The Greenwald/Putz debate, summarized.

Greenwald: “The extreme rhetoric in the right wing blogosphere, for instance, Instapundit’s ongoing claim that the press empowers terrorists, merits attention.”

Putz: “These funny guys say Greenwald is a douche and a self-hating Jew. Heh!”

Greenwald: “Instapundit’s response to my earlier criticism was to link to a series of childish, profane personal attacks directed at me.”

Putz: “Sock puppets. Heh.”

More proof Tom Tomorrow is a genius.

Another masterpiece.

Another prominent blogger calls Putz a liar.

Josh Marshall is not pleased (via Atrios):

I try to ignore these things. But yesterday Glenn Reynolds falsely claimed I said something I simply never did. And since what he claimed I did was call for the mass and indiscriminate killing of civilians at the outset of the Iraq War, it was more than the average lapse. In fact, unless Glenn simply never read what I actually wrote, I think there is no explanation for this other than that Glenn is being willfully dishonest and quite consciously lying.

Join the club, Josh --- join the club.

Damn that pro-terrorist media.

Putz is upset about the media's supposed "spin" of the Seattle shootings. As usual, he cites no actual articles as proof, he just links to the always impartial Hugh Hewitt to do his dirty work for him.

With Tim McVeigh they [the media] were happy to generalize guilt, all the way from the NRA to Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. Here, the "climate of opinion" in subcultures producing terrorists seems to get less attention, or to be processed in more of a "why do they hate us?" fashion. I wonder why?

I'm sorry, but is just batshit crazy. A quick look around the media stories about the shootings don't try to hide that the shooter was an Arab Muslim, that the victims were all Jewish and that the shootings were a "crime of hate."

No pro-Muslim, anti-Israel spin. None.

As for claim that "the media" linked McVeigh with Limbaugh and Gingrich, this too appears to be untrue. Googling the three names hits a lot of right wing websites, all which reference the same article by Carl Rowan of the Washington Post, which contained this line:

"Unless Gingrich and Dole and the Republicans say, 'Am I inflaming a bunch of nuts?' you know we're going to have some more events. I am absolutely certain the harsher rhetoric of the Gingriches and the Doles . . . creates a climate of violence in America."

The notion that this single line in a single article by a single reporter somehow is representative of the entire media's coverage of Oklahoma City is absurd.

Even worse, Putz again and again promoted the most fringe, loopy conspiracy theories about Timothy McVeigh -- the convenient right wing fantasy that he was working with Iraqi agents.

Convenient, especially for Putz, since McVeigh was a self-described libertarian, gun nut, Turner Diaries-variety Christianist.

Putz enthusiastically linked to these McVeigh-Iraq articles in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

I wonder why?

Putz is the Wanker of the Day.

Congrats, Putz.

Torture schmorture.

Putz is very worried all of a sudden about international law.

These abuses of international law are drastically undermining its credibility.

The “abuses” Putz is referring to are, apparently, any suggestions that Israel’s response to Hezbollah has been disproportionate. Seriously. Kind of like President Clinton just did.

I’m sure we’re all touched by your genuine concern for international law, Putz, especially since you were so on top of that whole US torturing and killing prisoners thing and spoke out so bravely on Guantanamo.

Exxon Mobil forges ahead.

More "sensationalism" and "innumeracy" from the liberal media.

Soaring energy prices catapulted Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, to a second-quarter profit of more than $10 billion, and they promise to ignite industrywide growth -- and public outrage -- all year.

But not from Putz. He thinks Big Oil's profiting off the war in the Middle East is all well and good.

The incredible shrinking Professor.

Putz’s credibility is approaching his beloved W’s poll numbers. More hammering today from Djerejian and Von at Obsidian wings, who both chuckled at this Putzism:

"DIPLOMACY is the art of saying 'nice doggie' while reaching for a stick." Condi is saying 'nice doggie.' Israel is the stick.

One may disapprove of this strategy, but complaints that Condi isn't accomplishing anything merely indicate that the complainer doesn't know what's going on.

Got that? Complain about Condi-come-lately and you're just uninformed.

What does Von have to say about that?

This comment … is unbelievably foolish both in general and as applied to the crisis du jour.

Heh. Indeed.

First, (…) diplomacy is not "the art of saying 'nice doggie' while reaching for a stick." Diplomacy is the art of saying nice doggie while holding a stick. Indeed, one of my long-term criticisms of this Administration's foreign policy is its fundamental inability to distinguish the sticks we hold from the sticks we don't. It's also a failing of several prominent warbloggers, including Reynolds.

Among many, many others, Von. But please, go on.

Second, Israel is not a stick we're reaching for, nor is it a stick that we already hold. It is a stick that is being currently wielded by itself, Sorcerer's Apprentice style, to go smashy-smashy-smashy. Now, make no mistake: Israel has the right to go smashy-smashy and, despite my misgivings regarding the strategy, I wouldn't stop them yet. But when Reynolds talks about reaching for stick-Israel, he's not describing this world. He's describing some alternate universe in which we have a helluva lot more options than we do.

I think that pretty much sums up Putz beautifully. He left this world long ago, after he punched that one-way ticket to Bushlandia via Baghdad.

Another Bush critic smeared.

The only way Putz and his buddy Hugh Hewitt deal with critics of the war and the President these days is to attack them personally. John Murtha is a "disgrace." John Kerry is a traitor and an embarrassment. Fellow conservatives who dare challenge Bush’s prosecution of the war are “flip-floppers”, “180s”, and embittered "Bush-haters."

Now, Chris Matthews, even though he’s frequently lavished praise on the President, and has admitted on the air that he voted for Bush, is now deemed insane and incoherent because he’s criticized Bush's foreign policy.

A CHRIS MATTHEWS MELTDOWN: Transcript and audio available here. He has a rather shaky grasp of reality, judging by these comments. I can't do better than quote Don Imus's observation: "That is really just an...that is just an absurd, ridiculous position. I'm just...I'm almost embarrassed that you've said that.

"UPDATE: Indeed: "When next the elders of the MSM tribe gather to moan the loss of civility in politics, I hope somebody brings along this tape." Though the problem is less a lack of civility than a lack of coherence.

The “ridiculous position” referenced here is Matthews’ claim that the Lieberman/Lamont race is a referendum on the war – exactly the same analysis Putz has made again and again.

And Putz fails to mention here that Imus is a Lieberman supporter.

Some other choice exchanges not mentioned in Putz's post:

Matthews: I think Condi Rice went over there yesterday with the Israeli demands. She didn't have the American demands... It's like we don't have an independent role in the world now. …There's Condi Rice. It's a joke. They know we're just there as a friend of Israel, and that's how we're seen. And even Malaki, the head of Iraq, is dumping on us. And we put him in there. I think it's a real failure of an administration not to have an independent power role in that region, and it's going to hurt like mad in the next couple of weeks, because we can't play referee now. Everybody knows whose side we're on, 100%.

DI: Well, you're absolutely right about that…

Matthews: At some point, you've just got to say we're not getting anywhere here. This president is so commited to his neocon philosophy, whatever you want to call it, this point of view which is always right wing. It's always fight, never negotiate, invade, then hold elections so we can lose the election, and then talk to our enemy. They never talked to Iran…We don't even talk to Syria, which I don't get. Why we don't have relations with Syria...I mean, you don't make friends with your friends. They're already your friends. You try to find some deal you can cut with the other side. That's why you have a State Department.

DI: I had a conversation with Andrea Mitchell yesterday, from there, she just landed in Beirut with Secretary Rice, and they were going somewhere, wherever they are today, the West Bank. I said why don't you go to Syria and talk to that clown? And you're right.

CM: If you vote for Lieberman, he's not going to change his position. He's going to be for the war, and he's...and the president will be...the first phone call he gets will be from Bush saying congratulations, Joe, for hanging in there, and that's pretty much his problem. He's gotten connected to this president.

DI: Yeah, but I mean, if you listen to Lieberman out on the campaign trail, and in that debate and so on, I mean, there's a lot of...he's 180 degrees from the President on almost every other issue, other than his idiotic position on the war. But I mean, my position is it's not enough reason to throw the guy out of office, because he's made the unfortunate mistake of supporting this ridiculous war.

CM: Well, it's not a mistake. It's not a youthful indiscretion. Look, he's where he stands. He's further right than the President, probably.

A poll Putz likes.

Woo-hoo! 50% of Americans are mistaken!

Looks like Santorum's little dog-and-pony show, which Putz breathlessly devoted several pages to, has paid off.

Not surprising. It's not like they haven't done this before.

The Two Minutes of Hate.

It’s both fascinating and entertaining to watch Putz, along with his buddy Hugh Hewitt, point and scream at conservatives who are criticizing the war.

The "180s." I agree with Hugh Hewitt that Bush ought to reach out to war supporters who now disdain him. But I think that a lot of the flipflopping is from people who feel that they have to attack Bush and the war now in order to protect their standing in the journalistic or foreign-policy establishments, so I don't know how well it will work.

So to Putz, conservative war critics do not have any valid arguments about Bush and Rumsfeld’s prosecution of the war worthy of a response. They simply cannot, because the war is, ipso facto, just and good, as is Bush. Andrew Sullivan, George Will, William F. Buckley, and George Djerejian --- all unprincipled, spineless Bush-haters, defeatists, “180s”, flip-floppers, interested only in preserving their journalistic street-cred, and lashing out because they feel “embittered” and “disdained.”

It’s pathetic, but this is really all Putz can do, since even Republican congressmen are finally conceding that the “Iraq is going well, the media is just distorting the news” lie is no longer credible, the objective metrics of the war are getting worse every day, two-thirds of the American people think Iraq is a disaster, and Iraqi leaders keep saying the darndest things.

I suppose Sullivan, Will, and GD got off easy, in a way. Since they’re conservatives, they aren’t getting smeared as “traitors” or “a disgrace” or “pro-terrorist” as their liberal counterparts are regularly by this group.

Still, you’d think a law professor at a prestigious state university could do better than Karl Rove’s tired, attack-the-messenger playbook.

Master of the obvious.

Iraq is getting so bad that cut-and-run Republicans are starting to waive the white flag of surrender, George Will and William F. Buckley have officially given up on Bush and there is no end in sight to the Israeli-Hezbollah war.

So the libertarian, non-partisan, centrist Putz begins the week by shooting spitballs at John Kerry, Joe Wilson and the media (yawn), while giving Condi-come-lately the credit for the fall of oil prices, after failing to note that they hit an all-time high last week.

The thrice divorced, draft-dodging, drug-addicted college dropout couldn't do it any better.

For his daily media bash, Putz turns once again to that prestigious bastion of news and commentary, TCS Daily, to an article that begins with this huge no-duh:

Maybe, when this Lebanon thing is over, we'll finally get it:
Guerrillas like to hide behind civilians.

Putz's response to this no-brainer?

This is something that neither the press, nor discussions of the law of war, gives sufficient attention.

So the Big Truth that “the press” willfully hides is that groups like Hezbollah target civilians and use them as shields?

Is he out of his mind?

I guess all the reports of this "Lebanon thing" broadcast practically every minute of every day on three networks and five cable news networks for the past two weeks about Israeli cities being hit by Hezbollah rockets didn’t sufficiently underscore the point that civilians actually lived in those cities.

Or maybe the non-stop images being simulcast around the entire planet of Lebanese cities in ruins from Israeli artillery and bombs didn’t effectively communicate the point that Hezbollah didn't hang out in clearly marked forts in the desert, far away from, you know, where Lebanese civilians live and stuff.

Geez.

By the way --- doesn’t the obvious fact that Islamic terrorist groups use civilians as cover make heavy-handed military responses both undesirable and ineffective?

Just wondering.

John Manchester, Middle East expert.

With the neocon remedy for the Middle East (bombing + elections = peace!) literally going up in flames, it’s getting harder and harder for Putz to link to credible sources to support his nutty, “the war is going great, it’s just that the media is lying about it to make Bush look bad” meme.

To his credit, he found one today.

JOHN MANCHESTER: "The 'big bang,' as invading Iraq has sometimes been called, was meant to reorder the nature of politics in the region. This has been accomplished in a fundamental way."

Yeah, we got ’em just where we want ’em, John.

The link (to that trusted news source TCS Daily) contains this beauty:

Israel now has the chance to destroy Hezbollah.

Riiiiight. Finally, Israel has the chance to destroy Hezbollah. They've just been playing footsie with them the past quarter of a century, since the time Hezbollah was founded after Israel's last invasion of Lebanon. Now that Hezbollah’s got 23 seats in the Lebanese Parliament, and we’ve got 130,000 American troops sitting smack dab in the middle of an Iraqi civil war -- they’re toast.

Who the hell is this guy? Has anyone ever heard of John Manchester?

Apparently not even Putz, because he got his name wrong: it’s JOSH Manchester.

Ouch.

UPDATE:

It appears Putz has corrected his original post, without indicating the edit. Now it's "Josh" Manchester, Middle East expert. Glad we cleared that up.

"I'm not a conservative."

So says Putz. We agree.

The word has ceased to have any usefulness in describing political orientation in the Bush Era. President Bush’s Republican party -- the party that Putz loyally cheerleads for -- is not conservative.

Conservatives used to advocate small, limited government and balanced budgets. They studiously avoided military adventures. Conservatives were skeptical -- if not borderline paranoid -- about the federal government amassing too much power, and were dismissive of the religious right. Conservatives used to champion federalism.

You’re absolutely right Putz -- you’re no conservative.

"I don't think we're losing."

Somehow, Putz seems to have completely missed this (hat tip, Sullivan):

“I…y’know…I think I would answer that by telling you I don’t think we’re losing.”

The US Army Chief of Staff, when asked Sunday on ABC's "This Week" whether we’re winning in Iraq.

Kind of an oversight for someone who several months ago so glibly and triumphantly wrote this:

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE FRONT: Lots of interesting developments in Iraq that deserve more attention. Insurgent infighting, the Iraqi Army getting stronger -- you'd think we were winning, or something.

Yes, lots of interesting developments, indeed.

But that’s okay, I can understand why Putz would ignore Gen. Schoonmaker. He’s just another finger-in-the-wind doomsayer.

A new low.

It's like seventh grade, in some parts of the blogosphere.

Prof. Putz on the progressive blog Fire Dog Lake - 7/06/06

Putz, who's rather fond of lecturing progressives on civility, linked approvingly to these two pathetic posts, in response to Glenn Greenwald's recent criticism.

Weekend Doucheblogging
the Biggest Douche in the Blogosphere
Glenn is a douche
Greenwald gets a hell of a lot more traction than your average douche does
Other people’s shit stinks, don’t you know
unknown-to-our-Douche-In-Chief commenter
this unemployed (unemployable?) lawyer who once represented scum of the earth
Greenwald has more respect for whacko fringe white supremacists
Surely the Doucheman isn’t crass enough
1. Glenn Greenwald is the biggest douche in the blogosphere.
2. Glenn Greenwald is the biggest douche in the blogosphere.
3. Glenn Greenwald is the biggest douche in the blogosphere.
the überdouche
“Biggest Douche in the Blogosphere”
Link to his own goddamned site, hoping you’re too stupid or too lazy
wade through three tons of Greenwald’s bullshit
Greenwald can’t evne bulllshit his way out of this one
Calling an überdouche like Greenwald a mere “douche” is a bit like calling Bill Gates just another businessman
he’s the Biggest Douche in the Blogosphere
When that happens, please remember that I’m the guy who named the doucheosphere

Greenwald's repeated lying about Reynolds … reveals Greenwald to be… either a simple-minded demagogue, or a dangerous liar: perhaps Greenwald is actually both.

One is left to wonder if there isn't more than a bit of the fascist in Greenwald when it comes to political free speech with which he disagrees. And given his opposite position on Hale, some may be justified in calling him a self-hating Jew.

Not only is Greenwald a liar, from a human perspective, the man is intellectually and morally bankrupt - an absolute disgrace.

The poor boy, it seems not even his pillow talk was private. Perhaps that's ultimately what drove him so seemingly insane.

Again, really nice company you're keeping there, Putz. Looking forward to your next helpful pointers on manners and tone.

Another conservative abandons Putz.

As if the hammering Putz took from fellow conservative Andrew Sullivan last week wasn’t damaging enough, Greg Djerejian gives him both barrels.

(Hat tip, Greenwald).

Glenn's dimly repetitive primitive attacks on the "Yale Taliban" (only John Fund gave him a run for his money), or his blasé, schoolyard jests about Guantanamo, or so much more besides (no need for a long bill of grievances here, it would tire us all)--all have led me to respect his oeuvre at Instapundit much less these past months (I also know, as he's told me, he feels the same way about B.D, so there you go).

Oh whatever, Greg. Torture, schmorture. What’s really important is that Yale Admissions' secret pro-terrorist, jihadist agenda was exposed.

…his credibility on matters related to foreign policy is in free-fall--certainly if one judges the quality of his views by the standard of whom he links to approvingly, and routinely, re: varied matters. Often, what he links to can only be described as deeply embarrasing to anyone with a modicum of foreign policy knowledge and expertise--given how often the stuff is outrageously looney, laughable fare… It must be said, many of these sophomoric policy prescriptions, if implemented, would probably find us in a series of 100 year religious wars, which is the only reason I waste time writing about it this morning--because I care about the future of the Republican party's foreign policy, and if people seriously believe this utter claptrap and horseshit in too great numbers, we're gonna have some serious problems on our hands beyond where we're already at.

Hasn't Djerejian heard of Japan? These things take time.

But it goes beyond this. Glenn will routinely piss on people who have loyally served their country (see Generals Batiste and Swannack, for the most damning examples), if they dare to point out what is blindingly obvious to all but the residual denialist fringe of bloggers and columnists--who still believe our war strategy was basically sound in Iraq--rather than an epic blunder (at least to date).

Principled conservatives like Djerejian should’ve been leery of Putz the minute he started writing love notes to the Swift Boat Liars.

Not done, Djerejian quotes an E-mail from a US soldier stationed in the Middle East, which reads (excerpted):

The shocking intelligence/reasonability/credibility free-fall at Instapundit is closely mirrored among many close friends and family members... who are leaving low earth orbit over Bush and the war. All bad news is merely the product of left-wing media bias, the New York Times is a hotbed of actionable treason, the war is going incredibly well, the Middle East is stabilizing as democracy takes hold... No facts will sway them; they simply know it to be true. Glenn Reynolds has caught a very common disease.

Let the glib, sophomoric dismissal of Djerejian begin.

Sullivan smacks Putz around, again.

Putz took this little cheap shot at Andrew Sullivan the other day, and Sullivan responds.

Glenn Reynolds believes I take "talking points" from the "Townhouse crowd." I just had to Google to find out what the "Townhouse crowd" is. It refers to an email list-serv to which I don't subscribe. Maybe he's referring to my respect for Glenn Greenwald's analysis of Reynolds' views. And, sure, if I had to choose between Glenn Greenwald and Michelle Malkin, I'd choose Greenwald. Instapundit's a Malkin fan. I guess that's our difference.

Helpful suggestion to Putz: when the center-right Sullivan and the center-left Greenwald are both saying the same thing, you might wanna pay attention.

Stabbed in the back.

A fascinating article at Harper's, which sheds historical light on Putz's incessant "blame the media" posts, like this one:

The press had better hope we win this war, because if we don't, a lot of people will blame the media.

Opening paragraph:

Every state must have its enemies. Great powers must have especially monstrous foes. Above all, these foes must arise from within, for national pride does not admit that a great nation can be defeated by any outside force. That is why, though its origins are elsewhere, the stab in the back has become the sustaining myth of modern American nationalism. Since the end of World War II it has been the device by which the American right wing has both revitalized itself and repeatedly avoided responsibility for its own worst blunders. Indeed, the right has distilled its tale of betrayal into a formula: Advocate some momentarily popular but reckless policy. Deny culpability when that policy is exposed as disastrous. Blame the disaster on internal enemies who hate America. Repeat, always making sure to increase the number of internal enemies.

Sound familiar?

Everyone at Daily Kos is just so...mean!

This post is so fantastically Putzlike, I've decided to translate it for you, in English.

Those Daily Kos people are so mean!

I should know, because I'm the sole arbiter of what constitutes civil discourse in the blogosphere. How dare Blogometer compare Hugh Hewitt, who's so nice, to all those angry Kossacks, who are so mean!

I mean, Hugh shows nothing but politeness and respect to people he with whom he disagrees. Nothing Hugh does can ever be compared unfavorably to any of the hundreds of thousands of posts on Daily Kos.

Take for example, the time those meanies at Daily Kos were so mean to me, when I called them a bunch of fringe, fanatic, Deaniacs, and falsely claimed that James Webb's victory was a loss for them, even though Kos had endorsed Webb.

Why are they so darn mean?

Can't they just emphasize the common ground, like my good friends, Michelle Malkin and Pamela at Atlas Shrugged?

Sullivan smacks Putz around.

A bad week for Putz has gotten worse. Fellow conservative Andrew Sullivan weighs in on the beating he took from Greenwald, and takes Greenwald's side.

I'm late to the blog contretemps between Glenn Reynolds and Glenn Greenwald. But I am as disappointed in Instapundit's abandonment of libertarianism and limited government as Greenwald is.

You simply can't be a libertarian and cheerlead for a big government, Christianist President. Unless of course, you're Putz.

But his appeasement of the Malkin right is truly dispiriting.

You also can't frequently criticize "the Left" for overheated rhetoric, and link daily to Michelle Malkin. Unless of course, you're Putz.

And by the way, Andrew, it's not "appeasement" it's promotion and approval.

But when push came to shove, Reynolds never challenged in any serious way the abuses of power in this administration nor the extremism of the Malkinesque blogosphere. When a libertarian finds any excuses to ignore or minimize government-sponsored illegality and torture, then he has truly ceased to be a libertarian in any profound sense.

Ouch.

Iraq = Japan.

Iraq is exactly like Japan, only younger.

JULES CRITTENDEN: "Sixty-one years after the end of World War II, Japan is on the verge of becoming a mature, responsible democracy."

These things take time.

Of course they do! Geez, patience people! What's all the fuss about?

"More than 125 people have been killed just in Baghdad over the past four days, underscoring both the randomness and persistence of violence that has convinced many Iraqis that the country is already in the throes of a low-level civil war."

*

"More than a dozen bombings killed about 60 people in Iraq on Tuesday, part of a recent surge in violence that prompted legislators to ask the government to explain why its security plan for the capital is failing."

*

"At least 25 people were killed and 38 others wounded on Monday in two car bombs blasts in a Baghdad area known as a stronghold of Shi'ite militia fighters. The explosions occurred a day after gunmen stormed through a Sunni area and killed over 40 in a dramatic escalation of sectarian violence in the city."

*

"A spate of bombings in Iraq on Monday followed a bloody weekend of sectarian violence. At least one car bomb exploded in a Shiite Muslim section of eastern Baghdad on Monday, killing five people and wounding 46, Iraqi police said. Three other bombs in the capital left 30 people hurt. A roadside bomb wounded five people when it detonated near an Iraqi police patrol close to Mustansariya University -- also in the eastern part of the city. At midday, another roadside bomb exploded near a gas station in the Mahmoudiya area, wounding 10 people, police said. A short time later, a bomb blew up in a popular shopping area along central Baghdad's al-Rasheed Street, wounding 15 people, police said. The attack was near Baghdad's central bank."

*

"Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told parliament that a national reconciliation plan he has promoted was Iraq's "last chance" to stem the violence. "If it fails, I don't know what the destiny of Iraq will be," he said."

What's he worried about? These things take time.

The company Putz keeps.

Putz is cheating on Malkin today, and flirting with Pamela of Atlas Shrugged.

PAMELA HAS PHOTOS AND VIDEO from yesterday's protest at The New York Times over leaking of national security secrets.

Here is one of the photos Putz so approvingly linked to:



Pamela is one of the more ridiculous figures in the wingnutosphere, and has tagged her blog with the following terms at Technorati:

democrats, dhimmicrats, democraps....aka the fifth column
How the Left Destroys the Nation
LLL Media Bias
palestinian arab peacemakers? *spit*
Terry Schindler Schiavo
US MILITARY GREATNESS
World War IV

This is what Putz thinks makes for good reading.

We'll remember this the next time Putz lectures "the Left" on civility.

The secular GOP.

Mocking fellow conservative Andrew Sullivan, Putz writes:

THE CHRISTIANIST THREAT mushrooms.
MAYBE THE ALARMISM IS JUSTIFIED AFTER ALL: Those "Christianists" seem to be everywhere.

Putz, who's played this game before, is in total denial. I mean, shouldn't a "moderate libertarian" especially be alarmed at the increasing influence of the Christian far-right on the GOP and actively denounce it, rather than just denying it exists at all?

Did he happen to notice that James Dobson has veto power over the White House's SCOTUS nominees? Was he asleep when President Bush traveled thousands of miles in the middle of the night for this? Happen to see Bush's genuflecting at Bob Jones University? Doesn't he think its an odd coincidence that it's only Republicans, including President Bush, Bill Frist and even John McCain that want "Intelligent [sic] Design [sic]" taught in public schools?

Or maybe he hasn't seen the 2006 Texas Republican Party platform which includes this:

We understand that the Ten Commandments are the basis of our basic freedoms and the cornerstone of our Western legal tradition. We therefore oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious symbols.

And this:

We support the traditional definition of marriage as a God–ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman, which is the foundational unit of a healthy society, and we oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists. We call on the President and Congress to take immediate action to defend the sanctity of traditional marriage. We urge Congress to exercise authority under the United States Constitution, and pass legislation withholding jurisdiction from the Federal Courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the traditional definition of marriage.

And this:

We believe that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.”

And this:

We support the objective teaching and equal treatment of scientific strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories, including Intelligent Design. We believe theories of life origins and environmental theories should be taught as scientific theory not scientific law; that social studies and other curriculum should not be based on any one theory.

And in 2004, included this:

“We pledge to exert our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and dispel the myth of the separation of church and state.”

Putz ignores these unsavory truths, because he'd have to admit that he's supressed whatever remains of his libertarian impulses to cheerlead for a party that's become antithetical to libertarianism.

Barry Goldwater expressed open contempt for far-right religious conservatives, viewing them as a danger to the Republican Party.

How would Putz mock him?

UPDATE:

Well, well, well -- lookie here:

GOOD NEWS / BAD NEWS: Good news -- Bush looks like he'll finally veto a bill.
Bad news: It's a stem-cell research bill.

But yeah, that "Christianist" thing is so overblown. Heh.

The "Deaniac Left" = 62% of the American people.

Putz, who's still getting smacked around by Greenwald today, still can't Google.

"One would think that the big political story would be the GOP holding onto power for dear life. Instead, the new narrative that is emerging is about the national Deaniac left telling Democratic hawks to beat it. The lefties' goal is a McGovernite party without the Scoop wing."

One wonders from which corner of wingnutterdom this narrative is emerging. (Putz doesn't say, and neither does Bull Moose).

But back on Planet Earth, we find the following:

ABC News/WaPost 6-22-06
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?
Approve: 37%
Disapprove: 62%

"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"

Worth fighting: 40%
Not worth fighting: 58%
Unsure: 2%

And as for that McGovernite crack:

"Which political party -- the Democrats or the Republicans -- do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq?"
Democrats: 47%
Republicans: 41%

But heh, why let facts get in the way of a little Deaniac Left/McGovernite, hardy-har-har?

Putz must find it terribly frustrating to live in a country that's nearly two-thirds traitor.

Greenwald smacks Putz around.

We've previously noted Putz's fondness for the false equivalence, but this was over the top, even for him.

INCOHERENCE ON PRIVACY: Dave Weigel thinks that the New York Times did nothing wrong in publishing the GPS coordinates of Cheney and Rumsfeld's vacation homes, because anybody can find that stuff in this Internet age. But in the same post he writes:

As so often happens with these things, angry bloggers have struck back and posted the addresses and phone numbers of the Times' photogs. (No link.)

No link? Why not? By Weigel's standards, a link wouldn't contribute to invasion of privacy. Anybody can find that stuff, right?

Putz is throwing his support behind his buddy Michelle Malkin over the latest phony outrage in the wingnutosphere, which led to this theater of the absurd outside of the New York Times building.

You see, the Malkin-led wingnuttery screeched that the Times' travel section "outed" Cheney and Rumsfeld's residences as payback for their recent criticism of the paper.

Problem is, the pieces were written with Cheney and Rumsfeld's full permission and cooperation.

Oops.

Putz, who's clearly not very bright, wasn't smart enough to stay well away from this embarassing spectacle, and Greenwald unloaded on him for it, but good:

While numerous right-wing bloggers commented this weekend on the truly inane attacks against the NYT Travel article, none (at least that I read) condemned Horowitz for promoting the campaign to publish the home addresses of editors and reporters of the Times. They had much to say about the Evil that is the NYT, but nothing to say about this extraordinary and despicable campaign perfected by extremist groups on the Right and now promoted by Horowitz and groups such as StopTheACLU, to intimidate and endanger journalists and private individuals by collecting and publishing their home addresses.

Beyond merely failing to condemn these tactics, Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds yesterday deliberately defended them by arguing that they are no different than what the NYT did in its Travel article. Reynolds attacked a post written this weekend by Reason's Dave Weigel, in which Weigel condemned publication of the home address of the NYT photographer. Reynolds -- who pointedly avoided condemning Horowitz and publication of Spiller's home address -- quoted and then attacked Weigel's condemnation as "incoherent"...

In order to avoid criticizing his comrades on the Right who are engaging in thug tactics, Reynolds actually equates discussion of the vacation homes of top government officials (who enjoy the most extensive and high-level security on the planet) with publication of the home addresses of private individuals and journalists (who have no security of any kind). By his reasoning, mentioning that the Vice President has a vacation home on the Eastern Shore of Maryland is no different than publishing the home address of private individuals who are publicly identified as traitors.

Exactly. Of course, it's worth repeating that Cheney and Rumsfeld gave their permission for the stories, presumably along with the Secret Service. So there's no "incoherence" at all, Putz.

Greenwald, not done, adds:

And, lo and behold, the Right's tactics of intimidation against private individuals are reduced by the conniving Reynolds into nothing more than a common and innocuous invasion of privacy of which the NYT and many others are also guilty. And with that corrupt equivalency established, Reynolds is able to posts on these matters without condemning the Right's thug tactics, and in fact, implicitly defends them by suggesting that they are rather innocuous and common and nothing to get excited about.

Damn. Remind me never to piss off Greenwald.

The evil BBC.

Putz is well-rested from the holiday, and in full liberal media bashing mode:

ANTI-AMERICAN, MUCH? The BBC has apologized for remarks that President Bush can "rot in Hell."

Gerry Anderson, a morning radio show host in the vast, sprawling media Mecca that is Belfast, Northern Ireland, apparently made this remark, on the air yesterday.

So from this big nothing of a non-event, Putz concludes the following:

Gerry Anderson = the BBC
President Bush = America

therefore,

The BBC hates America.

That's a fun game, isn't it? Let's try it with, say, Fox News.

John Gibson worries that white Americans are going to be outnumbered by brown hordes in 25 years, so he urges white people to have more babies.

John Gibson = Fox News
Fox News = white supremacists

Bill O'Reilly claims, twice, that American GIs slaughtered unarmed German troops at Malmedy during WWII, when in fact, it was Americans who were massacred.

Bill O'Reilly = Fox News
Fox News = hates American soldiers

John Podhoretz calls Hillary Clinton the "b-word" on the air.

John Podhoretz = Fox News
Fox News = misogynists

Once again -- people who live in the glass house of Malkin/Limbaugh/Coulter shouldn't throw stones.