The Sign of Insecurity: Constant Defensiveness

(Believe me, I should know!)…

When Jonathan Chait took on the Nutroots® so publicly, I quite confidently predicted Kos would never be able to maintain his silence. His petulance when challenged is legendary, and today, the inevitable response came:

…[T]he part about us being “extremists” blah blah blah is obvious crap. Chait knows better. Or should. So either he’s a moron, or he’s being intellectually dishonest. Probably a little of both.

Here’s a challenge to Chait — I will debate him on the ideology of the netroots, any format, any location. I’d love to see him defend this paragraph above in a forum where someone can call “bullsh**” on his bullsh**.

Oooooohhhhh, that’s quite convincing. Nothing like a little ad hominem attack, is there?

Kos also managed to call TNR the Lieberman Weekly – you get it? Because, you see, he hates Lieberman, so anyone who doesn’t is a slimy toad.

Vicious spitefulness…it’s not just for breakfast anymore…

7 comments to The Sign of Insecurity: Constant Defensiveness

  • You’ve got to be kidding me. The only acceptable response would have been silence? Come on now.

  • too many steves

    He could have followed your lead and argued the merits.

    Why does anyone take Kos seriously? Does he find time to accurately predict or comment on things in between screaming at folks that disagree with him?

  • Dennis

    Who said only silence would be respectable? How about a response that doesn’t include “Chait is a stupid liar”? How about a response that actually debates Chait’s main argument that the Kossacks and their ilk are likely to tear the Democratic Party apart, rather than Kos’ chest-puffing, macho threat of a debate that he knows won’t happen?

    I actually would like to hear Kos talk about the ideology of the Netroots, since he always argues that he’s not interested in ideology, just partisan Democrats who stick it to the GOP anyway they can. I’d be interested because I still would like to have him explain how he can claim to be uninterested in ideology while waging fierce partisan attacks and occasional witch hunts within the ranks.

  • The lede to the kos quote is this:

    “I quite confidently predicted Kos would never be able to maintain his silence.”

    Seems to imply to me that anything he would have said would have been unacceptable, prejudging it. ‘s all I’m saying.

  • Fargus, here’s a quote:

    …[T]he true measure of character comes in rejecting the temptation to take the easy way out, and instead to embrace an honest and genuine dialogue about the issues.

    Who said it? Hilariously, georgia10 on the front page of the Daily Kos today. Should have sent that one to her leader…

    Hey, sometimes my phrasing is not as felicitious as I would prefer. I’ll plead guilty to making it sound as if any response would by definition be unacceptably defensive – but come now, we both knew Kos would rise to the bait, didn’t we?…

  • dmac

    When has he ever said anything without malice and bile? Can anyone give me a reasoned, intelligent argument that the guy’s made over the past 3 years?

    (crickets chirping)

  • emmdy

    “so anyone who doesn’t is a slimy toad.”

    I’m not sure how positing a straw man dopes anything but embelish your point, like polish to a turd, or guano on a statue.

    Vitriol, it’s okay if you’re a conservaitive.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>