If we can’t defend our ideas without attacking our enemies personally, then do we really deserve to win?

Considering the character of our opponents, the answer is an unqualified yes. OHH SNAP!

Meanwhile, Digby, Tom, and Atrios don’t have 1/100th of the power that the Congressional dems have, the professional moderates, or NYT types. They should, but they don’t.

But point taken. I may just send him an e-mail.

However, my attacks have never backfired. They’ve just been opposed by insurgents. I mean Foreign terrorists. I mean anti-greg’s blog forces. I mean liberals.

Why is it always people of my political proclivites who are criticized for not being united?

If that’s the way you see things then you’re not paying close enough attention. I guarantee you that every centrist Democrat feels the same way you do.

Too many so called liberals seem to bend over backwards looking for common ground with these people.

Who said he’s bending over backwards? Perhaps he just agrees with someone that’s not liberal. It happens, y’know.

Why aren’t people with more authority and credibility than I have lamblasting the moderates to toe the line, to stop embarassing us?

You mean like Digby, Tom Tomorrow, and Atrios?

My final question is this: Why did Kevin feel the need to blithely weigh in on something he obviously doesn’t care much about? To start out his piece on a high note, before laying the critical boom down?

Have you tried asking Kevin that? He’s got an email address y’know. Then again, getting answers to the questions you’re asking isn’t nearly as satisfying as taking public potshots.

For example, Greg and I may disagree all we want, but in the past, Greg knows I’ve viciously defended him on this website whenever he’s been trolled or maligned. That’s unity.

True. I always take the position that we can disagree all we want, but we’re still friends here. Not just with you, but with liberals all over the place. I thought the attacks on Jeff Gannon’s gay prostitution were lame, but I still think John at Americablog is a good guy. At the same time, I made an effort to attack the John’s posts and not attack him personally. Despite our strong differences of opinion on some stuff, we’re all on the same side here.

At the same time, your willingness to rush to my defense has backfired a couple of times when you’ve branded conservative commenters as “trolls” for doing little more than stating an opinion that challenges what I wrote. I welcome dissent from the right as well as from within our side. If we can’t defend our ideas without attacking our enemies personally, then do we really deserve to win?

You didn’t ridicule it. And thank you for not quoting some conservotard douchebag, and agreeing with him.

You have the right to disagree, and I’d happily engage in a debate with you on this subject. But if you were to make an easily torn apart false equivalency, such as made by Kevin and Tim, I’d be forced to rip it apart. (I hope you’d do the same for me)

More so, I’d like to know how you think that the college republicans, who are the first target of Yellow Elephant, aren’t legitimate targets in this manner. I earlier said:

These people, particularly college republicans, fully intend to make their careers as pro war conservatives. They’re profiting personally from this thing. They’re letting other people die for their own enrichment.

Meanwhile, the war orchestrators are begging for us to sacrifice, but never demanding anything similar from their children. I guess the proletariat are more than enough for their aims.

They ridicule opponents as less than men, and insult their patriotism. They ignore and downplay the very real bad news, and refuse to acknowledge the lies that went into it. They viciously go after anyone who dare criticize this thing, and talk about American plans for remaking the world as if they’re on the President’s cabinet. They are clearly idealogical supporters of this thing. So why does their support end at the risk of their own lives?

If you think calling out their cowardice and hypocrisy is a waste of time, fair enough. I am interested in your view on this. But I doubt you believe these hypocrites are somehow morally equal to you and I. And I doubt you agree with Kevin that somehow we’re all hypocrites in this matter because we don’t join the fire department. Rubbish!

Kevin’s and Tim’s (and Your) disagreement may be completely legit, but what they said was just, well, not logical. Honestly, you can’t seriously believe that there’s a comparison between war and law enforcement, between social work and air raid bombings. And you can’t seriously believe that anti-war protestors who haven’t served is somehow even remotely close to pro war supporters who let other people die for their crusade.

Meanwhile, what I said was:

The implication is that on the issue of cowardice and moral responsibility, he considers Hitch a more reasonable person than his own allies aho are rightfully pointing out this nonsense.

I took some pains here and in the start of this post, to point out that Kevin disagreed with the bulk of Drinky the Drunk Pundit’s article.

Now, I know you think it’s a bit extreme, and perhaps you’re right, but I wouldn’t throw the word “appeaser” out there if people didn’t act like, well, appeasers. Too many so called liberals seem to bend over backwards looking for common ground with these people.

Why is it always people of my political proclivites who are criticized for not being united? Why are we the only ones called out for being disunited, when Kevin’s illogical comments were a direct attempt to ally against a perfectly innocuous rhetorical device on his side?

My wish is not to enforce strict idealogical purity. As a pro second amendment Liberal, I think I have fair credibility in the divergent veiwpoints department.

(There, I just came out to Greg’s readers as a supporter of gun rights. The difference? I NEVER vote republican, and I despise the NRA, first for opposing sensible gun laws, and second for supporting fascism.)

What I want is for the public face of the democrats to scrap, to fight, to stop being so flippin’ mushy and be partisan attack dogs. I want political blood, and I want to win, and I want the moderates to quit trying to make nice.

For example, Greg and I may disagree all we want, but in the past, Greg knows I’ve viciously defended him on this website whenever he’s been trolled or maligned. That’s unity.

Why aren’t people with more authority and credibility than I have lamblasting the moderates to toe the line, to stop embarassing us? The thing is, people like me have no power, and we’re ignored, even as we’ve been proven right, over and over and over again.

Not only that, but I think if you look at the facts, you’ll see that we’re begging for unity. Begging for it.

We were united behind Dean when he said a factual statement about the republicans, while the moderates couldn’t wait to slimily distance themselves from his remarks, and give the republicans more fodder for the Dems hate howard meme.

We were united behind Durbin until he caved.

We’ve been united behind Reid, even considering the serious worries we had in the beginning.

What we do want is to be taken seriously, as a real and valuable consituency, rather than treated like embarassments to be publically avoided until the week before election day.

My final question is this: Why did Kevin feel the need to blithely weigh in on something he obviously doesn’t care much about? To start out his piece on a high note, before laying the critical boom down?

I want the left to close ranks like the Republicans, and fight to be back in power.

That would be a lot easier of people on the left weren’t so willing to throw words like “appeaser” around every time someone on our side says something they disagree with.

Kevin’s comment amounts to a complete dismissal of a very reasonable response to this nonsense, and an agreement with someone who despises us.

I happen to agree with Tim and Kevin that the demand that war supporters immediately enlist is a weak one. That’s why I haven’t joined in this whole “Yellow Elephant” thing. But at the same time, I do think that the people who actively sought this war (that was a diversion from the war on terror) have a moral obligation to address the shortcomings that stand between us and victory by encouraging enlistment, ensuring that the President is accountable for his mistakes, etc. Does my failure to tow the party line (as defined by you) mean I’m giving “aid and comfort” to the Republicans?

The implication is that on the issue of cowardice and moral responsibility, he considers Hitch a more reasonable person than his own allies aho are rightfully pointing out this bullshit.

Once again, you’re projecting motives on Kevin. If Kevin says anything that agrees with Hitch, he “considers Hitch a more reasonable person than his own allies”. You’re being just as hysterical as the hypothetical wingnuts that I reference in the post I did an hour ago. If Kevin writes something you disagree with and you consider it a stab in the back, that’s your problem, not his.

Perhaps you should reread the post you’re bitching about. The part you quote is just an introduction to a post that attacks Christopher Hitchens for misrepresenting liberal opposition to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.

Don’t worry, I know that by stating these things aloud, I can’t pretend they weren’t said. Should I ever meet Kevin, I fully expect he will rightly (should he know who I am, unlikely) not feel too happy about it, considering that I have gone for the throat and he never makes it personal. I do admire the fact that he handles incredibly personal attacks without resorting to rage.

As for comments on his character, I did actually say that I’m sure he is a good person. I happen to think that when it comes to moderate, policy issues, he’s a valuable voice, but on the issues of life, death, and political power, he’s like a club foot. I was wrong when I called him personally clueless. Perhaps I should have pointed out that it’s the comment, not the man, who was clueless.

I also said quite honestly that I viscerally despise his comment. I stand by that. And I reserve the right to be justifiably angry at such density in the face of such serious business.

But you know that I have been here, and to my mind, it’s people like Kevin who need to bring a little join or Die to the table. They had their chance and they were flat out, inarguably wrong. Now it’s time for them to try listening to us for a change. I don’t want an apology (Though E, totally rad of you to note the situation accurately). I want the left to close ranks like the Republicans, and fight to be back in power. I’m not breaking ranks, I’m mad because someone else broke ranks.

Kevin’s comment amounts to a complete dismissal of a very reasonable response to this nonsense, and an agreement with someone who despises us. The implication is that on the issue of cowardice and moral responsibility, he considers Hitch a more reasonable person than his own allies aho are rightfully pointing out this nonsense. For reasons I can’t comprehend, by the way, and I’m going to call him out for it.

But Greg, I did join, you know that. I’m here. E-rock and I don’t always agree, but we’re close freinds and I respect his opinion – because Earnest doesn’t make a habit of ridiculing and dismissing reasonable positions that he doesn’t share, from people on his own side.

However, you must never, ever, ever question my Loyalty to master Yoda and his teachings.

So what you’re saying is that in order to oppose war, you need to have fought in one? How is that logical? By that standard, there will never be an end to war because we will constantly have to be in wars in order to give people the moral authority to stop them. Or something, I mean, I don’t fully understand why the point of Operation Yellow Elephant isn’t crystal clear.

But really, let’s get specific – War supporters on the right (Of the sort we are discussing here) not only support the war, they bask in the reflected glory of the war. They gain patriotic credibility and an appearance of manly action by their vocal support of the war and crushing inflexibility in defending it. They gloat about the soldiers, brag about the World’s Greatest Military (ary ary ary), and essentially, dress themselves up as valorious patriots, and they don’t do anything except talk.

These people, particularly college republicans, fully intend to make their careers as pro war conservatives. They’re profiting personally from this thing. They’re letting other people die for their own enrichment.

Meanwhile, the war orchestrators are begging for us to sacrifice, but never demanding anything similar from their children. I guess the proletariat are more than enough for their aims.

They ridicule opponents as less than men, and insult their patriotism. They ignore and downplay the very real bad news, and refuse to acknowledge the lies that went into it. They viciously go after anyone who dare criticize this thing, and talk about American plans for remaking the world as if they’re on the President’s cabinet. They are clearly idealogical supporters of this thing. So why does their support end at the risk of their own lives?

It’s also about calling out the elitist entitlement that these people display – They think they’re the idea people, far too precious to risk over there. Check out Digby’s post for examples of Just What I’m talking about.

They do this in a war that is underfunded, understaffed, and under supplied. They support a war that in any measurable sense they are unwilling to back.

Meanwhile, anti-war people actually work to oppose the war. See how that works? If you oppose something, then your duty is to do something about it. My being against this war means I have to do what I can to end it, even if it’s a largely sisyphean exercise right now.

If I were claiming to be some kind of huge anti war activist and leader, gloating about my involvement in the efforts to end the war (Which I’m not), and taking credit for the hard work done by the people of all political stripes to prevent and later stop this thing, and I never once did anything, that would make me a hypocrite too.

The point is, we’re not going after people who casually support the war (even though I may find their apathetic tolerance of a lie-based monstrosity to be utterly disgusting). I’m going after the people who brag, gloat, bask in and vainly preen in the glory of this thing, who are content to let other people die for this thing.

That’s why Drum’s comments are so obtuse. What’s I’m shocked by now is how willing some people are to come to the defense of cowardice and hypocrisy.

I don’t have to hate them, but I do have to deal with my personal revulsion and disgust.

Wow. It’s a wonder that you’re able to even leave the house. For someone who loves Yoda as much as you do, Ross, you sure are letting your anger steer you towards the dark side.

…people like Ross who deserve, at the very least, a big “I Told You So” on the war.

I agree and I count myself among those who deserve an apology, but Ross’s post isn’t about the war itself, but Kevin’s dismissal of the “Yellow Elephant” attack on war supporters.

This argument is going to continue, though, until the left can find out what it is that unifies it. The disparate halves of the right can coexist because of a shared fundamentalism (not religious, just in general). The left needs its “fundamentalism” which I think should be “imagination” in order to be able to have its disparate parts more peacefully coexist.

Damn right. Join or die, my friends…

In case you guiys missed it, Ross isn’t my only co-blogger who felt compelled to respond to Kevin’s post. Tom Tomorrow and Ross make similar points, but there’s a pretty big difference in the way the issue is approached. Tom’s post keeps the response focused on what Kevin wrote rather than going off on tangents about what sort of person he perceives Kevin to be and is, in my opinion, much more persuasive than Ross’ rants about “appeasers” giving “aid and comfort”.

This argument is going to continue, though, until the left can find out what it is that unifies it. The disparate halves of the right can coexist because of a shared fundamentalism (not religious, just in general). The left needs its “fundamentalism” which I think should be “imagination” in order to be able to have its disparate parts more peacefully coexist.

Not only that, but I do, proudly, consider liberals who support this god awful war, and those who are all too willing to agree with war supporters, something to endure. Those are the types of differences I meant. I don’t have to hate them, but I do have to deal with my personal revulsion and disgust.