You make a reasonable point, Ed--to those whose sensibilities are fragile. On the other hand, results, and not niceties, are what matter to me, and I think, quite a few like me.

From a very close encounter with David's rather fragile ego in a discussion about the Paul Hackett v. Sherrod Brown cage match, I determined that David is a passionate asshole. You are not ever going to separate the two in him, nor would you want to. I would never invite David to "have a beer" with me, because he is an unmitigated jerk, but were I running for office in almost any location right now, my first offer would be to take David on my staff. I guarantee, he would never make a viable politician--but he will continue to play the role of a potent person-behind-the-politician, and probably for many election cycles to come.

If you can't stand the nasties, Ed, please, I beg you, find another line of work.

Posted at May 3, 2006 12:43 PM in response to Playing Morpheus

To be perfectly fair, it's hardly all that unusual for an administration to deliberately mislead the public about matters of war and peace. Fundamentally, if invading Iraq had proven to be a good idea I doubt there would be all that much concern about the president's honesty. The basic problem is that the war wasn't a good idea. The lying is sort of icing on the cake.

[bold mine]

And I think that gets to the missed big picture--that if you mislead a democratic citizenry in something as big as a commitment to war, you cannot afford to be unsuccessful or slow.

Anyone out there ever play any of the Civ series of computer games?  If you have, you will remember that when you choose to play your civilization as a democracy, you take on palpable limitations on your ability to take your country to war.  And unless you are the one who was attacked, the wars you choose to fight cannot appear to have no end, as the populace becomes angrier and less supportive, eventually looking for your removal.

Posted at February 24, 2006 1:30 PM in response to The Shocking Truth

NickDoe seems invested in this out of all possible proportion for someone purporting to not be an Ohioan and to not having a stake in this, i.e., Hackett v. Brown.

Everything he says and the frequency with which he repeats it reads as if it comes from a campaign operative. 

Anyone else get the growing feeling that NickDoe is employed by Brown?

Posted at February 14, 2006 1:06 PM in response to Statement from Paul Hackett

DeLay, like all criminal defendants, is entitled to a presumption of innocence

...by a court of law.

TPMCafe is not a court of law.  Sorry, he's guilty.

Posted at September 28, 2005 12:13 PM in response to Full Speed Ahead on DeLay

Matt, would you be at all receptive to the following criticism?

That, in becoming an increasingly watched for and listened to political pundit (and isn't it wonderful to have people paying attention to you?), you are also inexorably pulled towards self-normalization and self-censoring in order to fit comfortably inside the metaphoric belt(way).

I think the most troublesome aspect for me is that the more you patronizingly direct me how to speak (temperately) and what to say (fix Iraq, okay; pullout from Iraq, very bad) (and, let's be honest about this at least--this is precisely what you are telling me), the more I will simply tune you out, because I can get your lecture from others of the punditocracy.  In fact, I've been attending that lecture for some time now, always taught by your colleagues who proudly wear that belt.

I understand that you mean well and that you intend only the best for me.  You would say, indeed, you have been saying that if you are being paternalistic, it is only for my own good.  You would  warn me that if I wish to achieve backing for the various progressive positions I might be interested in, I must follow your directions in how I go about this.  You would warn me that I fail to heed you at my own peril.

But I think you are already well on your way to being intellectually co-opted, rather than independent.  With all due respect, I become less interested with each passing lesson in hearing what you have to say because of this.  I already get the wit-without-passion from others, such as David Brooks.  I'd  like to see something different, much more difficult, and much more dangerous, from you.

Posted at August 23, 2005 7:52 AM in response to What Does The Base Want?

you two are just shooting the bull at each other and that neither you nor Sirota are running national campaigns.

Posted at August 5, 2005 6:15 PM in response to Why I Am Scum

<i>Nothing is going to change our course in Iraq until America reaches our bottom, that threshold when, say, 2,000 Americans are dead-or even better, 2,700, the same number of American who died on 9-11</i>

even better?

even better? 

Surely this incredibly ill-considered turn of phrase is unintentional.

Posted at June 27, 2005 1:39 PM in response to HITTING BOTTOM