Breaking News
Hurricane Ida Targets US Gulf Coast
The guy who has been trying to cultivate his position as the self-styled New Republic of the blogosphere gets some return fire from Eric Alterman.
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
What’s telling is the links Nyhan gets from Ezra Klein and others in that level of the blog circle jerk.
These are the same guys that hate on Broder, Peretz, and lots of other deserving wankers, but they find Nyhan to be useful to them.
So they think it should be illegal to use their own words against them?
I’m reading Alterman’s piece and I’m asking myself, “When is he going to refute what Brendan wrote?”
Answer: He doesn’t. He uses a mixture of ad hominem, and a resume recap as if that’s enough. Furthermore, he’s just downright clueless himself. He writes:
What’s more, he denies his readers the opportunity to see the items in context and appraise that cluelessness for themselves.
How did Nyhan deny his readers that? There were direct links to what Alterman wrote. All of in its glorious context.
His only link is to a throwaway phrase I used late last week
Ohhhh…It’s a “throwaway phrase.” That’s funny because Media Matters specializes in focusing on one or two comments made on shows that span anywhere from 30 to 180 minutes and nobody there would accept the excuse of a “throwaway phrase.” To make matters worse, a day earlier, Alterman issued the following “throwaway phrase”:
He wants children to get sick and die
This is the motive that Alterman places upon George W. Bush’s veto of the expansion of the SCHIP bill. It’s that kind of statement that Media Matters would attack FOR DAYS. And yet here they are, paying somebody to write the kind of dreck they claim to deplore and “expose.”
Alterman’s ‘rebuttal’ was pathetic.
He wants children to get sick and die
This is the motive that Alterman places upon George W. Bush’s veto of the expansion of the SCHIP bill.
Well, it certainly what his base wants.
Alright, I’ll admit he doesn’t want children to get sick and die. He just doesn’t give a fuck.
I get it Nimrod. Not agreeing with a specific policy supported by Democrats means he doesn’t give a fuck.
That’s brilliant.
Yeah, Nimmer.
They can go to the emergency room.
It is obvious from his lies about Children’s Health Insurance that Bush doesn’t care. Bush doesn’t care about the people of New Orleans just as he doesn’t care about the refugees and the deaths he’s caused in Iraq. With him, as with you, it is ideology über alles. Nyhan is one of those silly twerps who thinks that he proves his credentials by smearing Democrats and apologizing for Republicans. Alterman clearly and logically refutes Nyhan’s silly defense of Bush.
Alterman clearly and logically refutes Nyhan’s silly defense of Bush.
Yeah, where? What is your crackhead definition of logic?
Where is one actual refutation? He says Nyhan didn’t allow readers to see what Alterman wrote in context. That’s bullshit. Nyhan linked directly to what Alterman wrote.
Alterman called his statements a “throwaway phrase” as though it weren’t important, yet as Nyhan points out, it is those kinds of statements that Media Matters routinely reports on. Why should Alterman, a person who works for Media Matters be given a pass?
Then Alterman just makes stuff up. He writes:
As for Nyhan’s accusation that I do this “on a near daily basis,” well, the one additional example he does provide, and for which he provides no link, context, or date, proves again that he cannot distinguish between intentions and results.
Nyhan wasn’t talking about Alterman. He wrote:
In his Media Matters blog, Eric Alterman often attributes evil motives to his political opponents — a tactic that the group criticizes non-liberals for on a near-daily basis.
Clearly and logically my ass.
Bush vetoed a perfectly reasonable piece of legislation which aimed to reduce the number of dying children. Yeah, he doesn’t really care that much.
Bush vetoed a perfectly reasonable piece of legislation which aimed to reduce the number of dying children.
Democrats supported it. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable.
Stunning.
Democrats supported it. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable.
Only Democrats, Jay?
Quaker, I’m not going to quibble.
If you want to talk about Eric Alterman’s bullshit, let’s do so. I have yet to see anybody offer any kind of coherent defense of his ridiculous ‘rebuttal’ to what Nyhan wrote.
Any thoughts on that?
That was an unusually stupid thing you just typed. It’s not perfectly reaonable just because Democrats supported it. Otherwise I’d be just in clover about all the pointless killing in Iraq. It just is perfectly reasonable.
Quaker, I’m not going to quibble.
Quibble?
The bill passed both the House and Senate with support from members of both parties. Members from both parties worked hard to come up with a compromise measure. How is it “quibbling” to take issue with your characterization that the bill is reasonable only if you’re a Dem?
The fact is, Mr. Bush has done nothing to address the fact that millions of families can’t afford health care. But when members of his own party help craft a bill to do something about it, he’s ready to shoot it down.
Did Alterman state that in the most inflammatory way he could? OK, let’s say he did. However, as for Alterman and Nyhan, they can have their little pissing match. It’s boring. Who cares?
The fact is, Mr. Bush has done nothing to address the fact that millions of families can’t afford health care. But when members of his own party help craft a bill to do something about it, he’s ready to shoot it down.
Ok and? But why attack his motives as that of a person that at best doesn’t give a shit about the issue or at the worst, did it because he wants to see people get sick and die? And despite the fact that Republicans supported it, I didn’t see them out there like that idiot Patrick Kennedy claiming by vetoing the bill, Bush was engaging in a form of terrorism against American families.
There are a slew of ideas out there for reauthorizing SCHIP as it is currently run and to provide coverage for more kids. You’re behaving as if this was the ONLY way it could have been done.
Did Alterman state that in the most inflammatory way he could? OK, let’s say he did. However, as for Alterman and Nyhan, they can have their little pissing match. It’s boring. Who cares?
Nyhan correctly pointed out that Alterman was engaging in the same kind of behavior that Media Matters supposedly deplores. IT’S ABOUT THE HYPOCRISY! Ask the Canuck CS.
You’re behaving as if this was the ONLY way it could have been done.
No, I’m writing as if this is the ONLY way to get it done that has been proposed by either Congress or the President.
As for whether or not Mr. Bush cares, how does his response to the bill differ from someone who really doesn’t give a damn?
And despite the fact that Republicans supported it, I didn’t see them out there like that idiot Patrick Kennedy claiming by vetoing the bill, Bush was engaging in a form of terrorism against American families.
So…this means what, exactly? That only Democrats will consider the bill “reasonable” because Repulicans didn’t run out and make UNreasonable speeches? You’ll excuse me if I don’t ride that train of thought to the end of the line, won’t you?
No, I’m writing as if this is the ONLY way to get it done that has been proposed by either Congress or the President.
Well now somebody has to come up with a different plan. God forbid somebody has to do a little extra work to come to a compromise package.
As for whether or not Mr. Bush cares, how does his response to the bill differ from someone who really doesn’t give a damn?
Really? He said he wanted Congress to focus more on getting lower income children covered first. Man, he really doesn’t give a damn does he? The bastard.
So…this means what, exactly? That only Democrats will consider the bill “reasonable” because Repulicans didn’t run out and make UNreasonable speeches?
What it means is that you can have differences on matters of policy without having to say stupid shit like Kennedy did.