Kleinman and Yglesias smack Glenn Reynolds around.

Ouch.

Glenn Reynolds still doesn't know what the word "socialism" means. And he's proud of it. You learn something new every day: I thought it was only sleazy politicians who treasured their ignorance. Of course, if you're a state employee who holds that state employees are lazy and incompetent, you have to walk the walk. But someone should tell Reynolds that a state-owned law school is a lot closer to "socialism" than are fuel-efficiency standards.

Reynolds, who's prone to respond to criticism by suggesting that his critics are mentally ill, also thinks that Barack Obama is "too thin-skinned to be President" because he resents being falsely labeled a friend of foreign terrorists.

Isn't it fun to watch the right wing decompensate in the face of the Obama tidal wave that's about to wash over them?

Yes.

See also here.

Glenn Reynolds ties George W. Bush, Matt Drudge in favorite wingnut survey.

I'm sure it's just that there are a lot of centrist, non-partisan libertarians who read Rightwingnut News.

#25: Mark Levin: 6
#21) Hugh Hewitt: 7
#21) George Will: 7
#21) John Roberts: 7
#21) Ronald Reagan: 7
#20) Victor David Hanson: 8
#19) Antonin Scalia: 9
#18) John McCain: 10
#14) Glenn Beck: 11
#14) George W. Bush: 11
#14) Glenn Reynolds: 11
#14) Matt Drudge: 11
#13) Bill Kristol: 12
#10) Charles Krauthammer: 13
#10) Thomas Sowell: 13
#10) Laura Ingraham: 13
#9) Karl Rove: 14
#8) Jonah Goldberg: 15
#7) Bill O'Reilly: 17
#5) Newt Gingrich: 21
#5) Ann Coulter: 21
#3) Mark Steyn: 23
#3) Sean Hannity: 23
#2) Michelle Malkin: 24
#1) Rush Limbaugh: 49

Sad Putz.

Some liberal dude named Bernie Ward is going to jail for distribution of kiddie porn.

Putz, not content to see the malefactor get his just desserts, whines, "If he were a Republican, this would be a bigger story."

Au contraire, Putz! Republican lawmakers have been arrested every couple of weeks for the last seven years. Who gives a damn about an ex-talkshow host?

Still, Putz has a point. The story definitely hasn't gotten enough play.

Fuck That Dirty Old Man.

McCain's had every opportunity to back off his "Hamas hearts Obama" remarks.

Well, he just doubled down.

"It's very obvious to everyone that Senator Obama shares nothing of the values or goals of Hamas, which is a terrorist organization," McCain said. "But it's also a fact that a spokesperson from Hamas said that he approves of Obama's candidacy. I think that's of interest to the American people."

Oh, so is that how it is? I wasn't going to bring this up, but since McCain says it's copacetic and Asian Americans are equally likely to vote Democrat as Republican, well...

On his campaign bus recently, Sen. John McCain told reporters, "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."

My Asian American friends, John McCain hates each and every one of you.

I Have a Birthday Coming Up.

Hint, hint.

Make It Stop.

Wait! Bring back those goalposts!

Remember how Richard Clarke was worried that Osama would "boogie to Baghdad" if we invaded Afghanistan? Well, I guess he was right to worry, in general if not in specific. . . . I guess it's no big surprise -- Saddam offered bin Laden asylum back in 1999 -- but given that nowadays a lot of people pretend that any kind of cooperation between Saddam and Al Qaeda is unimaginable, it's worth pointing out.

No, it's really not. (I assume he means to say "was unimaginable," what with Hussein being dead and all, but, you know, his point stands.)

Yglesias Buries the Hatchet...[corrected]

...in Putz's head:

You read stuff like this and really feel sorry for University of Tennessee students (see also). It's fine for Glenn Reynolds to have as low an opinion of Barack Obama as he likes, but it seems to me that law professors should have some idea of what a "socialist view of government" consists of. I'm pretty sure Reynolds knows that Obama's not proposing the nationalization of industry or collective ownership of the means of production, so he must be confused about socialism.

What amuses me as that I read the passage and, quite obviously, didn't believe it was worth mentioning. As IP readers know, this is standard-issue Putz.

Look, Glenn Reynolds presumably still believes that "they're not antiwar -- they're just on the other side" so it really such a stretch to call Obama a socialist?

Pretty Much.

From the bowels of Sadly, No!

Here’s how I see it: the vote in November will be between a crazed, half-senile, wholly warmongering, privileged idiot who knows fuck-all about anything and will doubtless start World Wars IV, V and VI, and a semi-conservative. What can any principled progressive do, but hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.

Jesus Fardling Christ, no-one’s asking you to get “Obama Makes My Nipples Hard!” tattooed on your forehead. But a mature and responsible person would realise that there is not, and never has been, a serious contender for the Presidential Throne who was even slightly progressive (okay, maybe Carter. In some ways).

So in the absence of Teh Ideal Progressive Candidate, responsible and mature folk will cast their vote for the least worst, recognising, of course, that it is the least worst and not the best that they’re voting for. They don’t stride around bleating about how Obama (or Hillary, for that matter) fails to be the Bestest Ever Progressive Candidate.

Dr. Mrs. Is Out of Her Mind.

And it's all so amusing. One of Dr. Mrs. Putz's mouth-breathing readers want her stance on "push presents," a tradition with which I am not familiar put certainly do not object to:

I understand that for some women, having kids is hard and painful, but so is passing a kidney stone and I doubt the majority of women think they should get diamonds for that...

I... I... I got nothin'.

QOTD.

Senator John McCain:

[O]ne of the things I’ve found in life is that unless we have a deadline, we have a tendency to delay, particularly in a decision of that impact, because it’s tough.

Waterboard Me, Baby.

So, Sam Harris publishes a Putz-friendly bwahaha on Huffington Post, which prompts Putz to note that "the Washington Post ... commissioned but then refused to publish Harris's views."

Yeah, you know, I despise Fred Hiatt as much as the next blogofascist, but score one for the old douchebag. Maybe he, unlike Arianna, saw the wisdom in not publishing an advocate of torture.

Bob Wright Reconsiders His Friendship With Mickey.

Trickle.

Haven't seen this at Politico or TPM, so FYI...

The Democratic leader in the Florida House, Dan Gelber of Miami Beach, just endorsed Barack Obama on his blog at www.dangelber.com.

"It's time to move on,'' Gelber said, following last night's resounding defeat for Hillary Clinton in North Carolina and her narrow win in Indiana. "I want to do anything I can to get people moving toward Obama and worrying about November. We've got to end this current race as quickly as possible."

Smarter, Please.

Oct. 6, 2007:

As you know, I’m all against invading or bombing Iran...

Yesterday:

Time to Attack Iranian Terror Camps? [Michael Ledeen]
So says John Bolton, and he's right.

Post 3001. In Which...

K-Lo comes face-to-face, sort of, with her readers:

I'm being blasted every which way in my inbox and on the Internet today for being a nutty cafeteria Catholic bitch who loves war and torture and the death penalty. I am told that I should be denied Communion at Catholic Mass for supporting the death penalty and for causing the deaths of innocent Iraqis.

Dear Whomever,

Please have the first six words stricken from my memory banks.

Love,
TS

Who wrote this?

The DNC? The Obama campaign?

The Anti-Obama, Anti-Wright, and Anti-Clinton GOP Model Has Been Tested -- And It Failed

The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama, anti- Reverend Wright, or (if Senator Clinton wins), anti-Clinton campaign, they are simply going to fail.

This model has already been tested with disastrous results.

In 2006, there were six incumbent Republican Senators who had plenty of money, the advantage of incumbency, and traditionally successful consultants.

But the voters in all six states had adopted a simple position: "Not you." No matter what the GOP Senators attacked their opponents with, the voters shrugged off the attacks and returned to, "Not you."

The danger for House and Senate Republicans in 2008 is that the voters will say, "Not the Republicans."

Try Newt Gingrich.

Apparently, he disagrees with Hew Hughitt (see below).

Ugh.

You could've seen this coming a mile away, but between its fallacious "body count" article and the laughable contention that Barack Obama is the most liberal Senator evar!1!, National Journal has effectively become a punchline.









Isn't that nice.

A Hewitt commenter -- probably one of the two or three people left on Earth who takes the National Journal seriously -- paints this grim scenario:

Imagine a President Barack and a lib congress. Appointing liberal judges. Defunding the military. Making Taiwan vulnerable. Giving amnesty. Opening borders. Befriending radical Islam. Validating dictators. Nationalizing heathcare. Raising taxes. Ignoring the Constitution. Growing the nanny-state. Preventing oil drilling. Perpetuating a failing educational system. Promoting imminent domaine. Dangerous times.

Don't know about you, but most of that stuff sounds wonderful. Well, except for the "ignoring the Constitution" business. We certainly can't have that.

Obama-Clark '08?

Interesting.

Your Next Assignment.

Keep it Coming.

Please, GOP. Stick with this:

Then there's the slowly spreading impact of Michelle Obama. The more voters hear her rhetoric, the less they are going to want her husband in the White House.

So anyway, last night I sent Parker a text:

If obama wins indiana i'll [verb] with a [noun].

Yeah, I wish he'd won, but I sure as heck didn't want to [verb] with a [noun].

Onward.

...John Cole is "almost physically aroused." I'm genuinely happy for him.

QOTD.

JB:

I hope the Gas Tax Relief and Anti-Elitist Act of 08 is passed. I’m gonna drive cross-country twice to celebrate. Just think how much Ramen I’ll be able to buy after that!

I'm a bit distracted today, but there might be some Taylor Marsh-blogging this evening.

QOTD.

dsquared:

I’ve heard of Kathy’s blog but I just don’t seem to be able to find it.

Deep Thought.

Why hasn't Bob Dylan denounced The Weathermen?

Take Your Pick.

On the one hand:

JAMES PETHOKOUKIS: Dude, where's my recession?

DUDE, WHERE'S MY RECESSION? (CONT'D) I don't think it's online anywhere, but I just got my latest Aviation Week and here's a report that suggests things aren't too slow:

DUDE, WHERE'S MY RECESSION? (CONT'D): Jobless Rate Falls; AP, Economists Baffled.

DUDE, WHERE'S MY RECESSION? (CONT'D): Chicken Little Alert, or how to make good news sound like bad news.

And on the other:

OMAHA, Nebraska (Reuters) - Warren Buffett, the world's richest person, said on Sunday the U.S. economy is in recession, putting him at odds with a government report that showed weak growth.

Yon, 2006 Called and Wants its Meme Back.

Michael Yon:

April saw 49 U.S. casualties in Iraq, the highest total in seven months. Does this mean, as some insist, that the enormous progress we have made since the start of the military surge is being lost?

As one who has spent nearly two years with American soldiers and Marines and British Army troops in Iraq - having returned from my last trip a month ago - here's my short answer: no.

We are taking more casualties now, just as we did in the first part of 2007, because we have taken up the next crucial challenge of this war: confronting the Shia militias.

Oh my. After five years, isn't it time to retire "we're winning because we're losing" as an argument? Yon continues:

for the next few months, expect more blood, casualties and grim images of war. This may lead to a shift in the political debate inside the United States and more calls for rapid withdrawal. But on the ground in Iraq, it's a sign of progress.

That's nice. To recap: increased American casualties = good. So, diminished casualties are...?

An Idea.

The Times would save itself some bucks by firing William Kristol and outsourcing the column to the McCain campaign. The following passages are from the second half of today's offering:

Still, Obama is the likely Democratic nominee. Some conservatives are giddy at the thought — kidding themselves that the general election will therefore be easy, that Obama will be another Dukakis. I was struck, though, in several conversations this week with McCain campaign staffers and advisers that they’re pretty sober about the task ahead. About the Dukakis analogy, for example, one McCain aide said: If in 1988 Ronald Reagan had had a 30 percent job approval rating, and 80 percent of the voters had thought we were on the wrong track, Dukakis would have won. ...

Another McCain staffer called my attention to this finding in the latest Fox News poll...

As the McCain aide put it...

Maybe that’s why, in separate conversations last week, no fewer than four McCain staffers and advisers mentioned as a possible vice-presidential pick the 36-year-old Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal.

A question for The Times's public editor: why were these sources granted anonymity?

Bring It.

Question for both Clinton and Obama supporters:

If your preferred candidate doesn't get the nomination, will you vote for McCain?

If so, why? I'm curious.