unique visitors since July 27, 2005

« DNA: The Marriage Issue (Plus Obligatory Sex) | Main | Paging Adults . . . »

March 28, 2006



John McCain is the GOP's Bill Clinton. He'll say and do anything to gain power. If he needs to be a centrist this week, he'll be a centrist. If he needs to be a conservative, he'll go conservative.

I'm surprised gay people are surprised. He may have been against the federal marriage amendment, but he's been a vocal supporter of state level amendments for a long while.

Like John Kerry, come to think of it.

I think the one constant is the Bush factor. As long as Kerry and McCain were seen as opposing Bush, people were willing to overlook their various political positions. However, remove Bush from the equation, and suddenly you have to study the two candidates on their own. These are not terribly gay friendly people, they never have been. If people are surprised, it's only because they quite willingly looked the other way out of political expediency.

Should the Democratics earn the presidency and Congress in 2008, it'll be interesting to watch the gay reaction as things like DOMA go unrepealed and gay marriage doesn't happen. I imagine it would be similar. "Why are they betraying us!" Because, they've been like that all along.


That's part of the reason I'd almost like to see the Dems in control in '08. Part of me is just tired of playing defense all the time and always being asked to explain every single one of Bush's policies. Part of me just needs to have the opportunity to play 2nd grade "I told you so" when nothing changes for the better under the Left's control. And part of me just wants to sit back and laugh when the liberals start defending said failures.

Is that masochistic...?


i couldn't agree more, Chad. after 6 years of doom and gloom from the left, watching them pathetically froth at the mouth over Bush and he's going to "destroy the country" I can't wait to go back to the 90's, when everything was Clinton's fault and he was busy destroying everything we believe in.

i understand short-term memory loss when it comes to politics, but the blinders that people have on as they breathlessly line up to act EXACTLY like the idiots on the other side of the aisle when the tables were turned just fascinate me.


At least when the GOP was bitching about Clinton, it was only about ethereal 'family values' and the fact that he got a quickie in the oval office and then fibbed about it. No real harm done.

How many dead in Iraq now? For a war that, from all indications, was predestined and had nothing to do with common sense.

I'll take Clinton's philandering over this bullshit any day of the week.


Nothing to do with common sense . . .

. . . except for all those Iraqi documents that are all over the news.

What's the newest shifting argument against the war in Iraq? Now that the "Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda," meme is dead and buried, I'm having trouble keeping up.


Is Iraq more stable now? Is the middle east more stable? Are we safer from terrorism?

On every count, the Bush Administration has managed to achieve the exact opposite of their stated intention.

'What about the Iraqi Documents!?!?' Good lord. Get a clue, man.


Was Europe more stable in 1944? Were we safer then?

The whole idea of waging war seems to elude.


I think the more compelling question is what is the newest shifting argument for the war in Iraq. I haven't seen direct evidence to show that Saddam was supporting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. He may have provided some support to an affiliated group in the Philippines, but the argument for going to war was the carefully non-stated argument that Saddam was somehow behind 9/11, and there's no evidence to support that claim. And then of course the rationale was WMD, and those turned out not to be there, too, so the main reason retroactively became to promote democracy, and that's not going all that well, either. The argument against invading Iraq was always that there was no compelling reason to do so. That hasn't changed.

Queer Conservative

Americans these days have no sense of historical context. If results don't happen immediately and perfectly then the average American (especially leftists) reflexively assume the worst. Short-sighted is an understatement.


Ah, the return of the Prodigal Strawman. Welcome back, Dan!

For my part, I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth about what I found/find objectionable about Bill Clinton. But thanks for trying!


This post was about McCain. The mood I'm in today, I have half a mind to delete deliberately troll-like, off-topic comments.

Sorry, dudes, but not everything is within six degrees of BUSH LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If you're going to get upset about off-topic comments, don't blame Dan just because his was the first off-topic comment that doesn't reflect your political sensibilities. He was responding to a Clinton bash which was already a drift from a general left bash, which was a drift from the original post.


Anapestic, I think I'll refer you to Eric Cartman for my response.

Besides, I was only half serious, but Dan is the king of the strawmen. Robbie's comment about Clinton was on-topic because it was a comparison to McCain, as contrasted against Dan's. It's as simple as that.

Not everything needs to be about the fucking Iraq War and George Bush.


I generally don't need to use South Park to argue for me.

This is the comment two before Dan's:

That's part of the reason I'd almost like to see the Dems in control in '08. Part of me is just tired of playing defense all the time and always being asked to explain every single one of Bush's policies. Part of me just needs to have the opportunity to play 2nd grade "I told you so" when nothing changes for the better under the Left's control. And part of me just wants to sit back and laugh when the liberals start defending said failures.

Is that masochistic...?

I don't see how that relates to McCain. It's pretty clearly left bashing, and no one should be surprised when someone responds in kind. You don't seem to mind when every comment is about those damned lib'ruls.

Anyway, I'm not clear what strawman he was setting up and tearing down in this particular instance.


Anapestic: How incredibly humorless of you.


I wasn't attempting to be funny. Do you still think that Dan's comment was the first off-topic comment? Is it easier to dismiss me as humorless than to respond to the substance of my post?


You do know what "humorless" means, right? I was not alleging that you were trying to be humorous, just that you would see my South Park allusion as serious discourse. But my point was that basically it's my blog, I'm in a shitty mood today, and I'll do whatever the hell I want.

But getting to the substance of your inane argument, the comments to which you refer were discussing the 2008 elections, which is even one of the categories under which this was posted. Not directly on topic per se, but Dan's comment was a predictable bank-shot straight to Moonbat City.


Chad's topic is fairly on-topic, as the McCain discussion centers on how he's been perceived vs how he actually is. The 2008 elections will be interesting because Bush will be out of the picture. Candidates and parties will have to start campaigning on something other than "Bush is the root of all evil!"

As that begins, some are realizing John McCain isn't quite the moderate they've been led to believe. In a similar vein, the Democrats will have to start putting forward various cases as well, and seeing how they're perceived on gay issues vs how they'll actually be is a something kind of worth looking forward to.

That said, if the on-topic/off-topic stuff gets to the levels of grammar my history post did, all of you are going to be viciously attacked with a spoon.


I know what "humorless" means, and I fully understood your point. I maintain that in this post and in many others you have a double standard. Your original complaint was that Dan was off topic because "this post was about McCain." Someone else departed that topic, and you blamed Dan for getting the discussion off the rails.

This thread is a terrific example of why political discourse on the web is generally awful. The people who run a site have a particular ideology, and the views of people who have a similar ideology are far more welcome than the views of those who don't. What you end up with is an echo chamber where those who reinforce your myopia shout down those who attempt to bring a reasonable but contrary voice to the debate.

The people who have the majority voice on the blog develop the impression that they're engaging in real debate rather than sitting around and spitting chewing tobacco while congratulating themselves on having larger penises than the people in the opposite camp. And then they'll proclaim loudly that they are not beholden to any particular ideology. They will cease to seek out and consider alternate or objective viewpoints, saying that any viewpoint that differs from their own is clearly biased.

This description applies equally to blogs of all political leanings. Liberal, conservative, libertarian, neo-whatever, none of them subject the arguments of the people who agree with their view of the world to the same scrutiny as they do to opposing viewpoints. It reeks of intellectual laziness, and faulty logic abounds. Anyone who's still legitimately searching for answers rather than trying to win an argument has nowhere to turn.


Sometimes I hate it when my dog chews up my flip-flops.

.... Bush is such an asshole.



How should I put this, Anapestic?: Get a fucking clue!

Show me one other post where I threatened to delete a comment because it didn't jibe with my beliefs. One. I doubt I have ever threatened it, and I have certainly never followed through on it. I don't know how many blogs have unmoderated comments and such a lax policy as ours, but I know they're a tiny minority.

So don't give me your trite-isms about "political discourse," and don't lump us in with other blogs that are ideological echo chambers, because you can't support it. And contrary to your ill-informed assertions, I would welcome more voices from the left here. I don't pick who chooses to comment and who doesn't.

Besides, I was (mostly) joking this time anyway, just because I thought Dan's foul was so blatant.


I don't think that's necessarily true. There are plenty of commenters around these parts who Mal and I definitely don't agree with. But, as long as it's intelligently put, and you can tell the person has thought the issue through, debate generally remains ok.

It's the reflexive, unthinking, stupid stuff that earns our ire. I know people generally don't see it, but we get hard core right-wing types on the site. Unfortunately, they don't read regularly, so they respond to posts that are old. Mal and I see the comments, because we get them in e-mail. So we do have had words with unthinking right-wingers as well.

Oh, and if the person says the same crap over and over and over and over and over again, unwavering. Yeah, that'll annoy us as well. Sometimes, like Mal today, we're just not in the mood for it.


Plus, yeah, as Mal said, we don't delete comments. I'm not sure if we've ever deleted a comment aside from spam or because a commenter asked.

Wait, there was one. Something about all faggots need to be killed. Yeah, that one was outta here the second we saw it.


Perhaps you didn't understand what I meant about double standards. What I said here is that you don't subject the arguments of people who agree with you to the same level of critical analysis. Demonstrating that sort of bias does not require you to threaten to delete comments.

I'm sorry that you think I'm saying the same thing over and over again or that you think I'm obsessing over minor details. I see my arguments as trying to elucidate a point that you appear determined not to get.

Also, I don't believe that I've been rude or dismissive of your arguments, and I don't think that the same can be said of you.


What I said here is that you don't subject the arguments of people who agree with you to the same level of critical analysis.

Wouldn't that kind of defeat the argument? Could you imagine the length and boredom that would result in high school debate teams if they all of a sudden started scrutinizing their own team members who are arguing the same point?

The comments to this entry are closed.