Hey, Ronjazz, those GOP homophobes that you talked about - are they the same ones that voted to ban gay marriage in a state full of Democrats? Or are the homophobes the ones who went and stirred shit up in Catholic Churches blaming them for voting it yet didn't go to any predominantly black or hispanic churches to start shit despite the fact that exit polls had those two groups voting to ban gay marriage more than any other group? I'll tell you why they didn't - THEY'RE PUSSIES.

I don't follow Michelle Malkin. I've read one or two things from her — posted on some other site — and it was contrived, Republican talking points. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Any partisan can offer up contrived talking points. But after awhile, it's an absolute bore. And it's designed to fuck with people's minds.

in the words of Taibbi himself:

"Let's just say, hypothetically, that the media is biased. Let's say you're a conservative and you're just convinced CNN's management wants the Democrats to win. And let's say that's true (it isn't — the only true allegiance any of these companies has is financial in nature — but that's another issue). Okay, then, fine. So what? So patronize another media company whose views you do agree with. It's not like there's a shortage of them out there. If your complaint is that these companies have undue influence on the rest of society, and therefore undue political influence over you, well, then, whose fault is that? Yours, clearly, because you didn't do anything about it."

Thompson, by all means, throw your vote away on the cancer-ridden liar and his GOP whore running mate. The GOP has proudly morphed into the party of hate, homophobia, fear and incompetence, with no help from Taibbi or me. You're the one they're looking for: angry for no reason, and stupid enough to still be on the fence.

to those on whatever side you stand--for, against, or, frankly, indifferent to Taibbi--you're levels of idiocy are baffling. but especially those in disagreement with Taibbi and the left-leaners generally, it's funny that you bitch about name-calling, or Obama's mediocrity, etc--bottom line: you're still reading his columns. ultimately, that's what matters. do any of you really believe Taibbi gives a shit that you disagree with him? the more people who read him means the greater his job security.

if you had any clue, you'd ignore him so he'd go away. but that would just be sad, as Taibbi has the sharpest, most pointed criticism around. for those who think he's "in the bag" for the democrats, well, you've clearly not read much of his previous work. and that, really, just emphasizes your ignorance.

amazing~

Rightwingers are in their natural state marginalized whiners. Seeing commies under your bed and certainty that fluoride was being piped directly from the Kremlin's sub-basement into our water supply is the traditional mental habitat of these creatures.

Now that their ranks are bloated by a season of having a like-minded president and their very own TV network, they will be louder and more obnoxious than ever.

That, and losing puts them in a very bad mood.

Is the whole agenda behind most of your readers to have only one party....hmm sounds like communism. Let's be smart here. Both parties don't work well with only their party in charge. It surely won't work with Obama's Lets Reward Mediocity campaign. Clinton didn't even enjoy his success until the people voted out all the Dems for his second term. .

Jason,
First of all, great use of the thesaurus there, champ. Bet you're killer at parties.

Secondly, please be careful about accusing Matt Thompson of making an "error" simply because he stated a negative perception of this article. It's called an opinion. That's what kills me about left wing "dipshits" (very creative word, by the way - I agree with Thompson on this - words like this simply sound desperate and juvenile, but I'll play along and use it because it obviously resonates with this crowd) - if someone has an opinion, they're expressing a belief, not a fact.

Common sense, for sure, but a great reminder to some of the hyper-sensitive posters on this blog.

"Hardworking, dumb, and shameless."

Quick thought: Assuming Obama wins, and Sarah Palin becomes a leading figure in the Republican Party leading up to 2012 (as some have suggested), could she be the final death nail for the Republican Party? The country is clearly moving left already, and she would be sure to move the GOP to the extreme right. I don't see good things happening for the GOP if she is at the forefront. Let's hope that they are dumb enough to throw her out there.

Does discussing the fact that political news is no longer about political issues help curb the problem or does it just exacerbate it? Case in point: We are talking about the absurdities of this. We haven't gone back to discussing real politics.

Where is the exit to this nightmare of a dog and pony show we call campaign coverage? I think the solution is to just ignore it all, the farce or the people calling bs on the farce. Only respond to real political discussion.

Of course that would mean I just broke my own rule. This problem is a trap. To get other people out of it, you yourself have to enter the snare yourself. Sigh.

For Matt Thompson,
Hi Matt. You are actually making an analytic error here. Certainly Taibbi’s aggressive polemical style is not everyone’s cup of tea, but unlike the bloggers who orient their work around unsupported rumor, vague and demeaning character insinuation, or a facile, undifferentiated cynicism, Taibbi’s approach, in my experience, is to make specific criticisms about political positions and tactics, or about journalistic habits, and then to accentuate his point with a healthy dose of rhetorical flourish. The attacks are grounded in evidence (the interpretation of which you can agree or dissagree with on a case-by-case basis) and they often involve perception of important patterns in our political economy and media dynamics that otherwise go little remarked upon in the minutia of daily political reportage. The attacks manage an unusual degree of focus from being delivered in an intense way, so it’s an easy feature of the writing to worry about, but intensity really shouldn’t be a sole criterion for judging the work. Just as all skepticism or criticism in general is not equally unfair, all intensity (including even sarcasm and rhetorical exaggeration) is not equally unfair or harmful, because it arises in different contexts in different pieces of writing and serves different purposes.

Matt, you are a big draw for the right wing nuts.

Malkin is a joke and should be treated as such.

My original comment was for Matt Thompson, not Mr. Taibbi. Just for clarification.

Credit is certainly due to you, Mr. Taibbi, for your engaging prose. Very, very engaging. Your elementary schoolkid name-calling reads as desperate and laughable. This reeks of your own insecurity (not to mention the party you adhere to) and, judging by your apparent ties to the liberal agenda after reading a couple of your entries, quite discrediting.

To people like myself who are still quite on the fence as to who they will vote for this Tuesday, you might be interested in knowing flamingly negative and arrogant messages like these are a disservice to your political affiliation.

In the passage quoted, Malkin is clearly playing the "Obama is stealin ur white wimmin" card. Malkin loves to play the race card the same way rappers love to say the n word - as in, it's not offensive because she isn't White.