Patterico's Pontifications

6/21/2010

Emanuel on Barton

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:12 am



[UPDATE 6-22-10: “Color me shocked” that Jeff Goldstein implies I have taken Barton’s remarks out of context — an implication he attempts to convey by … taking MY remarks out of context.

I’m not arguing that we should allow people to take remarks out of context, and indeed most of my post is pushback against Rahm Emanuel doing just that. I included all necessary context to make that point clear.

For reasons of his own, Goldstein decided to omit that context from his quotation of my post. I leave it to you to determine why he did that.]

Jake Tapper reported yesterday on Rahm Emanuel’s comments on Joe Barton:

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel asserted that Rep. Joe Barton’s apology to BP was a political gift for Democrats – one the President will use in coming weeks to contrast his governing vision with Republicans, with Barton as a foil.

Though the Ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce later withdrew the apology he made to BP CEO Tony Hayward during a hearing Thursday, Emanuel made the case that Barton’s remarks were no mistake. “That’s not a political gaffe, those are prepared remarks. That is a philosophy. That is an approach to what they see. They see the aggrieved party here as BP, not the fishermen,” Emanuel told me during my exclusive This Week interview.

Emanuel said Barton and Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul, who recently called the President’s criticism of BP “un-American,” are a reflection of the Republican Party’s governing philosophy. “They think that the government’s the problem,” Emanuel said. “And I think what Joe Barton did was remind the American people, in case they forgot, how the Republicans would govern.”

Emanuel’s characterization of Barton’s opinions as representative of the GOP is, as Sarah Palin said, a “lie.” Barton explicitly said he was speaking only for himself:

I’m speaking this totally for myself, I’m not speaking for the Republican party, I’m not speaking for anybody in the House of Representatives but myself, but I’m ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday.

Emanuel’s claim that Barton sees BP as the aggrieved party with respect to the leak is also a lie. Barton clearly said he believed BP to be an aggrieved party with respect to the White House shakedown. With respect to the leak, Barton said this:

BP made decisions that objective people think compromise safety. There is no question that BP is liable for the damages.

That someone like Emanuel was going to come along and take advantage of this was, of course, inevitable. The fact that opponents are always waiting in the wings to twist your words is not, however, an excuse for making your case poorly.

There are those who act as though Barton’s choices were to remain mute or say it the way he did. Not so. There was a third way: make the point . . . just don’t make the point stupidly. Emanuel was right about one thing: Barton’s remarks were prepared. He knew full well that they were going to be controversial because he specifically took care to state that they reflected his opinion alone.

And yet he chose to say: “I apologize.” This was stupid.

The fact that you choose to speak a hard truth on a controversial subject does not give you immunity for expressing that truth in a counterproductive manner. Indeed, it confers on you a greater responsibility to choose your words carefully.

Barton is the guy who gave the other side the opening. Now that they are exploiting it in a dishonest manner, as we all knew they would, it is incumbent on us to point out the truth and call the liars liars. We must also be willing to call a dumb statement a dumb statement.

158 Responses to “Emanuel on Barton”

  1. Isn’t RE also lambasting the BP bosses for sailing while the leak is still happening…but while POTUS continues to play golf?

    More than GWB even did, as I understand it.

    But that’s different™, as usual.

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  2. What Barton said made absolutely no difference. The meme that Rahm and its ilk are pushing is no different than it would have been. Barton was fundamentally correct, and that is being ignored because he apologized that a sitting President shook down a company?

    JD (d55760)

  3. America’s a sorry joke of a dirty socialist banana republic whether it says so or not I think.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  4. Barton could have kicked Hayward in the scrotum, or tongue-kissed him, and Teh Narrative would remain unchanged.

    JD (d55760)

  5. What Barton said made absolutely no difference. The meme that Rahm and its ilk are pushing is no different than it would have been.

    What he said made little (not no) difference to the meme the other side is pushing.

    What he said makes a great difference to the way it is perceived by the public.

    And therein lies the flaw in justifying any mistake in rhetoric by saying the other side would seize on it anyway. Of course they would. That doesn’t mean you have to make their job easier.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  6. So I think that we can all agree that people in the public eye need to be mindful of what they say and what they do with the public watching?

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  7. But also how did Boehner Cantor Pence’s cowardly groveling affect Mr. Barton’s sentiments were perceived by the public?

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  8. affect *how* I mean ohnoes I hope today isn’t gonna be as bad as yesterday

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  9. And the way it is perceived by the public is a result of Teh Narrative. Either that, or the public is too stupid to go watch or read what Barton actually said, in which case, we are well and truly f*cked.

    JD (d55760)

  10. Joe Barton’s actual words did not reflect what is really at stake here. Yes, BP is liable and will continue to be liable until the mess is cleaned up and long after. But a disturbing precedent is being set…how much power over private companies are we willing to let our government have? And, who will be determining where the money actually goes? Unfortunately, Joe Barton’s words didn’t express these concerns that I think many feel right now.

    Beth in Texas (47ec7a)

  11. I think Barton should apologize for apologizing for his apology.

    JD (d55760)

  12. Maybe Barton should grab a journalist by the neck and slur “Who are you?” repeatedly.

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  13. I would suspect that some of BP’s lack of fighting spirit is cause it’s rather less than enthused about investing any further monies in The United States of Gang Rape.

    It just wants to cut its losses and get out of our loser little country with as much dignity as possible I bet.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  14. I will respectfully disagree with the idea that he should have been more careful with his words. If you look at the entirety of his statement, to focus in on the I apologize part is fundamentally dishonest. Republicans are in bed with big oil and are responsible for a climate of deregulation and corruption was a meme that the president and his minions have been pushing throughout this, he did so in the horrible Oval Office TOTUS reading. Barton’s words did not change that one iota, and by focusing on the “inartful” choice of words as opposed to the substance of what his statement was driving at is a disservice to all but those that maintain Teh Narrative. That is what I think. Many disagree, and I am fine with that.

    JD (d55760)

  15. As the phrase goes ‘they were just negotiating over
    the price’ they along with Enron, came up with cap n trade, remember

    ian cormac (38cac7)

  16. Corporate executives have dollar signs for eyes. They would not have agreed to give $20B to Obama unless they expect to make $200B from Deep Horrific. 10% is more than the going rate in Barton’s district, though. Maybe that’s what he meant to say. Anodark, for example, a 25% partner in this venture, has given him less than $200,000 throughout his career.

    nk (db4a41)

  17. nk – Are you applying the same standards to Rahm, Barcky, etal?

    JD (d55760)

  18. There is that Lenin aphorism ‘the capitalists will sell us the rope we will hang them with’

    ian cormac (38cac7)

  19. I have to agree with JD (#14). The Dems were preparing to clobber Republicans for every indication of a friendly connection to oil companies – which is not that hard to find under the circumstances. It’s no crime to be on the side of business and free enterprise, but that would have been a lot tougher to sell to angry Americans.

    Now, however, perhaps the Dems will focus on the “apology” instead, which inherently brings up the issue of the government controlling businesses without even the fig leaf of legislation. A lot of Americans, even if they don’t like BP, are uncomfortable with that. I think it will all come out in the wash, providing Republicans get on the message of free-market problem solving (and the disaster of government meddling) and stay there.

    Gesundheit (cfa313)

  20. Oh hell, yes. I’m from Illinois. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats in The Combine is how many shares of the graft each gets.

    nk (db4a41)

  21. What Barack did is classic. I’m an Illinois state Senator and I propose a bill for new regulations for insurance companies. The insurance companies hire my brother-in-law/campaign manager/business partner for an in-depth study of the effect of the bill on consumers. I withdraw the bill.

    nk (db4a41)

  22. Really, nk? Because I do not recall you ranting about Barcky’s ties to BP, the campaign contributions he took from them, the role of his MMS in this disaster, the fact that Rahm lived rent-free in a residence paid for by BP, or anything even remotely similar to that.

    JD (d55760)

  23. I am no Palin fan, but she had a perfect response to Rahm’s dishonest. You lie.

    JD (d55760)

  24. Gotta run. Adios, racists.

    JD (d55760)

  25. Well, that’s your job. I’m not pissed at Barton or Barack as much as 1/10th that I’m pissed at a multinational whose greed is destroying a place I love.

    nk (db4a41)

  26. My job? Nevermind, I forgot that I am not qualified to discuss matter with you. I am beneath you, remember? Have a great day, all.

    JD (d55760)

  27. The Barton story can be deflected if the Republican leadership is smart about it. As Glenn Reynolds puts it, a lot of sentences begin with “If the Republican leadership is smart.”

    Every time they bring up Barton, the response should be that he was apologizing for the SHAKEDOWN.

    Those who make some comment about Barton’s contributions from the oil industry need to try to learn that he represents an oil industry district and he is an expert on the oil industry with two degrees in engineering. Obama got far more from BP than all of Barton’s oil industry contributions.

    BP wrote the Cap and Trade bill that Obama is trying to push. After watching the fiasco the past two months, does anyone think the Obama administration has anyone who knows anything about the oil industry ?

    Mike K (82f374)

  28. I guess it must have been some other nk who’s been calling Barack Obama Mayor Daley’s buttboy, and Rahm and Axelrod the real co-Presidents appointed to hold his leash. And worse things than that.

    nk (db4a41)

  29. If you asking me to give Barton the benefit of the doubt just because he’s a Republican …. No. Hell, no.

    nk (db4a41)

  30. When will Propeller Head apologize for his apologies?

    I am more offended with his Saudi pud licking, his Egyptian anal, his Pastor damning American et al than with a Congressman popping off stupid about an unethical process.

    HeavenSent (a9126d)

  31. We need to get rid of the oil companies. We raped Alaska in the ’70s to provide oil for Japan. And now we buy oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. And then this. Our national resources should belong to us.

    nk (db4a41)

  32. Our little country is way too incompetent to develop oil resources without the help of oil companies. We’d be no better at it than Venezuela and likely a lot worse.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  33. 11.I think Barton should apologize for apologizing for his apology.
    Comment by JD

    Agreed

    they are exploiting it in a dishonest manner, as we all knew they would, it is incumbent on us to point out the truth and call the liars liars. We must also be willing to call a dumb statement a dumb statement

    I do not make an effort to look about the blogosphere to see who all is saying what, I come here and at PowerLine, if it ain’t at one place or the other, I don’t need it (unless I’m digging into the primary issue). That said, it seems to me we are spending more time bantering about how bad the original statement was than how to move on to the press the truth of the matter home.

    If they lie and distort, we must be able to tell the truth in a way that captures attention. If we can’t do that, we deserve to lose. As I said in previous thread, if the issue is who has the more polished sound bite, civilization is dead. The issue needs to be bringing the truth into focus, and you don’t do that by letting the agenda be apologizing for truth. Apologize for the misunderstanding caused by poor explanation, but let the controversy stay in the public eye and point out the lies.

    Perhaps somebody can make a wonderfully clear and forceful discussion and explanation, “complete with 8 x 10 glossy photographs with arrows and circles and writing on the back of each one”. Put it up on you tube under a never-before-heard-of poster, make sure it is faultless and confirmable in fact. Promote it by blog, email distribution, people printing it out and handing copies to friends, at your child’s lemonade stand, posting it on notice boards, put it on a few bill-boards. Follow it up with other lie exposures under the same umbrella name, everyone being errorless. And nonpartisan/bipartisan, pointing out lines where they are found, “for real”, not like places that claim to do that when they are really pushing the liberal line in a subdued and disguised manner.

    The presentation needs to stand up against cross examination by Patterico and any other trial lawyers who want to help.

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  34. The constant vilification of Big Business is getting a somewhat tedious – oh to be a fly on the wall to hear the pillow talk when they crawl back into bed.

    em (017d3c)

  35. We’re in this rut in part, because some don’t want to admit there is a principle involved, And let’s face it BP’s obvious stupidity, not just in mismanaging the deep horizon but trusting Obama,
    Tony Podesta and Jamie Gorelick, to cover their back,

    ian cormac (38cac7)

  36. 31.We need to get rid of the oil companies. Comment by nk — 6/21/2010

    Not sure what you’re thinking here, nk. Is it true that power corrupts, and where there is big money and big power corruption often follows? Yes, that’s true, but as long as humans are involved it will always be that way whether it is a company, government, or cooperative. The answer always needs to be people of integrity holding other people of integrity to account.

    We raped Alaska in the ’70s to provide oil for Japan. And now we buy oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. And then this. Our national resources should belong to us.
    Comment by nk — 6/21/2010

    First of all, I’m not sure Alaska was “raped” to get oil for Japan, or what you mean by that term. My understanding is the caribou like the Alaskan pipeline and dire predictions of environmental disaster were nothing more than that. Perhaps Alaska as a state did not get what they sould have, which is what Palin had been working on for Alaska. And second, as far as “for Japan”, I think that’s reflective of the global market, that a US company (hence US tax revenues) will have a bigger profit if they sell Alaskan oil to Japan and import Mexican and Brazilian oil to the US. That is a simple business decision based on shipping costs from one source to a particular consumer. Now, it does become an issue when national security issues are involved, such as guaranteeing the US supply and minimizing payment to oil producing countries hostile to the US. Perhaps at times it would be a reasonable military expenditure to subsidize export of US oil so Iran and like countries have a shrinking of oil revenues.

    (Others please chip in to correct or augment.)

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  37. MD, nk’s recent performances have been a mite…um, hyperbolic. I think he is just trying to start fights, not discussions.

    Just my opinion. But you have to admit the certitude about non-legal issues, from someone who feels that non- lawyers have nothing to add to legal discussions, is juuuuuust a little bit… inconsistent. To put it mildly.

    As I say, just more WWF style debate. Who knows why?

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  38. mmm, the democrats can try to do that as much as they can, but they have 2 problems.

    1) the oil is still gushing

    2) and obama’s containment has been pitiful.

    Aaron

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  39. Patterico –

    I’m curious. How does the fact that the Republican Study Committee, which does claim (I think, not looking it up) 160-some members, released talking-points using nearly identical language the day before Barton spoke?

    I get that Barton was attempting to own his words, and that you have a problem with Emmanuel pushing back on it. But imagine a similar scenario –

    – A large coalition group of D congresscritters issue a statement calling for appropriating the personal property of BP execs without due process.
    – The next day, Al Franken calls for appropriating the personal property of BP execs in an open hearing, “speaking only for himself”.
    – Michael Steele, or someone else, makes the same sort of sweeping statement as Emmanuel’s about those commie Dems.

    What is your reaction to Steele’s comment?

    grog (fe332f)

  40. (Crap, sorry about the lack of proofing on my comment. Someday I will actually manage the “don’t do four other things while commenting” rule… Despite crappy writing, the point holds, I think.)

    grog (fe332f)

  41. Link, please.

    JD (41e5f8)

  42. If someone intends to discard your intent and replace it with their own, they’re going to do exactly that and no amount of care taken in expressing your intent will make their job harder (or easier, as it were).

    Keep trying, though. Maybe one day you’ll construct the divinely perfect sentence and no one will ever be able to twist your words for their own purposes.

    John (7517b5)

  43. 37.MD, nk’s recent performances have been a mite…um, hyperbolic. … Who knows why?
    Comment by Eric Blair

    Yes, I know that there are some issues that nk has traditionally looked at from an angle that others of us do not, and that at times he will use hyperbole to make a point/show disdain for a point being made by others. And I have observed recent dialogues where I don’t understand at all what’s going on. So, thanks for the heads up, but I’m hoping he will follow up in a way that I will understand, for he has usually been very patient with me, similar (but definitely not quite) to the kind attention Painted Jaguar gets from his Mummy (who is ever so patient with him).

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  44. #31, what an idiotic post.

    a) So economic jingoism is OK but Propeller Head should go off and apologize for trivialities to ENEMIES of the USA.

    b) Ricardo already debunked this stupidity long ago and if you look at the truly nationalized Oil Companies they are all a disaster Sans-Saudi Aramco — and that is due to oil literally seeping out of the ground and the fact they exclusively rely on Western Companies to fetch the Oil for them.

    c) So let us use more expensive Oil (off shore and in other countries) which harder to find, harder to process and more dangerous to fetch simply to avoid finding it more easily on shore in remote parts of the western world.

    d) The more oil you leave in the ground domestically the higher the risk that Oil will devalue to ZERO with technology development.

    HeavenSent (a9126d)

  45. That’s what it’s been like since 1969, probably earlier when they removed the oil depletion allowance that incentivized domestic production

    ian cormac (38cac7)

  46. MD, I just think that nk likes to fight nowadays. If he isn’t fighting with you, and is treating you with the courtesy that used to define his posts in general, wonderful. Truly.

    In any event, I enjoy your posts, which are thoughtful and well considered. I was just hoping that you wouldn’t get tired of writing what you do, if any unpleasantness occurred.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  47. Catching up and filling in….
    1- “The Combine” is not America.
    2- As I stated before, BP – before sending one dime to that “escrow” account – should file for Chapter-11.
    3- Oil for Japan:
    As the good Doctor from the City of Brotherly Love has noted, Japan buys oil from Mexico which is shipped via pipeline to the U.S. in exchange for oil it picks up in Valdez – thereby lessening the transit distance, time, cost, and environmental exposure (since more oil is spilled via tanker accidents/sinkings than by drill-rigs and pipelines). And, the deal with Japan, which was done by legislative act since the original pipeline legislation specified that all petroleum carried by that pipe had to be shipped to the Lower-48, was done well after the North Slope was opened.

    nk…once more proven inaccurate on the facts…there must be something in the water in Cook Co.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  48. grog…Some time back Maxine Waters (who is a reliable voice for the Congressional Black Caucus) called for the “socializing” of the oil industry in America.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  49. …Which it hasn’t despite the best attempts of several projecting individuals to provoke it.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  50. #49 was regarding #46.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  51. Now, now, Leviticus. Let’s all be nice, what do you say? I haven’t said “bite me” once to people who disagreed with me.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  52. Come to think of it, Leviticus, it is clear you don’t like me. Which is fine. Let’s just not chat. I wish you well, and have said so several times.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  53. Eric

    My theory with NK is that in fact he doesn’t actually exist. rather there is this room with a million monkeys typing at a million keyboards…

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  54. “We need to get rid of the oil companies.”

    Sure we do. We’ll let the almighty state run everything, because that’s worked out so well so many times in history.

    Not.

    Dave Surls (c47b0f)

  55. Aaron, I really am not trying to stir the pot. I have read nk’s posts for years, and had great respect for those posts. Confusing disagreement with being disagreeable was the issue. “Talking tough” is not a sign of rectitude. And I am not unhappy that he disagrees with “conventional wisdom” at all. The “bite me” tough guy hyperbolic stuff was the issue.

    I want the old nk back. And I don’t want to fight with the new nk, or anyone else.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  56. As for the real topic here, again, I think that politicians are still not used to being recorded—either by the flip phone, the internet, whatever. I think that several commenters here have made some great suggestions as what to do. I hate say that it all comes down to PR, but it really does, when it comes to election day.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  57. “… I think that politicians are still not used to being recorded…”

    They forget that real life is not like Congress, where you are allowed to “alter and extend my remarks” and what you originally said disappears down the memory-hole.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  58. Limiting this discussion to Barton and BP is a mistake for Republicans — especially when they are back tracking and trying to run away from Barton’s comments.

    Yes, Barton’s comments were ill-timed and ill-constructed. His time would have been better used to get information, and not try to make political points. But…

    Let me point out what Rahm is doing here, because I noticed the beginnings of a coordinated Dem strategy today.

    Emanuel said Barton and Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul, who recently called the President’s criticism of BP “un-American,” are a reflection of the Republican Party’s governing philosophy. “They think that the government’s the problem,” Emanuel said. “And I think what Joe Barton did was remind the American people, in case they forgot, how the Republicans would govern.”

    Key here are two things. First, Rahm points out that “Republicans think government is the problem” as if that is a weakness of Republican political philosophy. Think about that for a second, he turned Barton’s apology/attempt to show Obama as Shakedown artist as an example of how Republicans think government is the problem. This is an attack on the libertarian wing of the Repbulican Party.

    This attack was aided today by a flanking article by E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post where mention of BP and Barton was carefully timed.

    To quote Dionne:

    The rise of the Tea Party movement is a throwback to an old form of libertarianism that sees most of the domestic policies that government has undertaken since the New Deal as unconstitutional…

    Attacks on a highly educated class that are a staple of conservative criticisms of Obama and his circle also have a long right-wing pedigree. “I can find you a lot more Harvard accents in Communist circles in America today than you can find me overalls,” Robert Welch, founder of the Birch Society, declared in 1966…

    Thus has Obama brought back to life a venerable if disturbing style of conservative thinking. In the short run, the new movement’s energy threatens him. In the long run, its extremism may be his salvation.

    During the Bush years, the libertarian wing of the Republican party where the “reasonable conservatives.” Now they are the “anti-government conspiracy theorists.”

    This is a concerted effort against advocates of free market economics against over-reaching power. If we spend too much time criticizing Barton — who deserves to be criticized — and not enough demonstrating the failures of government and illustrating the benefits of a free market, we will lose the argument here.

    Rahm and allies see the big picture. Use Barton as a tool to attack business, criticized those who believe in a free market, while watching Republicans shy away from the real issue in fear of being seen as an ally of “Big Oil.”

    The fact is that government regulators failed in their jobs and were watching porn/doing drugs when they should have been doing their enforcement duties. This had nothing to do with the “corrupting influence of big business” and everything to do with the power that the government has and how that affects the behavior of big business and government employees.

    This is a problem that was discovered and reported on late in the last year of the Bush administration, when he was a lame duck and could only change so much, and which was ignored by the Obama administration.

    The fact is that government enforcement and regulation, as well as the bloated size of the overseeing departments, contributed to the problem.

    BP being held accountable for the damage they cause is a part of the application market forces. Businesses should be held liable for their damages as a cost of doing business (with or without regulatory departments in government), that helps them innovate, improve, and adapt. BP caused the spill and they should clean it and compensate those who suffered losses due to their negligence.

    What we don’t need is another “Super Fund” style policy where the tax payers end up footing the bill for corporate practices due to high expenses. In those cases businesses never paid the consequences for their actions and that causes a moral hazard.

    Christian (3290f5)

  59. @48 –

    Maxine Waters’ ramblings have nothing to do with the question I was asking Patterico.

    grog (fe332f)

  60. We raped Alaska in the ’70s to provide oil for Japan.

    We didn’t “rape” Alaska. Enviro nutjob type statement there. The effect on Alaska has been minimal.

    On Japan, this is an oft repeated half truth. We exchange oil from Alaska for Mexican oil. Japan paid for the transport from Alaska. This is a net positive because Mexico oil is easier to transport to lower 48 refineries than Alaskan.

    You’ve got to put this stuff on Democrat Underground or Kos or something. Nobody knows any better in those places.

    Gerald A (2b94cf)

  61. “Come to think of it, Leviticus, it is clear you don’t like me.”

    – Eric Blair

    I don’t dislike you, for what it’s worth – I think you’re an intelligent commenter. I just think that you’re selective in the application of your standards for productive discussion – or at least selective in your complaints when you feel those standards haven’t been met. It’s the same criticism I had before. Comments #44 and #54 are at least as combative as anything nk’s written in this thread, and there are commenters on this site who are systematically combative in their comments, and yet no objection is raised. If you were consistent in the application of your high standards for productive dialogue, I wouldn’t have a problem with them. But you’re not. And I think it’s unfair to pretend that nk’s the only commenter on this site who ever says anything pugilistic.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  62. So Bubba holds hands with the King of Saudi Arabia and Booby bows to him. Aw, forget it.

    nk (db4a41)

  63. “..And I think it’s unfair to pretend that nk’s the only commenter on this site who ever says anything pugilistic…”

    And the Unintentionally Ironic Award goes to….

    As I say, good luck to you, sir.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  64. Thanks, Leviticus. There’s these guys who jump on you personally if you disagree with them on an issue, without yourself having made it personal, and then wet their panties when you hit back personally.

    I don’t really care about Eric Blair. People like him were just something to survive in colege. I am disappointed in Mike K.

    nk (db4a41)

  65. If someone intends to discard your intent and replace it with their own, they’re going to do exactly that and no amount of care taken in expressing your intent will make their job harder (or easier, as it were).

    Keep trying, though. Maybe one day you’ll construct the divinely perfect sentence and no one will ever be able to twist your words for their own purposes.

    Indeed. This is why nobody should ever give the slightest thought to how their message will be perceived. Democrats will call you a boor anyway, so why not fart openly and loudly during committee meetings? They will call you a racist anyway, so why not let the n-word fly?

    In neighborhoods where the police racially profile, I think some good advice is for minorities to break traffic laws in front of cops, and mouth off when pulled over. They’re just going to harass you anyway.

    The presence of dishonest critics means never having to weigh your words — and never having to say you’re sorry. How wonderfully liberating!

    Patterico (e28d10)

  66. “they are exploiting it in a dishonest manner, as we all knew they would, it is incumbent on us to point out the truth and call the liars liars. We must also be willing to call a dumb statement a dumb statement”

    Barton’s rank on his committee is under threat if he admits he was telling the truth. Our leadership is running and hiding from the truth.

    The fact is that we are not handling this massive crisis properly, and one of the mistakes is letting the federal government get ahead of the judicial process. The GOP is very afraid of being linked to ‘big oil’, and I guess until they realize the GOP has superior leadership, the democrats will get to paint us in any way they like.

    Personally, I think Rahm is just happily throwing gasoline on our internal fire. As long as the GOP is arguing with itself over how serious this comment was or how accurate the left’s spin is, the better for obscuring Obama’s terrible record.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  67. If I can exit sarcastic mode for a moment, John, the fallacy in your argument is assuming the audience cannot distinguish between an argument with a basis and one without.

    That your opponent has declared his intent to shoot does not justify making yourself an easy target.

    Patterico (e28d10)

  68. Eric

    I was just trying to make you laugh. Sorry i apparently failed. :-)

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  69. Commonality?
    Podesta…Gorelick…Rosen…Berman

    BP’s Army of Democratic Lobbyists
    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzZmMjkxNDgwODgxMmE3NTE1ZTIwYjliNDg4MWEyNTQ=

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  70. lol. I stand corrected wrt Patterico and sarcasm.

    Chris Hooten (e0efab)

  71. AD, it is pretty stunning how BP has such a list of very well known democrat power brokers, and doesn’t seem to have much relationship with any major Republican politician.

    Perhaps the GOP is the party of American oil companies that treat our environment with more respect, and the Democrats are the party of BP. I can understand why the GOP wants to be very careful about how it presents itself, but when Barton made his comment, they should have responded with their case against the democrats rather than this much more embarrassing reaction.\

    I think Barton should have been doing something more productive with the hearing, but I also think the GOP leadership has handled this problem in a ridiculously embarrassing way.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  72. “They think that the government’s the problem,” Emanuel said.”
    — Well, duh!

    62.So Bubba holds hands with the King of Saudi Arabia and Booby bows to him. Aw, forget it.
    Comment by nk — 6/21/2010 @ 12:18 pm

    — Okay . . . forgotten. If, by “forget it” you mean forget the notion that nationalizing the oil industry would engender protectionism and/or isolationism in regard to our nation’s oil resources. It won’t. All it will do is remove profit from the hands of the people (shareholders) and place it in the hands of the most wasteful “corporation” in the nation: our elected representatives. Brilliant.

    Icy Texan (0eee0e)

  73. “And the Unintentionally Ironic Award goes to….”

    – Eric Blair

    Hmmm. Guess I was on the receiving end of the renowned Eric Blair Uber-Pwn again… but as usual, I was too dumb to perceive it. Sucks to be me.

    Way to dance around an honest answer, by the way. I was thinking about making a prediction that you’d just blow off my comment, as usual, but then you probably would’ve scrambled around for some measured response just for the sake of laying another trademarked mental beatdown on my dumb college ass… so I refrained. Really dodged a bullet there, didn’t I?

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  74. We need to get rid of the oil companies

    OK, then give me your cars immediately, and walk and/or take public transportation from now on. Sound good?

    Dmac (e47b06)

  75. Rahm “showed up” as it were again today at the Blago trial. Do not overlook that much of what Rahm is saying and doing in DC these days is to draw attention away from his relationship with Blago, and Illinois standards of corruption, and what is going on in a Chicago federal courtroom.

    http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/blagojevich-on-trial/2010/06/money-problems-mounted-for-school-backed-by-emanuel.html

    elissa (937954)

  76. the fallacy in your argument is assuming the audience cannot distinguish between an argument with a basis and one without.
    Comment by Patterico

    I’m not exactly sure where this comment fits in with the flow of the discussion, (I’m not sure who John is) so I hope I’m not responding to a non-issue; but the problem is that a significant number of voters cannot do exactly that. If this was not true, Obama would not be president.

    The more Repub leadership makes Barton’s comments the issue the more they are doing the opposite what they need to do. By all means his comments were not as artfully crafted as they could have been, but they’ve been said, they are true, and rather than backing off of them they need to be explained and the lies of Emanuel fought against, not bickering within the Repub/Conservative ranks. For myself, it’s not a 100% with Barton or being against Barton, it’s whether people will push the truth forward or not. It’s when something like this happens and some Repubs are more worried about Barton than Emmanuel that more conservative folk are upset because it seems that some don’t want to take on the fight when it’s tossed in your lap. Sure, don’t start fights that aren’t necessary, but don’t run from a fight when you are right, because it makes you look wrong.

    The way some politicians get away with murder is they’ve learned to give an answer that says nothing. Well, I don’t want Conservatives to give non-answers, but I would like them to do a better job of setting the agenda for a discussion rather than playing defense on how something is worded.

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  77. The more Repub leadership makes Barton’s comments the issue the more they are doing the opposite what they need to do.

    That’s probably why the Republican leadership isn’t saying much at all about Barton or his comments.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  78. The longest journey begins with but a single step. We could start with a law that says drilling on national lands is done only by American companies and production goes only to domestic refineries?

    BTW, I had not known that that was the law Carter signed and it was in 1995 that Clinton diverted Alaskan production to Japan.

    nk (db4a41)

  79. Thanks for the tip, elissa. I’ve included your link in this post about Rahm.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  80. “but don’t run from a fight when you are right, because it makes you look wrong.”

    Well said, MD.

    I wish Barton had gone about this differently, but he is correct about a critical point. The GOP should be making clear that we are not trying ti shield BP from justice, but we can do that without completely falling on our faces.

    Ideally, we could throw Barton in our delorean and prevent his clumsiness. But the GOP needs new leadership that can take these problems, which will never stop sprouting up, and play their hand. Are they really incapable of pointing out this isn’t a legit process without coming across as BP’s defenders? If so, we might as well just forget about November.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  81. Barton is to BP as Monica Lewinsky is to Clinton.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  82. #81 should be taken down as a flat-out lie!
    Everyone knows that Barton is much closer to BP than Monica ever was to Billy Jeff.
    And, I’ve got Barton’s stained blue dress to prove it.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  83. As if anyone who sent an opponent a dead fish wrapped in newspaper is fit to judge Barton’s comments.

    rochf (ae9c58)

  84. Barton have date with
    The Petty Ballerina
    Phlegm Emanuel

    http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/RahmBallet.jpg

    ColonelHaiku (2ce3dc)

  85. Ironic that Triumph and its ilk are seemingly unconcerned with BP’s close relationship to Barcky and the Dems, specifically, Rahm’s living in one of their houses, Podesta lobbying on their behalf, their support of cap & destroy, climate change booha, etc …

    JD (41e5f8)

  86. It’s not about making oneself an easy target. They’re going to throw shit and you’re going to get hit with some of it. The question is whether you’re going to point out that there was indeed shit, that it was in fact thrown, and clean yourself off.

    John (7517b5)

  87. We could start with a law that says drilling on national lands is done only by American companies and production goes only to domestic refineries?
    Comment by nk

    How about guaranteeing US domestic supply and prohibiting US production going anywhere unless specifically approved by Congress?

    Your wording, nk, is more direct and simple, but I do not see a problem with oil from Mexico or Canada coming into US refineries while oil from Alaska is going to Japan. Everyone gets oil as easily and cheaply as possible, oil revenue is not going to a nation that advocates terrorism or is otherwise hostile (we will consider that whatever problems there are with Mexico, it is not the same as Iran or Russia or China or N. Korea). There would need to be some override feature so that if Mexico or Canada stopped selling us oil we would no longer export Alaskan oil to Japan, for example..

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  88. That’s probably why the Republican leadership isn’t saying much at all about Barton or his comments.
    Comment by DRJ

    Maybe I’m mistaken, I thought there was banter about from Republicans about stripping Barton of committe seniority.

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  89. “We need to get rid of the oil companies”

    Let’s rape the land with giant wind turbines and solar cell farms!

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  90. Re: Barton comments… we are either a civil society under rule of law, or we are not. The law isn’t what King Barky says it is on any particular day, as it suits his fancy… it was a shakedown, plain and simple.

    GeneralMalaise (2ce3dc)

  91. Let’s outsource our wheat farms to the Chinese, our corn farms to Mexico, and our cattle-raising to Argentina. Any suggestions for our nuclear warheads? The Germans, maybe? They’re good at that science and engineering stuff.

    nk (db4a41)

  92. America needs to be energy-independent and it will not happen by relying on multinational corporations. They have loyalty only to their salaries, bonuses and dividends.

    nk (db4a41)

  93. Okay, nk. After you have banned multinationals, how do you propose we get to this energy independence of which you speak?

    JD (41e5f8)

  94. Like I said before, domestic drilling only by domestic companies for domestic consumption, as a first step. You know we have a lot of oil reserves. In the ANWR, in shale in the high plains, offshore. We should keep it for ourselves.

    nk (db4a41)

  95. Bite the bullet like the Germans did in WWII and convert coal to liquid fuels? Maybe, 70 years later, we can find a cheaper and cleaner way?

    nk (db4a41)

  96. And when another leak happens 30 years from now? Hell, whey would anyone want to be in these markets right now?

    JD (41e5f8)

  97. That’s it! The new politics/economics of “maybe”.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  98. leaks are bad if something leaks the whole industry what it leaked from must be shut down no matter what no exceptions

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  99. Well, that’s it, JD. My opinion is that next to the harm these foreigners are doing to our southern coast, the next biggest harm they have already done is to the political will for domestic drilling.

    nk (db4a41)

  100. Among the handmaidens of the EnviroNazis, there is no will for drilling, domestic or otherwise.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  101. Follow der Fuhrer
    ich bein ein jelly donut
    V2 Schneider rules

    ColonelHaiku (2ce3dc)

  102. If you don’t think that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Mexico and Venezuela, and possibly Libya and Iran, are paying billions to lobbyists in Washington to fight against domestic drilling ….

    nk (db4a41)

  103. nk cries “America for Americans!”… except when it comes to Arizona, and then his domestic agenda heads south.

    GeneralMalaise (2ce3dc)

  104. No. I am “secure the border, don’t harass brown people as a very poor second choice”.

    nk (db4a41)

  105. Comment by GeneralMalaise — 6/21/2010 @ 5:45 pm

    The problem is that those Americans are just a bunch of ingrates, never appreciating the great sacrifices that their leaders make for them, etc.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  106. Perhaps giving more of the benefit of the doubt to nk than he has shown himself prepared to give to Arizona cops is the gracious thing to do at this point?

    GeneralMalaise (2ce3dc)

  107. Projection is usually only useful in movie theatres.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  108. Ok, it’s OT, but my problem with the Arizona law is that it targets people walking down the street and not people jumping over the fence. And then, there’s a second law by Russell Pearce that stops funding of Mexican culture classes. And then a third, that would prevent the issuance of birth certificates to children of illegal immigrants (even though, under the Fourteenth Amendment, they are U.S. citizens). It all shapes up to a “We doan wan’ no pepperbellies” legislative scheme.

    And now I gotta go check on my marinara sauce. I know the ingredients but the thickness is critical.

    nk (db4a41)

  109. my problem with the Arizona law is that it targets people walking down the street

    It demonstrably does not, unless you ignore the text of the law, the Executive Order, and the amendment.

    JD (41e5f8)

  110. nk writes: “And then, there’s a second law by Russell Pearce that stops funding of Mexican culture classes.

    If you are refering to Arizona’s HB 2281, it does no such thing at all.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  111. I will accept that correction, SPQR. The bill http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2281s.pdf does seem to be other than it was purported to be.

    nk (db4a41)

  112. “And now I gotta go check on my marinara sauce. I know the ingredients but the thickness is critical.”

    – nk

    Oh great, more threatening street talk. You’re just a big bully, you know that?

    You think you’re so tough, but we see right through you. You’re not intimidating anyone.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  113. A.3. is where the question arose, I guess.

    nk (db4a41)

  114. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

    I do not see where it targets people walking down the street.

    http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/05/proposed-amendments-to-arizona-immigration-law-sb-1070-.html

    The amendments were designed to clarify the misperceptions perpetuated by the opponents and clarify the language.

    http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/EO_201009.pdf

    The Executive Order goes even further in clarifying.

    But I am not a lawyer, so I should STFU.

    JD (41e5f8)

  115. I won’t force this, but I would like to gently suggest that nk rethink his comment about not talking about legal issues with non-lawyers.

    Patterico (e28d10)

  116. And now I gotta go check on my marinara sauce. I know the ingredients but the thickness is critical.

    “Heh, come over here, levitracus, learn something. You never know, you might have to cook for 20 guys someday. You see, you start out with a little bit of oil. Then you fry some garlic. Then you throw in some tomatoes, tomato paste, you fry it; ya make sure it doesn’t stick. You get it to a boil; you shove in all your sausage and your meatballs; heh…? And a little bit o’ wine. An’ a little bit o’ sugar, and that’s my trick… Paulie???… won’t see him no more…”

    GeneralMalaise (2ce3dc)

  117. That’s a great scene.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  118. nk must work for
    Betcha Scruem & Howe firm
    JD take woodshed

    ColonelHaiku (2ce3dc)

  119. Patterico – No need. He doesn’t have to, nor should he if he doesn’t want to. But I can mock him for having a pompous arrogant position.

    JD (41e5f8)

  120. haiku firm believer
    take arrogant position
    must give good as get

    ColonelHaiku (2ce3dc)

  121. As a 24 year resident of Arizona, I have never seen a brown skinned person stopped on the street and asked for their papers. Anyone who says such has never lived here.

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  122. Well, I think I already have, Patterico. On the Supreme Court thread.

    nk (db4a41)

  123. Then you fry some garlic

    My wife always said to put the garlic in near the end…

    The problem is that the border needs to be secure. Until the border is secure, people will become more frustrated and try to find ways to make up for what the feds are not doing.

    Somebody told me the latin here once, but it was long ago and I forget. Obama should be impeached on a “the thing speaks for itself” basis for not defending our national sovereignty with the abdication of that area in Arizona. Had I known about that back in 2006 or whenever it was first “quarantined” I would have said the same about Bush unless he did something about it. It’s like armed burglars breaking into your house and making themselves comfortable in the living room, and you decide to deal with it by telling the wife and kids not to go in there. Pathetic.

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  124. You don’t fry the garlic, you sautee it gently along with your onion in the olive oil. Until the onion turns translucent and the garlic golden brown. Then you put in your tomato paste and gently sautee it too for a few minutes. Then add your water and start simmering gently. Do you like pepper, nutmeg, cinnamon, bay, basil, oregano?

    The meatballs and sausage are a different thing.

    nk (db4a41)

  125. “A little bit of olive oil” is a relative thing, too. My “little bit” for marinara is half my “little bit” for lentil soup and ten times as much for an eight-egg omelet with tomatoes and feta cheese.

    nk (db4a41)

  126. Hint: If you’re the kind of person who needs to taste the food while it’s cooking, be careful how you do it while you’re cooking for twenty guests with guns. Don’t taste it right out of the pot. Pour some into a dish with the stirring spoon and then taste it with a different spoon. It could be important.

    nk (db4a41)

  127. I haven’t been around a lot of Greek cooks, nk. Do you season your creations generously or sparingly?

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  128. not that much oil left
    run out of soon anyways
    what will we do then

    Chris Hooten (18db7d)

  129. Cassandras bleat on
    Trolls prattle without wisdom
    More jabber than oil.

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  130. “Peak Oil” may come true
    Trolls can be endless resource
    If carbon neutral

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  131. I fart way too much
    lingering long stinky ones
    carbon neutral no

    Chris Hooten (18db7d)

  132. oil almost antique
    better find new fuel faster
    not much time is left.

    Chris Hooten (18db7d)

  133. fantasy shakedown
    where is that awesome proof guys
    I didn’t think so.

    Chris Hooten (18db7d)

  134. Oh sure, olive oil is OK to add generously to a marinara sauce, but when God decides to add a little crude to the stew in the gulf it costs $20 B

    Is it true that all the oil spilled so far wouldn’t fill the superdome?

    My personal thought on this is that right after it gets capped, we get a hurricane and then no one will be able to find the oil until we send squadrons of cajun’s poking around the bayous with instruments calibrated to pick up a mechanics dirty coveralls from 100 meters.
    It’ll be like the nuclear power haters who test fish near nuclear plants for radiation… they find “background levels” and put out a press release…omitting the fact that these levels are normal worldwide

    SteveG (9fb25f)

  135. Hooten not tired
    Hole dug all way to China
    High school kids waiting

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  136. “Barton explicitly said he was speaking only for himself…”

    Hmmm. And because he says ir makes it so, eh. Actions, or political action committees, it seems, may have spoken for themselves as well, through Barton:

    “Individuals and political action committees associated with BP have donated $27,350 to Barton’s political campaigns since the 1990 election cycle — eighth among members of Congress, the Center for Responsive Politics’ research indicates. (Barton might find it ironic that the man he said so mistreated BP, President Barack Obama, received more than $77,000 from BP employees during his political career.) Contributions from PACs made up 94 percent of Barton’s donations.”

    “Barton’s biggest single corporate contributor, Anadarko Petroleum, is a 25 percent stakeholder in the Macondo Prospect, site of the Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. Individuals and PACs associated with Anadarko have given Barton’s campaigns $146,500 since the 1990 election cycle.”

    “Individuals or PACs associated with the oil and gas industry as a whole have been Barton’s biggest patron since he entered Congress, donating more than $1,448,380 since the 1990 election cycle. The figure puts him at No. 1 among all House members for donations from the industry, fifth among members of Congress and fourth among active members of Congress.”

    “Additional Center for Responsive Politics analysis shows that Barton’s candidate committee and leadership PAC combined have received $1.67 million from the oil and gas industry since the 1990 election cycle.”

    source- http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/06/barton-likes-bp-and-they-like-him-b-1.html

    DCSCA (7f2aa9)

  137. did you have a point?

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  138. It’s on top of his head — at the tip of the propeller shaft.

    Icy Texan (b17d15)

  139. I haven’t been around a lot of Greek cooks, nk. Do you season your creations generously or sparingly?

    Comment by DRJ — 6/21/2010 @ 9:07 pm

    It depends, DRJ. A sauce for a bland food like spaghetti, generously as long as the seasonings complement each other. (Maybe one or the other of cinnamon or nutmeg.) For the omelet, I mentioned above, nothing, not even salt. You taste the eggs, tomato and feta.

    I would ask my mother, “Do you put in such and such?” She would say “If you have it and you like it.”

    nk (db4a41)

  140. My marinara sauce last night — my wife thought that it was heavy on the tomato, but tok two portions. I was worried about the pepper because it might be too hot for my daughter. My daughter asked for some more in a bowl and ate it with a spoon like a soup. Sigh. Cooking is neither an art nor a science. It is random events.

    nk (db4a41)

  141. Wow, well I had home grown tomatoes and feta with dinner last night, so I would feel up to foodie par but for the fact that my dog and I are having popcorn for breakfast.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  142. Yes he was in the oil industry, and he has two engineering degrees, which puts him ahead of most
    people in that hearing room

    ian cormac (38cac7)

  143. and the answer is: he doesn’t like you?

    It’s OK to have a disagreement with part of an argument for the purpose of instruction.. something I think both of you have done very well.

    Truth is that we can’t go through life speaking only in precisely crafted soundbites and we are going to make mistakes, and be inartful, and we need our friends to surround us… maybe not by defending our apology, but by going on the offensive.

    As I posted over at Jeff’s site, every good salesman know how to turn a conversation back on point with variations of “I don’t know about that, but I do know..” I think we need to learn how to ignore mistakes and use the inevitable controversy as a way to step into the intended message… why repudiate, disavow, apologize or whatever…? just answer every question about the “apology” with a strong assertion of what was intended and move on from the gaffe. Why not refuse to address the apology at all? Rahm isn’t going to keep pushing on the apology if everyone in the GOP gets together and uses the Rahm offered platform to present a superior model to the big government shakedown.
    Instead the GOP cowered and apologized.
    GOP is a crap team who won’t cover a guy like Barton’s back for a mistake.
    Crappy teammates make for crappy teams that need to get used to being losers.
    Everyone who has played a sport knows that you’ve lost it when you won’t protect an otherwise decent one of your own when he/she is attacked.
    I used to play defensive center midfielder on semi pro soccer teams. The job is to be the ball winner in our defensive third. The man goes by or the ball goes by, but never both. That job was a bunch of hardnosed tackles and you had to find the line of what the ref thought was legal and hit everything in that zone hard. Sometimes the other team took offense at the lack of calls in their favor and started pushing, shoving, punching, kicking, whatever… epic brawls down in La Colonia in Oxnard and out at Whittier Narrows. We’d usually get a shut out and we’d usually destroy their offense in doing so… but I wouldn’t ever play for a team that didn’t have my back when I was a split second late on a crunching tackle 45 yards out on their star striker.
    If they didn’t stand up for me, then fine, next time they got jumped, I’ll take my jersey off, go call 911 from the pay phone, and go grab a Modelo from some fan and sit it out on a cooler and watch for the twenty minutes it’ll take for the cops to come.
    That is how I feel about the new PC GOP… they’ve forgotten all the old saws like united we stand, divided we fall and it has resulted in our country being run by amateur socialists who at least knew enough to stick together

    SteveG (9fb25f)

  144. The reason I added the update at the head of this post is because I don’t like being taken out of context and I defended Barton against people doing that to him.

    Yes, even in context I think his statement was a fuck-up. Want to disagree? Great. Just don’t misrepresent my position.

    That’s what Goldstein did. Misrepresent my position.

    Yet again.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  145. so what I want to know is if you’re in a banana republic do you get like free bananas? Will there be monkeys?

    Monkeys are funny.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  146. GOP is a crap team who won’t cover a guy like Barton’s back for a mistake.

    word. Team R is palsied.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  147. Sarah Palin being the public face of the GOP, good. Self-serving deadwood, bad.

    nk (db4a41)

  148. Just as an example.

    nk (db4a41)

  149. I tend to agree with Jeff, you take a partial comment, which was intended as a personal observation, but based on Barton’s long experience
    in the industry, then you repudiate it, even though
    a) it happens to be essentially correct 2) it represented the sentiment of the GOP study group
    3) you don’t win any points, because the Democrats
    hang you anyways with it

    ian cormac (38cac7)

  150. I tend to agree with Jeff, you take a partial comment, which was intended as a personal observation, but based on Barton’s long experience
    in the industry, then you repudiate it,

    You don’t understand what I’m saying at all. You might try re-reading my posts on this for greater clarity. I have said I tend to agree with the idea that this was a shakedown, but I disagree with saying “I apologize,” which was extremely poorly chosen rhetoric, and is bullshit to boot, as apologizing for other people’s actions almost always is.

    So the only thing I repudiate is the apology, which cannot be “correct” because it’s an apology.

    Patterico (4eae7d)

  151. “That’s what Goldstein did. Misrepresent my position.

    Yet again.”

    Patterico – If I was in an uncharitable mood I would be tempted to call that intellectually dishonest and since it happens with regularity, maybe the blogger himself is intellectually dishonest. Good thing I’m not in an uncharitable mood and not inclined to say things I might or might not regret.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  152. Oh, Hi Cut ‘n Paste Joe. You suck moose cocks.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  153. Patterico – If I was in an uncharitable mood I would be tempted to call that intellectually dishonest and since it happens with regularity, maybe the blogger himself is intellectually dishonest. Good thing I’m not in an uncharitable mood and not inclined to say things I might or might not regret.

    I too had better not say anything, since calling a liar a liar would get me called “obsessed.”. Whereas someone obsessively misrepresenting me is quite normal and deserves no criticism.

    Patterico (032b98)

  154. What is the proper method for dealing with a dishonest psycho on the Internet, anyway?

    All signs point to ignore.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  155. Yup. For whatever reason, Patterico, he and his grafaloon seem to enjoy making you into a whipping boy.

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  156. General comment: When you feel the need to bolster your argument with either an intellectual fallacy, or outright dishonesty, then you are engaging in the Internet equivalent of attempting to shout someone down by saying, “You’re dumb!”

    Icy Texan (31a5d5)

  157. So they will get tired of it, if you just ignore them.

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  158. Ohh, I enjoy posts with 157 comments about two words that were said about a week ago. Talk about a waste of time. My guess? You all were lining up to kiss up to patterico because me made an appearance on this thread. Wastes of space, all of you.

    boo-sox (827c50)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8152 secs.