Home / General / Great Moments In Conservative Hackery

Great Moments In Conservative Hackery

Comments
/
/
/
125 Views

Mr. Ben Shapiro, ladies and gentlemen:

On Thursday, Senate sources told Breitbart News exclusively that they have been informed that one of the reasons that President Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has not turned over requested documents on his sources of foreign funding is that one of the names listed is a group purportedly called “Friends of Hamas.”

Yesterday, 25 senators sent a letter to Hagel demanding information on his foreign funding. Hagel has refused all such requests…

Ben Shapiro has purportedly made several sordid visits to Mickey Kaus’s purported goat farm. Why won’t he address this issue? I DEMAND ANSWERS!

I suppose it goes without saying that “Friends of Hamas” doesn’t exist. What makes this pathetic rather than merely amusing is Rand Paul citing this as a reason to filibuster Hagel. Ah, the World’s Worst Deliberative Body.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • montag2

    Just goes to show that Little Ben is trying mightily to fill the shoes left on the sidewalk by the Breitbot himself.

    As for Paul, well, did anyone expect the Aqua Buddha to govern on the basis of fact? He’s pretty much a leapin’ screamer and the Senate isn’t going to change that.

    • c u n d gulag

      Aqua Buddha is living proof that consuming too may drugs, may indeed cause “dain bramage.”

      Ted Nugent, too.

      • Pestilence

        Assumes brains never in evidence

      • Cynically Yours

        Wait, too many drugs causes Ted Nugent?!

        I’m gonna have to cut back.

    • rea

      Back in my mispent youth . . .

      I never wouldhave beleived you if you told me a US Senator would be more obviously out of his head on drugs than me . . .

      • DrDick

        Yep.

      • catclub

        Alcohol, on the other hand,…

  • Refusing to disclose income from non-existant foreign sources is even worse than having income from non-existant foreign sources.

    This is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer who, as a fictional construct, is more diligent and better informed than Rand Paul.

    • Ginger Yellow

      Hagel hates Israel so much he pals around with terrorists that don’t even exist! Imagine how much he must be in league with actual terrorists!

    • Bill Murray

      Non-existent? Our Ben worked for hours to get a good sounding name on that check to Hagel

  • Manta

    I don’t like Kaus, but wasn’t he *right* when he said that John Edwards had an affair? Did the people that mocked Kaus for being right (for once) apologize to him?

    • c u n d gulag

      We don’t want to start a trend, now, do we?

      Then what do we do if Sarah Palin, Bill Kristol, or Dick Morris, is ever righ…
      LOL!
      Never mind – THAT’LL NEVER HAPPEN!

      So, Mickey, we apolog…
      Nah, it ain’t worth it.
      Even a blind squirrell finds an acorn every once in a whil.
      If only Palin, Kristol, and Morris, were squirrel’s, instead of squirelly.

      • Manta

        It’s easy: I pledge that next time I will trust more Kaus’ judgement about a public figure love life (as if I cared…).

        • swearyanthony

          He gleefully spread every sleazy story he could find. He wasn’t right about Edwards, the National Enquirer was – he just posted links to them. How many of his smears on the Clintons were true?

    • rea

      Stopped clock.

    • Warren Terra

      No, he wasn’t right about Edwards – the Enquirer was, and was at the time offering no proof whatsoever. At most, Kaus was right, in this instance, that people should trust the reporting and the veracity of the Enquirer; any judgment about Edwards was based entirely on sentiment. That’s not a display of judgment: it’s a willingness to embrace any smear against Edwards he comes across.

      Mind you: I never liked, trusted, or believed Edwards. I’m not claiming generally great judgment here: I was a committed Clark backer in 2004, and I think Clark won one primary and maybe a stuffed animal or two at various state fairs, and he hasn’t covered himself with glory in his later career. I’m just saying that I’m not coming to this as someone who would ever defend Edwards, except against the notion that it was right for Kaus to believe as-yet unfounded rumors about him.

      • John

        I don’t really disagree with this, but it certainly seems a bit unfair that Kaus has become the byword for believing things for which he has no evidence on the basis of the time when he believed something that was true.

        • MattT

          It would be unfair, except for the dozens of times he did the exact same thing where the story turned out to be bogus. He spent a lot of in ’04 pushing a story about Kerry having an affair with an aide that turned out to be complete bullshit. That the goat thing stuck on a story that turned out to be true doesn’t change the fact that he’s a complete hack willing to relay any evidence free story (about a Democrat) based on nothing.

          He really should have come up in that worst Senator thread.

          • John

            Again, I don’t think there’s any real substantive unfairness here, because Kaus did push these kinds of stories whether they turned out to be true or not, but there’s certainly irony in the fact that the one that spurred the meme turned out to be true.

            And why would Kaus come up in the worst Senator thread? He’s not a Senator now, is he?

            • MattT

              No, I just appreciate every opportunity to bring up his hilarious Senate campaign.

            • He’s referring to Kaus’s abortive, not-even-quioxitic campaign for the Democratic nomination to the Senate in CA in 2010.

              That was such a glorious campaign!

              • Endorsed by such even-handed Democrats as Glenn Harlan Reynolds and Jonah Goldberg!

                • sharculese

                  One of my favorite moments of the ‘epistemic closure’ debate was the Pantload claiming that obviously it was just as much of a problem for the Dems, or else they would all be listening to Mickey Kaus.

                • All of my favorite moments of that debate came from the Doughy one, who kept missing the point in the most insanely idiotic ways ranging from that tu quoque to “Some NROers disagree with others!” to, I shit you not, “National Review does so hire new interns!”

                • Bill Murray

                  I believe both Reynolds and Goldberg have two hands so they are even-handed by default

                • I’d reply to your comment, but I’m running on a tight deadline right now.

        • Hogan

          it certainly seems a bit unfair that Kaus has become the byword for believing things for which he has no evidence on the basis of the time when he believed something that was true.

          I don’t think that’s the basis for his being such a byword. It’s just the thing that Kaus’s defenders bring up whenever the byword is spoken, so the two have acquired a Pavlovian link.

    • Scott Lemieux

      I don’t like Kaus, but wasn’t he *right* when he said that John Edwards had an affair? Did the people that mocked Kaus for being right (for once) apologize to him?

      This is incredibly dumb. When you believe every bad rumor about every major Democrat, obviously you’re occasionally going to be right. That doesn’t mean his assertions about Edwards had any more basis than his similar assertions about Kerry did.

  • Well, this is certainly good news for Frank Gaffney – getting a mention by Weigel is certainly a step up in class for him.

    I also have to give Obama credit on this nomination. Hagel doesn’t make my top 100 for the SoD job . . . but . . . it’s very entertaining to see the conservative piranha chowing on the carcass of one of their own.

    Truthiness isn’t just wish or even misdirection, it seems to be a foundational belief system for these morons.

    • John

      You have a top 100 for the Secretary of Defense job, all of whom you would prefer to Hagel?

      • JoXn

        I’m sure there are 100 actual Democrats who are qualified for the SecDef job, and I would prefer any of them to Hagel.

        • rea

          I’d be surprised if you could find 100 Democrats who (a) had the credentials to be a plausible appointment to the position, and (b) are as far left as Hagle on defense-related issues.

          • JKTHs

            Seriously. There’s probably adverse selection in that the Democrats who were qualified would probably be indistinguishable from a 2000s Republican.

      • Of course, I exaggerated for effect. I’m not sure there are 100 people in the US who are qualified and confirmable for the SoD position. The tightest filter being ‘confirmable.’

        I would prefer that there were as many available qualified and confirmable candidates on the Democratic side as there are on the Republican side, but as an outside observer there does not seem to be even the same level of interest among Democrats as there is among Republicans. That’s a real problem. Of course, there is the other problem that the Republicans would agitate endlessly against any Democrat less pliable than Casper Weinberger as SoD.

        For example, John Kerry would clearly rather be SoS instead of SoD. It’s not that I want John Kerry, as is, for SoD but that I’d like to see John Kerry, and the like, motivated to be and prepare to be SoD.

        Under the current internal Democratic cultural circumstances related to national security issues, defense contracting, and their lack of enthusiasm for actively asserting civilian control of the military Hagel may be the least bad option for Obama, but that’s not necessarily to best option for the country or the Democrats in the long run. I certainly wish Obama had exercised a Democratic option that was equivalent or better than Hagel.

        • I think you’re underestimating the number of qualified Dems, and overestimating the number of qualified Republicans.

          • LosGatosCA

            I guess that puts me in the same category as every Republican president, Clinton, and Obama.

            In terms of interest in the job, I think the appointment record and the subsequent non-outrage on the Democratic side speak for itself.

  • max

    Ben Shapiro has purportedly made several sordid visits to Mickey Kaus’s purported goat farm.

    So he can play goat polo. Shapiro is obviously an Al Qaeda operative planted to try to attempt to disrupt American operations and/or get the US engaged in several side wars to help drain off its power.

    (Factually probably untrue since I shouldn’t attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity but metaphorically exactly accurate.)

    max
    [‘At midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out and round up everyone that knows more than they do…’]

  • Manju

    Man, at this point “Friends of Hummus” would be reason enough.

    • c u n d gulag

      Maybe he’s supported the Tabouliban?

      • newsouthzach

        I would filibuster any nominee who supported a ban on tabouli.

        • catclub

          I would stuff said nominee with spiced eggplant and sesame paste, then wrap with grape leaves, then leave early for lunch at the mediterranean place down the block.

  • Manju

    Sure, we could’ve gotten rid of the filibuster with a straight majority vote. But why rock the boat? What could go wrong?

  • john (not mccain)

    rand paul takes money from the zionist occupied government.

    • MAJeff

      But isn’t ZOG behind Agenda 21? I get so confused.

    • Malaclypse

      They are all funded by Illuminati front groups. You can trust me on this.

      • Rob

        Well you would say that you Free Mason plant!

        • What’s wrong with free masonry? Why would you want to pay for stone work if you didn’t have to especially in this economy.

          • Well, of course, this is just the sort blinkered philistine pig-ignorance I’ve come to expect from you non-creative garbage…. You sit there on your loathsome spotty behinds squeezing blackheads, not caring a tinker’s cuss for the struggling artist. You excrement,… you whining hypocritical toadies with your colour TV sets and your Tony Jacklin golf clubs and your bleeding masonic secret handshakes. You wouldn’t let me join, would you, you blackballing bastards. Well I wouldn’t become a Freemason now if you went down on your lousy stinking knees and begged me.

      • rea

        Ah, but the Illuminati are just a front for the Elders of Zion, or maybe the lizard people . . .

        • William Burns

          Sure, that’s what they want you to think.

        • MAJeff

          Where do the reverse vampires and Rand Corporation fit into all of this?

          • rea

            As fronts for the Gay Agenda

            • Malaclypse

              Yes, but they are Friends of Dorothy, not Friends of Hamas.

              • rea

                Well, but it’s the same thing, isn’t it? Oh, to have a whiteboard on which to draw the connections, like Beck! But, it’s Friends of Hamas, which is a front for the ZOG and Agenda 21 (not to be confused with Area 21, which is where they keep the aliens), which is a front for the Illuminati, which is a front for the Elders of Zion/Lizard People (who front for each other), which is a front for all those reverse vampires in the Rand Corporation, which fronts for the Gay Agenda. Sounds complicated? That’s just what they want you to believe!.

              • David Hunt

                This needs to stop. All of this blathering about false conspiracies is only helping Charles Darwin’s plan to raise Cthulu from his resting place in Ryleth.

                • Epicurus

                  Psssst, it’s the Stonecutters! Man, the power of misdirection…

                  ” Who controls the British crown?
                  Who keeps the metric system down?
                  We do, we do!

                  Who keeps Atlantis off the maps?
                  Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
                  We do, we do!

                  Who holds back the electric car?
                  Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
                  We do, we do!

                  Who robs cavefish of their sight?
                  Who rigs every Oscar night?
                  We do!
                  We do!!!”

                  Q.E.D.

  • Auguste

    Someone, somewhere whispered that there’s “a lot of friends of Hamas, if you know what I mean” – as in, a casual slur against Arab organizations in general – and Shapiro took it and ran with it.

    Book it.

  • Atrios

    I actually don’t remember what prompted the kaus/goat linkage, but it wasn’t the Edwards story (as he likes to claim). it came before that.

    • Tnap01

      I thought you started it all, no?

    • Well, this is awkward.

      Wiki:

      In 2007, Kaus reported from an anonymous source that candidate John Edwards was having an affair with documentarian Rielle Hunter.[14] Edwards and Hunter both publicly denied this, and Kaus was widely criticized for what amounted to an assumption of guilt.[15] Several bloggers of satiric bent spread intentionally ludicrous and offensive memes concerning Kaus and a supposed predilection for goats,[16] to illustrate that an assumption of guilt can be unfairly hard to disprove. It later turned out that the rumors regarding Edwards were true.

      That [16] goes here:

      Sources
      According to an anonymous source, Mickey Kaus regularly blows goats. Either he fails to deny this strongly enough, in which case his goat blowing proclivities are assuredly true, or his denials will impugn the integrity of my source which makes him a tremendously bad person. And, of course, a goat blower.

      Thanks, Slate, for all you’ve done for our discourse. by Atrios at 17:11

      • Snarki, child of Loki

        “It later turned out that the rumors regarding Edwards were true.”

        Thereby PROVING that Kaus blows goats!

      • Njorl

        The 2004 link is available, though, as shown here.

    • Scott Lemieux

      You are correct. [Atrios, I mean — mark f is wrong this time.]

      • Well, it’s not the first time. I should note that I wasn’t trying to prove Atrios wrong or anything; I was only looking it up out of curiosity.

  • Atrios

    something on the wikipedia is not quite correct. the goat thing dates back to the stone age of blogging

    • something on the wikipedia is not quite correct. the goat thing dates back to the stoned age of blogging

      FTFY

      • Should have waited until 4:20 to post that.

  • Rand feels bad about not being taken seriously
    In the worst senator competition.

    JzB

It is main inner container footer text