice, Waldo. We all know how much good will you have for the GOP, and how you wish it well.

    It’s a real toss-up as to which is more foolish: making a comment like this in front of reporters, or listening to advice from Liberals on how to “fix” the GOP?

  5. I don’t see what’s so bad about the comment by Frederick. A conservative gets smeared b/c he/she gave a talk to the Federalist Society at an A-list law school two decades ago. Ooooo, scary!

    This guy is pals w/ an unrepentant terrorist who was lucky enough to get off on a technicality and unlucky enough to make asinine comments to the NYT which ran on 9/11/01.

    Nothing wrong with pointing that out.

  6. My suspicion is that Waldo would be very happy if Republicans would ignore his advice as to how to “fix the GOP”.

    As he said, “God bless Jeff Frederick.” Just keep on keepin’ on.

  7. Damn. James Young has seen through your insidious plan, Waldo. Back to the liberal drawing board.

    High five.

  8. Wow, Sam! You have no real answer the point (which is: “You worry about your problems, and we’ll worry about ours”), so you belittle the messenger.

    I guess that works in the blogosphere. It even appears to have worked with the electorate, this time.

    We’ll see how long it is before Lincoln’s observation about fooling the people kicks in.

  9. Jimbo: After two Federal election cycles in row where the Republican Party has had it’s ass handed to them by an electorate fed up with pipsqueak Republican candidates and meandering, anti-government, hyper-partisan misfeasance…Mr. Lincoln’s wisdom has already been invoked. You just didn’t get it. Imagine that!

  10. Really, Bubby? I could’ve sworn that you boy was talking about tax cuts as the main element of the “change” he’ll bring. Now sure: I think he was lying. After all, promising tax cuts to 95% of workers is a lie when 40% of them don’t PAY Federal income taxes, even assuming that — like the Great Prevaricator — he won’t find some excuse for breaking his promise. But the promise of tax cuts sounds distinctly “conservative” to me.

    That’s the real difference between Republicans and Democrats: Republicans expect their candidates to do what they promise when elected, and get pissed off when they don’t keep them; Democrats expect their candidates to make any promise necessary to get elected, and make any excuse necessary when they break them.

  11. You worry about your problems, and we’ll worry about ours

    I guess I’m just confused, James. If you were new to political blogs, I’d take this occasion to explain what I’d presume to be your fundamental misunderstanding about what it is that political blogs do, but obviously that’s not the case here. Clearly, you don’t mean that political bloggers shouldn’t write about their opposition. You’ve spilled as much ink (or electrons, I suppose) writing about the “Democrat Party” as you have about Republicans. And you couldn’t mean that political bloggers shouldn’t write specifically about the operations of the opposing party, since you have so often done that. So I’m left scratching my head as to what, specifically, you’re suggesting that I stop writing about.

    To address your initial point—that Republicans should avoid doing anything that I recommend that they do—that’s precisely why I continue to offer this advice. If Republicans are going to self-consciously avoid doing anything that I think is a good idea (a concept that you’ve brought up repeatedly over the past few years), it seems that it’s in Democrats’ best interest for me to provide the most useful advice that I can.

  12. There are a lot of us cons who think McCain made a big mistake in not going after some of Obama’s dubious associations harder, eg, Rezko, Ayers, and esp Rev Wright. I tend to agree with this line of thought and was terribly frustrated with the McCain campaign for not hitting this harder esp when he was losing badly in October.

    Hillary couldn’t attack on this line as a fellow Dem but McCain certainly could have. You can bet the Clintons wouldn’t have hesitated to attack a Republican w/ those associations.

    Not arguing McCain would have won the election but perhaps it would have been closer and he might have held onto more traditionally red states.

  13. Hey on the topic of things that I think are a great idea so you probably shouldn’t do them? I think it’d be a great idea if you stopped labeling Democrats as communists and/or socialists. That might have worked with people who grew up watching Leave It To Beaver, but you’re never going to connect with voters who were born after the Berlin Wall fell by using political scare tactics from the 1950s, and as a consequence, you will continue to surrender voters under 30 to us so we can turn them into habitual Democratic voters.

    But hey, I’m just a Lib who is probably only whining because it hurts my feelings or something. Y’all should definitely keep on keepin’ on with the Joe McCarthy rhetoric. Also: consider bringing back the slogan “I LIKE IKE.” It worked well for you.

  14. You’re right Will. Conservatives should have smeared a bigger ball of dung on their stick and swung it harder!

    They [Republicans] spent the bulk of the election ranting about “celebrities,” “tire gauges,” “Rev. Wright” and “William Ayers,” then capped it all off with the silly “Joe the Plumber” nonsense. Fear-mongering isn’t a hallmark of a party confident that its agenda is squarely in the American mainstream. Rather, it’s a sign of insecurity — that it can’t win votes by running on substance.

    Yet substance was all the voting public wanted this cycle, and they proved it by electing the “liberal.”

  15. Damn, Bubby. I was honestly trying to engage in constructive give-and-take. Why the hostility? You guys won big. You could afford to be a little magnanimous.

  16. So many responses, so little time!

    First: Waldo. So you came up with two examples? And I hardly would categorize those two pieces (the first, noting the manner of selecting County Committee officers, and the distinctions between the two in PWC … from two years ago (!); the second, regarding RK’s impending demise) as commenting upon agendas and how the parties to which I do not belong should change to attract voters. In neither case did I presume to advise the subjects about how to conduct their business (though in the latter case, I would compare you favorably to the boys and girls at RK, since you have never shrank from honest debate).

    That is an arrogance which seems to be reserved to Democrats and other Liberals, one which obviously must be taken with the understanding that the “advisor” (1) doesn’t have the best interests of the GOP at heart; and (2) does so in order to advance his or her own ideological agenda. So your charge is somewhat specious.

    Second, Sam: if you insist upon advocating socialist policies (like nationalized health care), why shouldn’t the advocate of a socialist idea be accurately categorized for what he is: a Socialist? I am unaware of anybody who has “label[ed] Democrats as communists,” though there is some truth in the old bon mot that goes something like “What is the difference between a Democrat and a Communist?” Answer: “The Communist knows what he is doing.” And I certainly don’t know anybody named “Ike” who is active in politics. And Ike Turner beat Tina to death.

  17. James, do you watch TV, listen to the radio, or read a newspaper ever? To say that such “arrogance” is “reserved [for] Democrats and other liberals” – you must simply have blinders on. Not attacking the messenger (unless you are willing to characterize yourself as having done the same thing in your initial responses to Waldo) – just pointing out that the vast, vast majority of conservatives who publicly express themselves constantly try to tell “Democrats and other liberals” how they could best go about their business as a party.

    For me, the point is that Waldo is (accurately) pointing out the bizzarity of one Republican’s actions and the absurdity of playing word games in politics like Frederick has. I’m not totally sure I see him as having given advice as to how to fix the GOP – just basking in the glory that is it’s lack of fixing so far.

    Like we’ve said before – thanks. Keep it up. We love watching this stuff.

    Oh, and “nationalized” health care isn’t socialist. Regardless of Sarah Palin’s highly educated assertions to the contrary.

  18. And I hardly would categorize those two pieces…as commenting upon agendas and how the parties to which I do not belong should change to attract voters.

    Ah, so this just got quite a bit more specific. So your objection isn’t to discussing the specifics of the operations of the opposing party, as you did with the Prince William Democrats, but those specifics as apply to attracting voters? (Though you did, in that blog entry, ask “which party is ‘inclusive,’ and the ‘party of the people’?”, which would seem to run counter to that objection.)

    In any case, I think you and, well, most people will have to disagree on this one. :) When the chair of a state party compares the opposing party’s presidential nominee to one of the most hated men in the world, that’s the sort of thing that’s worth writing about on a political blog. The RPV’s long, slow downfall—a train wreck in slow motion, really—has been basically what I’ve written about. As I explained in May:

    The theme of this blog for the past few years has been that, given a choice, Virginia Republicans will always choose wrongly. Not wrong in hindsight, but wrong like should I pick up some dinner on the way home, or drive off a bridge?

    Democrats ought to be studying and writing about what Republicans are doing well, and what they’re doing badly, and there’s just no sense in stopping that discussion at an artificial boundary, whether that be after election day, the double doors in front of The Obenshain Center, or Jeff Frederick’s desk.

    And, yeah, what Sam said: tagging Democrats as “socialist” or “communist” (i.e., “Pravda on the Potomac”) is just bizarre to anybody under the age of about 35. Socialism is sort of quaint to us. Communism is downright cute. (The USSR collapsed when I was 12. China has been segueing out of communism for years; they’ve been functionally capitalist for most of my life. What’s that leave? Cuba? Adorable!) I mean, keep it up—we can see how well that served McCain’s campaign—but you may as well be crying “remember the Maine!” for all the good that it does.

  19. Uhhh, “va displaced,” yes, it is. “Socialist,” that is. That you deny it is “playing the word games” that you purport to decry, or simply reflects ignorance. Make your choice.

    And Waldo, I wouldn’t go around bragging about how “Socialism is sort of quaint to us” and “Communism is downright cute.” I suppose one might say the same about Naziism, but then again, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot make Hitler look like a piker on the death scale, but have much better representatives in our institutions of “higher” learning, who seem to labor under the misconception that the totalitarian temptation was merely some sort of abberation. You merely reflect an historical ignorance which is beneath you…. or perhaps a function of your “education” in government schools.

  20. Communism is cute, in a derisive sense of the word. The Red Scare’s petered out and shown itself to be largely ineffective at subverting the American way of life, and what Communists are still around aren’t particularly treated like threats. If Communism as an ideology was so dangerous, why do we give such strong preferential treatment to China as a trading partner? Why do our businesses invest so heavily on their shores? Why do we sell them so much of our national debt.

    But to the larger point of the totalitarianism which you ascribe to being the natural result of Communism: back when Waldo and I were 12, Glasnost and Perestroika effectively wrested total control over Russia from the grasps of the politburo (see, I actually did pay attention in history class). Russia started enacting free market policies, and Russians were afforded an actual choice at the ballot box so they could participate in an emerging democracy. And thank Goodness! Because since totalitarianism is a consequence of Communism, now that there isn’t any pure Communism in Russia anymore you could never have a totalitarian leader like Vladamir Putin ruling Russia and threatening its neighbors from behind the curtain that is Dmitry Medvedev.

    Right?

    You accuse us of not knowing what happened in the 1950s; I suggest that you’re not completely aware of what’s been going on during this first decade of the 21st Century.

  21. “Glasnost and Perestroika effectively wrested total control over Russia from the grasps of the politburo.”

    Thank you for the Gorbasm. God forbid you should give credit where credit is due.

    It was Ronald Reagan’s policies that brought down the Soviet Union. If you were taught what you assert, you’re the victim of educational malpractice.

    And Putin is not a totalitarian in any meaningful sense of the word (I would refer you to Hannah Arendt). He is authoritarian, and expansionist, in the best Russian traditions going back to the Duchy of Muscovy.

    And I nowhere accuse you “of not knowing what happened in the 1950s.” I didn’t mention “the 1950s” at all. That was you, Sam, in the typical far Left response to having your ideology identified for what it is: suggest that anyone who pays attention to history and what it teaches is “living in the past,” because — darn! — you modern Lefties (with your ideology out of the 1840s) are just so much smarter than those who’ve tried to impose it in the past, and all it really takes to achieve the Socialist nirvana is more government control and more taxpayer money. Never mind the consistent failures of the past.

    You state that “The Red Scare’s petered out and shown itself to be largely ineffective at subverting the American way of life, and what Communists are still around aren’t particularly treated like threats. If Communism as an ideology was so dangerous, why do we give such strong preferential treatment to China as a trading partner? Why do our businesses invest so heavily on their shores? Why do we sell them so much of our national debt.”

    Your series of non sequitors is virtually inscrutable, but let me take a shot by breaking them up.

    1. As the last will be first, as for our treatment of China, I neither defend it, nor think it very wise. Therefore, I can’t answer your questions.

    2. As for the belittling appellation “Red Scare,” it “petered out” because a number of “Reds” were exposed. Alger Hiss ring a bell? I actually met the man, in college, and had a very dear friend who was a classmate of his at Harvard Law, and always thought him innocent, even though as Conservative as I. It is comforting to me to know that my friend did not live to see the release of the Venona Papers, which has caused all but the most die-hard moonbats to recognize his guilt. Even the Rosenberg’s children now admit their guilt. “Red Scare,” indeed!

    3. Of course, the “Communist threat” was — at least in the 1950s — never so much about “subverting the American way of life” as it was about conquest. Eastern Europe ring a bell? Korea? Going back a little further, the Baltic States?

    4. “[W]hat Communists are still around aren’t particularly treated like threats.” Of course not, at least by their apologists on the far Left, who subscribe to the old Leninist (if memory serves) credo “No enemies to the left!”

  22. The problem ain’t that you like to talk about history, friend; what makes you sound out of touch was point number one, where you can’t articulate even a dissenting explanation of modern China policy as implemented by Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, or Bush 43. Notice how there was only one “Communist” in that list, btw? It would be super if you could apply any of that to addressing the challenges of the 21st Century, but you can’t. At the end of the day, all you’re rhetoric is designed to do is accuse Democrats of being idealogical traitors and enemy sympathizers.

    Which, in a delightfully full-circle way, brings us back ’round once again to the likes of Jeffery Frederick and yourself. Jeffery Frederick has nothing worth articulating on matters of national policy, so he would have us believe that the biggest challenge America faces today is actually Barack Obama because he’s “scary.” Your petulant political rhetoric from the days of yore to equate Democrats with “Leninists” may be calculated to make septuagenarians long for the days of Father Knows Best, but even most baby boomers nowadays recognize it for what it is: Godwin’s Law as seen from the other side of the coin, and the mistaken, warped belief that the greatest threat America faces today are Democrats.

    Which is why no one really takes you seriously, James. The rest of us are concerned with the credit crisis, the housing crisis, rising unemployment, deflation, Russian aggression towards its neighbors, the two wars we’re fighting, Pakistani militants in the NWFP…we have actual challenges that we as a nation must face, while all the likes of you and Jeff Frederick have to offer is why we should be afraid of other Americans.

  23. Sam, you’d sound a lot more serious if you didn’t misrepresent others. You’d sound a lot more serious if you were able to take “Yes” (i.e., agreement with the premise that our China policy is ill-advised) for an answer, and discern the difference between declining to “articulate even a dissenting explanation of modern China policy” — which I don’t defend or support — with the inability to do so. Perhaps your confusion arises from my ill-advised use of the word “can’t.” I should have said “won’t waste my time.” And save for casting pearls before swine like this, I’m not in the habit of wasting my time.

    I am curious, however: Who on “that list” — “Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, or Bush 43″ is a “Communist”? I didn’t see even one, unless you know something about someone that I don’t.

    As for “no one” taking me seriously, Sam, well, a number of rejoinders. First, those are bold words from a man who hides his identity. Are you taken so seriously that you fear association with your rantings? Or do you leave only a a first name, lest the reader say “Who?” Perhaps you are merely Sam the Butcher, of Brady Bunch fame, and I’m just not getting it. Of course, perhaps “no one” with whom you hang out, to be sure. Perhaps none of the little anonymous and pseudonymous ranters of the Virginia blogosphere. However, my recent argument before the United States Supreme Court suggests that your betters DO take me seriously, demonstrating that your comment reflects a consistent ignorance, not just an historical ignorance. I suspect that such ignorance is reflected in your chosen candidate. I hope not, but then, he has no record upon which to sustain the “hope.” And he is choosing advisors who have been wrong — some, even by his own standards — on the defining foreign policy questions of the last thirty years.

    And like my friend Jeff, I agree that that is indeed “scary,” particularly when coupled by his dubious associations.

    Oh, and BTW, accusing the GOP of trying to “scare” people to win votes is a bold tactic, particularly in light of the Democrats’ 50-year history of scaring old people every two and four years.

    I believe the psychological types call it “projection” when you find fault with the actions of others in which you engage yourself.

  24. James Young,

    Allow me to point out why you’re largely going to get vitriol, and not a reasonable discussion with your line of reasoning:

    It was Ronald Reagan’s policies that brought down the Soviet Union. If you were taught what you assert, you’re the victim of educational malpractice.

    Here, you make two points. The first is that it was Ronald Reagan’s policies that led to the fall of the Soviet Union. A reasonable point, though one I disagree with. However, your second point ensures reasonable people won’t engage you in dialog: “if you were taught what you assert, you’re the victim of educational malpractice.” Now, I’m not saying Sam was right, but your response implies that any academic opinions I present will be met with claims that the educational system is fundamentally corrupt. If we rule this out, what does it leave us with? Well, we could argue from primary sources, but doing so on blog comments isn’t terribly rewarding, given that it simply takes a long time to analyze historical primary sources to the point where you can answer the question “why did the USSR fall?.” In fact, doing so is more the work of a dissertation (at a private, conservative school, of course) than a blog comment. Or, I could do as you just did and respond with naked, unsourced assertions, but I don’t see that as being particularly useful or interesting, as that devolves into a shouting match. And thus, reasonable people will probably not respond to you.

    But then, perhaps you’ve found arguing in this manner reaffirming. You get to argue against people who’ll engage you in shouting matches, which affirms your suspicions that liberals are irrational and hysterical.

    If you ever want an honest debate, you’ll have to leave behind tactics such as suggesting Waldo is wrong as “a function of [his] ‘education’ in government schools.” This shuts down argument because it calls into question any opinion Waldo might have without actually producing any enlightenment to anyone.

    Also, is going to “government schools” at any point in your life disqualifying, or is it only if they get you young? Or only if you’re liberal?

    Anyway, enjoy your shouting match on the internet.

  25. A number of fair points, Ben (I cannot but agree with your comments about source material), even if no explanation is necessary. Beginning with your first, of course, history is interpretation, and Sam’s comment implied — or perhaps I just inferred — what you seem to confirm as your view: that glasnost and perestroika arose full blown from the toe of Mikhail Gorbachev. A matter subject for debate, to be sure, and certainly not a conclusion to be affirmed with the certitude of Sam’s statement. And making it with such certitude bespeaks — to me, at least — evidence that “the educational system [to which the speaker was subjected] is fundamentally corrupt.”

    That, and the fact that that the teachers’ unions — who opposed Reagan and his policies root and branch — are and have long been a virtual adjunct of the Democrat Party.

    And subjection to the governments schools is not permanently corrupting. One can recover and overcome. I did. ;-)

  26. Actually, I’m not much of a product of government schools. I was home-schooled for years, and paid my own way through much of high school, attending a private school/home schooling group. I’ve basically had the sort of education that conservatives hold up as an ideal.

    More to the point, James, you’re talking about reality. (For the sake of argument, let’s just assume so.) Sam and I are talking about perception. So it might be reality that you’ve been visited by little green men, who took you up in your flying saucer and probed you. But if you start telling people that, their perception will be that you’re off your rocker. This is, incidentally, the distinction that the Bush-Cheney campaign made in 2004 that, they argue, won them the election.

    When Republicans shake their fists and rage against communism and socialism, what an increasingly-large chunk of the electorate hear is “blah blah blah I’m old and out of touch blah blah blah.” You might as well be telling us to get off your lawn. You might be right, but it doesn’t matter—it’s still a losing tactic.

    Which brings us back to the topic at hand. Even Even if Frederick’s statement is right, it doesn’t matter—the perception is that he’s an asshole. He can insist that he’s right all day long, but that only makes him look like more of an asshole. Which is A-OK by me.

  27. We have a Republican Party burdened by “dubious associations” with Dick Cheney down to Morgan Griffith, and Karl Rove across to Jeff Frederick, and Jimbo wants to get all William F. Buckley Jr. on Obama and the Democrats? Here in the chewy nougat center of the Virgil-Goode-Mitchell-Wade-Jack-Abramoff-Rightwing-Felony candybar no less!

    James,you are no Bill Buckley. As they say off-shore, you are a man with a cardboard ass. I know it, and I’m certain that your crew knows it. The kooks have taken over the SS Republican. Palling around with the state-lead kook isn’t leadership, not even close; just saying.

  28. James Young,

    Thanks for your reply. I believe that you’re saying fundamentally the same thing you were trying to say before, but in a much more arguable fashion.

    For the record, I don’t hold that “glasnost and perestroika arose full blown from the toe of Mikhail Gorbachev.” I in fact believe that I’m not well enough educated about the matter to know exactly what happened to bring down the Soviet Union. However, my earlier rejection of thanking Reagan solely for their fall is based in what I have learned leading me to believe that Reagan was at most partially responsible, in conjunction with other significant factors.

    And I actually asked about the evils of government schools specifically because I’m familiar with Waldo’s story, and wondered if his time at Virginia Tech a couple years ago is where they turned him wrong. ;)

  29. There you go again, Waldo: confusing your caricatures (“the sort of education that conservatives hold up as an ideal”; “shake their fists and rage against communism and socialism”) with reality. And your own response (basically, “I can’t answer these arguments, so I’ll respond with baby-talk”) with “what an increasingly-large chunk of the electorate hear.” Doubtless you and others on the Left have had great success — through the last two cycles, at least — in persuading the ignorant. We’ll see how long it lasts.

    And Ben, as for Waldo’s time at Virginia Tech, that is doubtless where he went wrong. While it has come a long way from my college days at H-SC — when it was said “All dirt roads lead to Tech” — I do distinctly remember attending their a grain party at the home of a now-state Senator….

  30. Grain party at Tech in the home of a state Senator? Best thing I’ve ever heard about Blacksburg.

    Can you still get 190 proof Everclear in VA ABC stores?

  31. Don’t know, Will. I’ve reached the point in my life where the spirits I consume are, let us say, somewhat “superior” to those consumed in my college days.

    Stuff would probably kill me now. But I’d be well-preserved.

  32. I’m just upset that I won’t see “Ranting Kids… er, Raising Dough… er, Raising Kaine… er, ‘RK’” from you Jimbo. How will you sustain yourself? The RPV did pay you every time you used it right?

  33. James, your response to my really quite simple comment is so angry, out of scale, and strangely wrong (Republicans don’t like home schooling?) that I’ve been at a loss of words for hours. Suffice it to say, we’re clearly speaking different languages. You worry about how the kids are dancing to that new “rock and roll” music, and that jazz is getting girls pregnant, while the rest of us just like the beat. Pointing out that schism to you seems only to make you angrier and more convinced that you’re right for reasons that you can’t quite define, and that’s really not good for anyone. We are, in short, talking past each other, and if my words are insufficient to demonstrate how that’s so…well, that’s all I’ve got.

  34. “Angry,” Waldo? There you go with those caricatures again, caricatures upon which you expand as you go on. As for whether Republicans “like” home-schooling, that’s a little like saying the ACLU members “like” Nazis because they defended their First-Amendment right to march in Skokie. Skillful tactic, to be sure, but nothig less than caricature. I offer my comments with a smile on my face. Your being “at a loss for words for hours” sounds much more like “anger” than anything I’ve said.

  35. I wonder if Mr. Young thinks that he uttered the phrase ‘Hitlary’ in many places as a way of reasoned or educated debate, and whether his and others’ use of incendiary rhetoric adds anything to any debate?

    Does Mr. Young consider the language he uses to be of refinement and evident of his HS-C schooling? Or is it the mumblings of a groupthink automaton that goes through the motions with his glib and seemingly illogical responses?

    Although, I must say, Mr. young has actually stuck around this time to belch out his classic responses about fine liquor, and all the rest. I do notice he is actually arguing here.

    Usually he is a one-off artist, as evidenced on my own completely insufficient blog. Nice of you to stick around.

    And Happy Holidays to you too, Mr. Young!

  36. I like “Bushitler” much better than “Hitlary.” Of course, bumper sticker slogans like that appear to have been regarded as the paragon of sophistication and edginess by my friends on the left these last few years. Much more ubiquitous as well. I’m just sayin’.

  37. Well, Mark, “Hitlary” is a word, not a phrase, for one thing. And accusations of engaging in the actions of a “groupthink automaton” are certainly deliciously ironic coming from those who get their marching orders from “Daily Kos,” or — better yet — “Talking Points Memorandum.”

    But of course, and as I’ve explained before, the reason for use of the word is Hitlary’s advocacy of a government takeover of one-seventh of the American economy, to-wit, her proposal for socialized medicine. The point — and there is one — is that the modern Democrat Party has much more in common with Hitler’s National SOCIALISM that do common far-Left references — as Will notes — to Bush and Republicans as some kind of modern-day Nazis. That’s the kind of discernment and discrimination among good and bad ideas that I would credit to a good education.

    ‘Course, recent Administration responses to the economic situation have more in common with 1920s and 1930s fascism than should make its Conservative supporters comfortable, and are much more in that vein than anything previously done by this Administration (certainly, more so than previously charged by its moonbat critics regarding response to Islamofascism). As Will rightly notes, such references are much more ubiquitous on the Left than they are on the Right, and — until late September, at least — much less justified.

  38. James, I’m not aware that the Nazi Party socialized health care — really, were they all about making health care more widely affordable and available to their poorer citizens? If that was part of their platform, fill me in on it.

    I am aware, though, that the Nazi Party rescinded habeas corpus and other civil liberties and ignored parts of their constitution. That sounds a lot more like what the Bush administration has been doing for the past 8 years, and it also sounds a lot scarier than spending taxpayer money on a plan to provide health care insurance to everyone.

  39. James Young,

    You betray your own staggering ignorance by equating nazism with socialism. Yes, we all know it was the National Socialist party, but if it weren’t for your blinding need to justify using the phrase “Hitlary,” you would know Marxism and Nazism are too very different beasts.

    Not that I’m entirely convinced that you believe the tripe you spew. Again, you’re using debating techniques designed to get indignant liberals to flame you on the internet so that you can feel superior. Good job.

    On the subject of which political party looks MORE like the nazis (a generally idiotic topic to begin with, considering the state of things in the US), I always thought “Verschärfte Vernehmung” sounded better in its original German.

    Will,

    You may be “just sayin’” but that doesn’t make you correct. I am glad, however, that you seem to have devised a way to collect public opinion by way of anecdotally collecting bumper-sticker information. Tell me, what does men’s bathroom grafitti tell you about the economy?

  40. James, I’ll make this a little clearer one more time: The tone and content of your comments and your accusations (I’m “fundamentally evil”?) are totally out of scale with the topic at hand. I don’t know what button has been pushed that’s made you so upset, but I hope you’ll step away from the computer, take a deep breath, and reconsider whether this is constructive. Whether or not you can see that your behavior is way over the line, I hope you can at least understand that you are a guest here, and as such that you’ll respect my request that you just stop your involvement in this discussion if you can’t do so without recognizing that the purpose of all discourse here is to attempt to change others’ minds and have one’s own mind changed. If you’re not interesting in participating in that process right now, I’m afraid that you’re in the wrong place.

  41. Waldo, if it makes you feel better to believe that I’m “upset” and/or “angry,” you go right ahead. I understand the desire: it’s so much easier to dismiss someone that way. Just like its easier to defeat someone you’ve made a laughing stock.

    But at least get the words right: “appalled”; “disappointed.”

  42. Dude keeps pushin and pushin. I’m not afraid to push back.

    Sorry to you though, Waldo. Pls delete it if you want.

  43. @ Mark

    Is there a class where they teach you guys to feign righteous indignation at mere words of those with whom you disagree, or is it something endemic to the character of many liberals to get the vapors when confronted with something mildly profane?

    I’d really like to know.

  44. I don’t think you generally delete comments, Waldo, but if you’re on the fence, allow me to request that the comment stays there. Will’s comment is much more insulting to himself than it is to me.

    And yes, Will, I do push. True to the right-wing-internet-poster caricature that you are, I called BS on your unfounded claim and you accused me of being a cocksucker. Well done.

  45. i was wondering that myself; why “asking for answers to reasonable questions” equals “pushing” and should elicit name-calling. but i guess we’re just ignorant “moonbats,” right?

  46. Will,

    Fuck no. I was in the Navy, and I can curse better than a lot of people. It just comes naturally.

    But if you are thinking that somehow my disgust with you was over the idea presented about Ben, then you are one stupid asshole.

    If you think you can keep up with the adults out here, then learn how to think for yourself and learn how to defend your ideas in ways that doesn’t involve calling into question the sexuality of your ‘opponent’. It makes you look like an imbecile.

    Of course, there’s always the chance that you have chosen to say these things in order to get reactions from people. If so, then this will be the last I have to say to you on this subject.

  47. Jesus. We actually made it from one side of Godwin’s Law to the other with Mr. Young by virtue of bringing up Nazis. This thread doesn’t just prove my point or Waldo’s point…it somehow has managed to prove every point on the Internet.

  48. Admit it Will, you been drinking since the day you realized it was “President Obama”, and “Representative Nye” :)

    With nothing but doom and despair on the rightwing blogs I suppose it was only a matter of time until your walk in the wilderness would bring you and Jimbo through here. Have you heard about fellow rightwing conservative Bill White? He’s only a couple of klicks out ahead of you, keep moving.

  49. Bubby’s right about one thing. That’s one good thing about the recent effort to allow bars to remain open all day in the District for the inauguration.

    I know that I’m going to feel like drinking heavily at that time. ;-)

  50. I was at Bush’s Jan 2001 Inauguration…until it started snowing. Then I went w/ friends to The Dubliner on The Hill and had many, many Guinesses. Good times.

  51. The Dubliner’s a great place, Will. Been there a few times, and I was told that my long-lost twin worked there when I was working on the other side of the Hill, on the phone banks at the RNC, in the summer of 1984. Never saw him, though.

Comments are closed.