Every circus with John Conyers in center ring is bound to be exciting.

To think Rep. Conyers would be the Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary should the Democrats take control of the House. This alone should keep the House Republican for years to come.

Maxine Waters by the end of this frenzied kangaroo court looked like she was high on the crack of hate.

This is the comment I posted at Cap't Qts. Bill:

I'd like to point out,

That all this manufactured outrage over my U.S. Senator's distorted comments, is the only tune playing on virtually every Right blog currently!

And, I'd just like to ask: similar to the same routine pulled on Newsweek and Howard Dean recently, how exactly is this benefiting those of you on this issue?

With the exception of Fox and the CEC, this controversy over rhetoric will pass quickly. While a more substantive debate on the DSM and Frist's blatant lie over Terri Schiavo will resonate.

1. The outrage isn't "manufactured."

2. You miss the point about Frist:

a. calling it a "lie" is a bit hyperbolic, and I think Frist is a total jackass on the matter.

b. my point is that secular conservative outrage over heart surgeon Frist doing his "I can diagnose people for political purposes via video tape -- oops she was BLIND!" schtick gets overwhelmed by 9-11 conspiracy theories from the other side. Then the outrage migrates.

Lesser of two evils and all. I'm not particularly happy with either choice, but I can't have conspiracy nuts and children in charge of the military.

1. The outrage isn't "manufactured."

Wrong!

1. It is manufactured, because it's based solely on rhetoric and no substantive disagreement with Durbin on a pressing issue.

2. None of you (so far), have bothered to link to the actual transcripts of Durbin's remarks. Instead, you link to the pre-distorted diatribes of Laura Ingram or the always credible Washington Times.

3. Saying Frist lied, is an accurate statement knowing there's documented proof! Asserting the growing DSM controversy (or 9/11 conspiracy theories as you see it) somehow negate this, is wishful thinking on your part!

Wow that coloredfella, you just really shot your credibility with that one.

It is manufactured, because it's based solely on rhetoric and no substantive disagreement with Durbin on a pressing issue.

The main link in my story will wind you up at the Washington POST'S Dana Mailbank, that notorious GOP shill. Give me a break.

This is the story about 9-11 conspiracy theories and a wacky mock trial associated with the Dems, and the highlight of my post, yet you only mention Durbin.

Durbin's comments are a separate outrage, yet I can tell you from the bottom of my heart that his comments drawing potential allusions to horrific historical regimes outrages me. Not "manufactured" outrage, not "wrong," it just is. It exists. In me. My brain. Not manufactured.

And is it only me? Only the wingnut Washington Times and Laura Ingrahm? No (I've never even listened to Laura Ingrahm). How about the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gelernter17jun17,0,4056712.story

The Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0506170282jun17,1,4127449.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Not to mention the myriad other MSM outlets that reported the comments:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&rls=SNYC,SNYC:2004-17,SNYC:en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0506170083jun17,1,2637500.story%3Fcoll%3Dchi-newsnationworld-hed

So I guess you are "lying," since you uttered a false statement to make a political point. Face it thatcoleredfella, you are a LIAR. LIAR. LIED!

But aside from that, my obvious next question is, who are you to tell me that my considered opinion and outrage on a topic is not "real" with such certainy?

Frist is a weasel. That does not change the fact that I and others find Durbin and the Dem mock trial to be ridiculous and outrageous.

Bill,

It's fairly obvious that the lead-off comment in both my posts about 'manufacture outrage', were in directly reference to Durbin's comments and the third link in your post from Ace of Spades.

And, it's equally obvious that neither of my comment posts addressed directly any aspects of Milbanks' piece in the Post, although that is how you've distorted it as such!

I don't expect a 'gotcha' admission out of you Bill, but I expect much more than this.

Because to people like thatcoloredfella every political story is simply one more nodal point in an ongoing rhetorical struggle over who controls narrative (and so, who controls power) -- a typically Jamesonian materialist reading of historical events -- it is hardly surprising that he should project his own constant sense of faux outrage onto those of us who believe each individual nodal point is something more than simply a means to an end.

The outrage I feel over Durbin's remarks is not manufactured as a way to criticize Democrats; it is a very real response to understanding that, during a war, our enemies will most certainly make use of the kinds of things Durbin and Conyers and their ilk throw out there in an attempt to weaken Republicans. Had a Republican made the comments, I'd be just as outraged.

Well, my point, clearly stated prior to your comment about Durbin was:

my point is that secular conservative outrage over heart surgeon Frist doing his "I can diagnose people for political purposes via video tape -- oops she was BLIND!" schtick gets overwhelmed by 9-11 conspiracy theories from the other side. Then the outrage migrates.

So, while you say ...

And, it's equally obvious that neither of my comment posts addressed directly any aspects of Milbanks' piece in the Post, although that is how you've distorted it as such!

Of course it's obvious, but what the Hell are you talking about? My reference to the Post was to show that the main crux of my commentary was derived from outrageous Dem behavior as outlined by Milbank, whereas you just chose to focus on the WaTimes and Durbin. As it is, I went on to show other outlets castigating him,including the left-leaning LA Times, thus destroying all of your arguments.

You're the one who's obviously ignoring the main crux of my post and comments.

You aren't even addressing my issue, and you're selectively attacking my very real outrage over Durbin's idiocy as some manufactured political stunt. Which is kind of offensive. I mean, who do you think you are? Who are you to tell me that my outrage (echoed by the LA Times, oddly enough) is a political calculation?

In addition, despite what you say, there is plenty to disagree with on Durbin's take on a substantive issue, from what constitutes unacceptable abuse to closing Gitmo to rhetoric and allusions that are harmful to the United States and devalue the metaphorical examples that are cited.

As far as not expecting much from me, what gotcha moment would you have possibly been after? I had no idea that Frist had belatedly bullshat about his previously ridiculous diagnosis in the Schiavo matter, and truth be told, it's nearly irrelevant to me; I already think he's an opportunistic ass that pandered and tarnished his med credentials to assert himself in a hot political issue.

This distaste for Frist does not invalidate or assuage my larger distaste for a bunch of Dems that stage mock trials and use hyperbolic language regarding this country's treatment of prisoners and the war.

Your rhetoric is stale and formulaic. If you don't want it criticized, don't drop it in my comments.

As it is, I'm done for the day; one can only spend so much time on a Saturday arguing with cliched leftist lampposts.

I "cooed?"

I've never cooed in my life that I know of ...

Good lord. And here I thought it was more of a head pat.

But I do agree with your point which is why I reminded folks that while Dean claims ""The entire Democratic Party remains committed to fighting against such bigotry", I noted that was true unless, of course, you were a "white, Christian Republican."

Then bigotry's just fine.

I was just funnin' with you. I was going to amend it to say "our praise."

Though you did "coo" a bit. And it raised the hackles on the back of my neck, let me tell ya.

Giving credit to Dean for this is like the Chris Rock bit:

"I take care of my kids!"

Rock: "What? You want a cookie? You're supposed to, you dumb muthaf***er!"

Of course, I'm paraphrasing.

ThatColouredFeller (TCF) is a regular fixture over on SayAnythingBlog. I have rarely been able to engage him in any meaningful way in a rational discourse. I was hoping that he would do a bit better here, where he is not an admitted provocateur but no luck. By the way, I particular love Jeff's reference to "Jamesonian materialist" Great comment!

I do give Howard Dean a little credit here: At least he recognizes that anti-Semetic comments are not in the best interest of the DNC when aired publicly, which, by the way, is a very different thing that not believing them himself. (It is a bit like "you have to be careful what you say in public".)

The biggest problem with this DSM schtick is that it is based on a lie. As I've said elsewhere, the fundamental problem with using the DSM as a basis for a political assault, is that it is an obvious misreading of the memo itself. It's hard to get mainstreamers lined up behind an obvious lie.

And it raised the hackles on the back of my neck, let me tell ya.

Yikes ... me too. OK, I'm officially banning any cooing. I assume you'll help me stick to my ban.

Cooing for heaven sake ... argh!

Plus, it sort of rhymed with "McQ."

I kept reading, hoping against hope it was a satire.

I broke my digital camera, but the folks at the Grand Lake Theater are calling for impeachment. That's definitely gonna happen ;p

It doesn't mention it, but Barbara Lee was there. You are the company you keep

What went on in the Conyers circus was outrageous, and Dean was smart enough to recognize it for what it was and to distance himself and the DNC from it. The problem is considering who was there, it is sort of hard to say it wasn't the dems doing it.

You think at some point this stuff would catch up to them, but since we have redistricted congressional districts to the point that a representative can be as outrageous as they want to be, and their seat will still be safe.

So, apparently we can rest assured that Dean might be crazy, but he's not stupid.

No matter how exasperated I get with the Republicans, I just have to look at the alternative and shudder. I suppose I will never have the party that is perfect for me, but I certainly know who is the lesser of two evils.

RE: "It strikes me that all of this praise is like awarding a solid gold medal to a problem child because he didn't light the drapes on fire and pee on the living room floor ... this time."

I don't know Bill, some of us want him to burn the house down. We would appreciate his comments to be more constructive; however that doesn't mean I, or others, disagree with them. (in reference to Mr.Dean)

Joe Wilson(D) of plame-gate infamy was also at CONyers(D) party...

I guess the man that covered for Saddam to the point the Kerry(D) campaign paid for his website "RestoreHonesty.com"... right up until he was exposed...

Mark Steyn opines:

And what about John F. Kerry? Joe Wilson campaigned with Kerry in at least six states, and claims to have helped with the candidate's speeches. He was said to be a senior foreign policy adviser to the senator. As of Friday, Wilson's Web site, restorehonesty.com, was still wholly paid for by Kerry's presidential campaign.
...
...what does it say about the Democrats and the media that so many high-ranking figures took him at his word?
...
First, contrary to what Wilson wrote in the New York Times, Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. In support of that proposition are a Senate report in Washington, Lord Butler's report in London, MI6, French intelligence, other European agencies -- and, as we now know, the CIA report, based on Joe Wilson's original briefing to them.
...
On page 2, Wilson says of his trip to Niger: "I had found nothing to substantiate the rumors." But he had.
...
That's what lying is, by the way: intentional deceit, not unreliable intelligence. And I'm not usually the sort to bandy the liar-liar-pants-on-fire charge beloved by so many in our politics today, but I'll make an exception in the case of Wilson, who's never been shy about the term. He called Bush a "liar" and he called Cheney a "lying sonofabitch," on stage at a John Kerry rally in Iowa.

"It's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words." -- Joseph Wilson(D)

"Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both." -- Joseph Wilson(D)

"Whoever leaked that comment about my wife did it very clearly to smear my good name and my wife's good name." -- Joseph Wilson(D)

"We were just discussing today who would play her in the movie," -- Joseph Wilson(D)

I also think (D)ean's remarks are pretty transparent for a guy that dances in a Kaffiyeh and spouts 9/11 conspiracy theories that mirror "theJEWSdidit" rantings of the terror-apologists.

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found. I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials." -- Howard Dean on Bin Laden

But Howard advocates convictingg DeLay(D) based on partisan accusations right McCarthy?

I don't know Bill, some of us want him to burn the house down. We would appreciate his comments to be more constructive; however that doesn't mean I, or others, disagree with them. (in reference to Mr.Dean)

Your point isn't clear from that paragraph. You want Dean to destroy the Dems? You agree that Republicans are all thieving white Christians?

Contradictory. I don't understand what you're trying to say.