Like his deceased, cardigan-clad TV namesake, Mr. Rogers is merely making it up as he goes along, and trying very hard to look normal in the process.
Still, his post points to what may well be the most interesting… and explosive… action in this off-year election. No, not the fight for control of the House, nor that of the Senate. But rather the all out civil war within the Democratic party.
With the economy doing well, and American and Iraqi forces making steady progress in Iraq, despite what Christianne Amanpour says (how would she know anyway?), the GOP will be quite secure this November. But the Dems, on the other hand, are about to start eating their young out of bitterness and resentment. Now if Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman can only figure out how to podcast the spectacle, at a modest fee to the RNC, of course, the GOP will be rolling in money wll into 2008 and beyond.
Bat One - 09:01pm on 01/30/2006
Way to spin straw out of b.s. It must be your prolonged exposure to the guys at Wizbang (who make grand proclamations about liberals, only to have the facts poke holes in their b.s. balloons) to make up stuff like Mike Roger’s admittedly weird tactics (I’ve dealt with the guy a bit myself, so I know what I’m talking about) to extrapolate that across the entire liberal blogosphere.
Oliver Willis - 10:01pm on 01/30/2006
Let’s throw out some wildly irresponsible guesses as to who it is. My money’s on John Cornyn.
Dave - 11:01pm on 01/30/2006
Yeah, you personally never do anything that irresponsible.
I gotta give you a smidgen of credit for not just pulling a Kos and deleting it when it became obvious you’d been had…
But it draws into serious question your qualifications for the day job, Oliver. I thought you and Media Matters was all about fact-checking and getting the whole story right, but the story played into all your own prejudices and biases, and you swallowed it faster than a 20-dollar hooker.
And you posted it during business hours, too. Funny how with all the resources George Soros has put at your fingertips, you couldn’t be bothered to follow the simplest advice: the more you want to believe something is true, the more thoroughly you need to check it out.
But that is really secondary to The Greater Truth, isn’t it? After all, this IS the era of “fake, but accurate...”
J.
Jay Tea - 02:01am on 01/31/2006
Let’s just hypothesize that Michael Rogers does, in fact, have the name of someone he’d be able to out. What does he expect to gain? The Republicans are all voting in lockstep, so if it is one of them, if they voted against Alito, they’d effectively out themselves, and also demonstrate that Michael Rogers’ blackmail works on them.
It might be one of the Democrats who have already declared for Alito; see logic above.
It might be one of the Dems who has declared against Alito, in which case, why did he bother with his pronouncement?
Seems like a waste of bits, to me.
Andy - 04:01am on 01/31/2006
Typical liberal tactic… Blackmail and intimidation ... Alito will be in wheather he is coerced or not! I have always heard that you are never supposed to give into a blackmailer!…
Zsa Zsa - 04:01am on 01/31/2006
I would hope that Rogers does “out” someone. Then Republicans can stand up and say, “See? We have prominent gay people in our party. We aren’t homophobic as the Democrats love to charge. In fact, it was a Democrat who felt that this news would be devistating if it got out. Tell me again who’s homophobic?”
Steve L. - 04:01am on 01/31/2006
Zsa Zsa,
Well put; nor give in to terrorists! Republicans are not afraid of The Truth, but what about “the right to privacy” so often repeated from the left?
Andy, not lockstep, but following through with the promises they made when campaigning. By the way, a few R’s voted N.
Chief RZ - 04:01am on 01/31/2006
Notice too that Oliver’s ‘corrected’ entry says:
Looks like it may be a hoax.
He didn’t even have the stones to just say, “This story was bogus.”
Jay - 04:01am on 01/31/2006
Don’t just drop your non-sequiturds on OW and
disappear. Hang aound for a while, unless yours
is just a cry for help.
Like his deceased, cardigan-clad TV namesake, Mr. Rogers is merely making it up as he goes along, and trying very hard to look normal in the process.
Still, his post points to what may well be the most interesting… and explosive… action in this off-year election. No, not the fight for control of the House, nor that of the Senate. But rather the all out civil war within the Democratic party.
With the economy doing well, and American and Iraqi forces making steady progress in Iraq, despite what Christianne Amanpour says (how would she know anyway?), the GOP will be quite secure this November. But the Dems, on the other hand, are about to start eating their young out of bitterness and resentment. Now if Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman can only figure out how to podcast the spectacle, at a modest fee to the RNC, of course, the GOP will be rolling in money wll into 2008 and beyond.
Way to spin straw out of b.s. It must be your prolonged exposure to the guys at Wizbang (who make grand proclamations about liberals, only to have the facts poke holes in their b.s. balloons) to make up stuff like Mike Roger’s admittedly weird tactics (I’ve dealt with the guy a bit myself, so I know what I’m talking about) to extrapolate that across the entire liberal blogosphere.
Let’s throw out some wildly irresponsible guesses as to who it is. My money’s on John Cornyn.
Yeah, you personally never do anything that irresponsible.
I gotta give you a smidgen of credit for not just pulling a Kos and deleting it when it became obvious you’d been had…
But it draws into serious question your qualifications for the day job, Oliver. I thought you and Media Matters was all about fact-checking and getting the whole story right, but the story played into all your own prejudices and biases, and you swallowed it faster than a 20-dollar hooker.
And you posted it during business hours, too. Funny how with all the resources George Soros has put at your fingertips, you couldn’t be bothered to follow the simplest advice: the more you want to believe something is true, the more thoroughly you need to check it out.
But that is really secondary to The Greater Truth, isn’t it? After all, this IS the era of “fake, but accurate...”
J.
Let’s just hypothesize that Michael Rogers does, in fact, have the name of someone he’d be able to out. What does he expect to gain? The Republicans are all voting in lockstep, so if it is one of them, if they voted against Alito, they’d effectively out themselves, and also demonstrate that Michael Rogers’ blackmail works on them.
It might be one of the Democrats who have already declared for Alito; see logic above.
It might be one of the Dems who has declared against Alito, in which case, why did he bother with his pronouncement?
Seems like a waste of bits, to me.
Typical liberal tactic… Blackmail and intimidation ... Alito will be in wheather he is coerced or not! I have always heard that you are never supposed to give into a blackmailer!…
I would hope that Rogers does “out” someone. Then Republicans can stand up and say, “See? We have prominent gay people in our party. We aren’t homophobic as the Democrats love to charge. In fact, it was a Democrat who felt that this news would be devistating if it got out. Tell me again who’s homophobic?”
Zsa Zsa,
Well put; nor give in to terrorists! Republicans are not afraid of The Truth, but what about “the right to privacy” so often repeated from the left?
Andy, not lockstep, but following through with the promises they made when campaigning. By the way, a few R’s voted N.
Notice too that Oliver’s ‘corrected’ entry says:
He didn’t even have the stones to just say, “This story was bogus.”
Don’t just drop your non-sequiturds on OW and
disappear. Hang aound for a while, unless yours
is just a cry for help.