Posted by: Ace at 09:34 AM | Comments (101)
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

Yesterday, after I pointed out Yglesias' no-harm no-foul attitude towards the n-word, a few of his readers, having not commented upon the inappropriateness of the word all day, finally got angry about it... accusing conservatives of planting the slur on the site.

Odd that they didn't seem bothered by the word at all until the finally came up with a conspiracy theory by which to blame it on conservatives.

And they go on to prove their racial tolerance bona fides by reprinting the comment on our site. It's not been Tollbusted to something else, but yeah, originally it was a reprint of the Yglesias bon mot.

And how do I know it was an Yglesias reader? Well, I know it wasn't one of mine: a search for the unique hashmark used to differentiate all commenters' IPs demonstrates that the hash in question has never before appeared on the site. Since I haven't noticed the dispute being picked up by any other big sites, I'm wondering where else this new unwelcome commenter may have come from.

Stay classy, Matthew Yglesias and Matthew Yglesias' racist readers.

BTW: This from a post about Michael Steele, posted late yesterday even as one of his commenters had first-posted the n-word about Steele and it remained up all day long:

I mean, I love accusing conservatives of being motivated by racism...

Emphasis in original.

Oh, My: This Yglesias reader also posted this in the top headlines thread:

162 Michael Steele is a house nig! What's the difference between Sarah Palin's mouth and Sarah Palin's c**t? Retarded shit only came out of her c**t once.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at April 01, 2010 10:51 AM (KK69A)

I redacted the c-word. Paulie Carbone didn't.

Since he left his handle on that one, I can now confirm he's a regular Yglesias reader (scan down for "Paulie Carbone").

Remember: Matthew Yglesias loves (his italics) accusing conservatives of being motivated by racism.

Hat tip to Y-Not for putting me some information.

Posted by: Ace at 08:42 AM | Comments (158)
Post contains 350 words, total size 3 kb.

He did this every now and then during the '08 campaign. I know I should know better, it's just an election season contrivance that will be forgotten once Hayworth is gone and it's safe for the conservative screwing Mav to return but, it's kind of a cute idea, right?

"When I say repeal, people say you're not going to be able to do it," he said on KQTH FM Radio. "I am confident we will get majorities in both houses in the fall. And that means the power of the purse...If we cut off the money, it doesn't take an override to a veto."

McCain's comments shows that GOPers are considering alternatives to strike down the healthcare law, passed with a party-line vote this month, outside of repealing it outright.

Brooke Buchanan, a McCain spokesperson told The Hill that the move would be done using "fencing language" in an appropriations bill that would get rid of the health bill funding.

But under the constitution, the president has the right to veto any bill that is passed by Congress. Yet Buchanan said that placing the language in the appropriations bill would force Obama to veto the entire legislation, suggesting that the president would rather not take that action.

It's actually quite simple (in theory)...Obama can veto appropriation bills until the cows come home but he can't force Congress to add anything to the bills by vetoing them. What Obama can do is force a government shut down like Clinton did in the '90s as a way to bring pressure on the Republicans to add money in. Then the media arm of the DNC (aka ABC, CBS, NBC, etc) go into action a show all the horrible things that happen when people don't get their government money.

At that point it becomes a political showdown and a contest of wills.

How that would play out is tough to say at this point. My guess is Obama would win out in the end. The messaging power of the presidency is too strong to go up against a fractured Congress with 535 different agendas, the proverbial herd of cats.

Still, that's all a long way off. Right now I like that McCain is fighting back against the 'it can't be done' narrative that is starting to take hold. As I said yesterday, repeal is going to be a long and hard process. We aren't going to have the votes after this November but it's not a one election cycle fight.

As I said the day after this bill passed, it was Day 1. All past transgressions were forgotten (not necessarily forgiven) for anyone willing to fight this fight. I know supporting McCain only ends in tears but for now...go Mav!

Don't forget to check the Club for Growth's "Repeal It" website to see if your candidate(s) have taken the pledge.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:46 AM | Comments (196)
Post contains 496 words, total size 3 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:27 AM | Comments (293)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.