I think Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake is one of the most vile and obnoxious libtards in the entirety of the blogosphere.
Obama's favorite pet blogger
But even I can get behind her (uhhh…not literally…that’s freak’n disgusting) when it comes to attacking the biggest assturd in the entire blogosphere (barely beating out Andy Sullivan), Ezra Klein.
Nobody has been pitching harder for Obamacare than Ezra and his pack of trained circus monkeys at the Journolist. And now that Obamacare is circling the drain, so is much of Ezra’s credibility.
Jane and I agree:
I don’t know what Ezra’s motives were in echoing the White House sales pitch so quickly, but he’s worked hard to build up credibility as an astute observer of health care policy over the years. A sudden default to a “let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good” position that cedes the battle for a public plan right when it’s politically convenient for the White House undermines that credibility.
The same thing happened with the Social Security fight earlier this year — Ezra was arguing that the White House had no intention of pursuing Social Security reform when they quite clearly were, quoting anonymous sources in the White House who were feeding him bs about having “no intention to touch Social Security in the foreseeable future.” Even Ezra was speculating shortly thereafter that Kent Conrad may have “extracted promises that the administration would let him start tinkering with Social Security” as part of a reconciliation deal.
I understand access is important, and being able to get the White House on the phone can be intoxicating.
It can also be an unworthy altar to throw your credibility on.
Look, Ezra is Obama’s butt boy.
There are no two other ways about it.
Frankly, I’m surprised that Klein hasn’t been officially hired by the Obama administration already (except for the fact that he already is, de facto, and doing it for free). When it comes to opining on Obama policies, he has about as much credibility as Ronald McDonald suggesting a place to grab a cheeseburger.
Anyhow, I was really just looking for an excuse to post this picture from her site of Ezra Klein posed in a position he has likely been dreaming about for years. And now that someone’s actually composed it for him, do you think he’s offended?
Hell no…he’s most likely at home wanking to it right now.
Related Posts
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
I don’t follow Klein but I don’t need to if he is worse than Sullivan. Andy’s so far up Obama’s bum he will never see daylight again.
Somewhat off-topic, but does it ever concern you that you’re a middle-aged man who still thinks the most devastating insult you could visit on someone is accusing them of homosexuality?
Afraid you might lose your title as this board’s biggest cocksucking faggot?
Pat, you really need to think about some anger management classes. If you don’t like what Robbie talks about on HIS blog, why the hell do you read it. Find something else to do. Maybe go get yourself a life.
It is all in the eye of the beholder. One may view it as the most withering insult, the other just another misguided attempt at wit. Fair enough. I don’t know that it should trouble someone unless it rises to the level of obsession. Being a military brat of a career officer, I can safely say it is just one of a litany of hobby horses military guys like to ride.
That’s because, to a military man, there is nothing more pathetic than a man unwilling or unable to defend himself, his home/family/friends, or country. Most — definitely not all — but most gay men fall into this category.
Don’t believe for a moment if the Don’t Ask, Don’t tell policy were suddenly rescinded that the Armed Forces would be overrun with gay men. Most likely what would happen is that some of the gay men and women who are currently serving would “come out”. A few more might enlist.
But not many more.
Point taken. A homosexual can serve their country under DADT. Fair enough in my view, honestly. Those who are willing to make the sacrifice for country do so. They also sacrifice a portion of their personal honor be operating under the stricture of DADT. They sacrifice a modicum of honesty via denial of full disclosure. Fine. I do take exception to the specific generalization that gays as a sector of the population would be statistically under-represented if DADT were removed and open service permitted. Let’s face it, the portion of the GLBT etc. population that is open in general society is negligible. A generous estimate of the entire GLBT population amounts to a dubious 6% in the most generous estimate. Among that population there are many who are sexually “fluid”, and an unknowable number are 100% homosexual. A fraction of that number would choose service. The number of people of all stripes in the general population that choose military service is also fractional, a larger fraction no doubt. My point is that the claim to moral superiority or greater patriotism by stating the most pathetic thing a military man can behold is a defenseless man unwilling or unable to defend friends/family/country, and that is the way most gays are. There are no doubt plenty passivists and conscientious objectors in the general hetero population as well. It is disingenuine to single out homos for the disdain, and is formed by the notion that gay men are sissies. It is a good time to remind folks that a lot of homo men are hyper-masculine, probably a third. An example you might be familiar with is Mark Bingham, Flight 93. There are also many homosexual men who don’t embrace the term “gay” because the don’t identify with the liberal connotation, though they owe a debt of gratitude to the flamboyant and defiant gays who force the issue. That’s my ten cents. Cheers.
“That’s because, to a military man, there is nothing more pathetic than a man unwilling or unable to defend himself, his home/family/friends, or country. Most — definitely not all — but most gay men fall into this category.”
What are you basing this assumption on?
Being an observant person on this planet for more than 40 years.
“Look, Ezra is Obama’s butt boy”
and the reference to Klein “wanking it”…I understand that you’re not actually accusing them of being gay, but you are equating hypothetical homosexual actions with insulting hypothetical actions. I’m just wondering if you’re aware that most people outgrow this habit by the time they hit their late teens, or at least, refrain from indulging their habit when trying to write commentary that they(I assume) want to be taken seriously.
I mean, would you put a reference to a miserly person “acting all Jew-y” in one of your articles? Yeesh.
This thread has gone a bit off topic — so I re-read the post to make sure…but I don’t see where I’ve accused Klein (or Obama) of being gay.
The only thing that could be remotely construed as a homosexual slur is stating that Klein is “wanking” to the funny picture of himself and Obama.
It’s not a gay reference. It’s a reference to the amount of Kool-aid that Klein has consumed in his adoration of Prez Obama.
See, right there….WAYTHISTS!!!
/sarc
So, now that health care reform has passed… when do you admit that you have no idea what you’re talking about and stop blogging forever?
By the way, if you were any deeper in the closet, you’d be fighting the White Witch.
Check back in November, butt-boy.