I'm not going to bother to plug in all my personal information, every time I have to comment, what a joke.

Their billing you as a respectable liberal here, are you kidding me? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Can you tell that I'm pissed.

Don't worry, I'm going to get myself banned from this site, that's about how much respect I have for it and this little move. The corporate version of The Weekly Standard, just two sides of the same coin, all bought and paid for.

Am I engaging in defamation yet? Don't worry I will.

I got myself bounced from Auto Blog for exposing the predatory practices of the big three automakers, and I'll do the same thing here, fight the power burn it all down.

Typo typo typo, no preview, no chance to redo it, no chance to do it right, do what you're told, don't deviate, exterminate! Exterminate!

Respectable liberal is a joke on an infamous Michelle Malkin post calling me "a respectable liberal."

Meanwhile, as for your constant thrum of sell out accusations, the American Prospect is a non-profit, progressive political magazine that I've worked at for over two years now. If you think the association is a sell-out, then it happened long ago. If you think it's still in the cards, then watch my commentary to see if it changes.

Either way, this decision to strike a hostile stance from day one baffles me. If you hate this move, then don't follow. The world is full of other blogs. If you like what I write, than hang around and see what you think. I have no interest in banning you. But I can't imagine why you'd want to disrupt a new site such that folks are forced to ban you. Just chill out and see if you like the blog over the next few weeks.

And yes, the lack of a preview is annoying. It's something we're trying to fix. That's what's tough about being a non-profit -- we don't have unlimited funds for tech help.

:)

Just wanted to see if I could get you to respond, the master manipulator at work, and I don't even know I'm doing it. That is the affliction I live with.

As to my hostel pose, that is what I do best, hostility. Go with what you know I say.

And it's a nice contrast to all the butt kissing I see going on, plus I don't believe in giving anybody a pass no matter how rational or sound their viewpoints may be. Those are often the people who need to be shook up the most, a little gasoline in your Evian, to rouse you from comfortable slumber.

And I find your assertion that nonprofit entities are somehow exempt from the evils of bureaucracies, of the same type which infect corporations, to be naïve in its inception. The moment that more than one person has a say in the creative endeavor of another, is the same moment the trouble begins.

But be that as it may, I'm just messing with you mon. :-)

PS Real human beings don't read Michelle Malkin or pay heed to her in any way shape or form, that just encourages her ilk, and she barely qualifies as a human being herself, more like a pathetic excuse for one.

Now that's an attack. Having seen this, reconsider calling Obama's mild response to Krugman a few days ago an "attack" on him.

Well, Jefferson wasn't exactly saintly in this regard either. He help start a paper aimed at weakening Washington and tried for years and years to trash Hamilton (who, btw, was no fan of Adams). I always find it funny that liberals lionize Jefferson (who owned slaves), but continue to trash Hamilton who not only refused to have slaves, but was in active opposition. Hamilton and his wife were also active in helping native americans.

Jefferson's state rights view is very similar to seggragationist rhetoric and the current GOP. But hey, his rhetoric sure sounded nice and that's all that matters in politics.

I'm with gqmartinez on this one. I just read the Hamilton biography by Chernow, and Jefferson comes off very, very poorly. My history teacher friend who specializes in the Revolutionary period tells me that nearly everything in it is true.

Jefferson's Francophilia led him to defend the revolution well after it went sour. In today's terms, Jefferson would be the guy who supported the Iraq war and continues to support it based on both ideology and because it antagonizes his political opposition.

Jefferson's reputation was (and is) inflated, and he himself did a good deal of the inflating. Hamilton was superior to him in virtually every characteristic that matters in a public official: judgment, policy, rectitude, work ethic, setting an example, competence, etc. And how did Hamilton repay years of underhanded attacks and scheming directed at him by Jefferson? By throwing the 1800 election to him.

What?! None of the claims that if Jefferson were elected people would have to bury their bibles because he'd outlaw them? Those were great!

Jefferson INVENTED partisanship where Washington and Adams (and originally Jefferson) sought to avoid it.

A similar ad against Adams would gravely intone that that Adams and Washington had a secret scheme for installing a monarchy.

Our political rhetoric is no more vitriolic than that of most American elections. The disappointment at today's vitriol comes, for me at least, from the fact that for a time our political discourse was somewhat elevated by the presence of a "professional" class of journalists. Now, people whose main experience in life is a series of local anchor jobs comprise our "journalists," and they have neither the talent nor the training to do it with anything like a professional's commitment to the discipline.

Hence, Katie Couric.

If only, if only . . .

There certainly wasn't a professional journalist class back then. Newspapers were expected to be partisan (often proudly so). Thing is, there were a lot more of them, and people generally read several. Kind of like blogs, come to think of it...

So which Republican is going to steal this ad and edit it for current events? My money is on Tancredo, but Guiliani might as well.

Ahh, political attack ads.
Much more American than apple pie.

Don't recall what they said about Andrew Jackson although ignorant comes to mind, but the slime thrown against his wife even after his election could be used against Guiliani today.

The campaign of 1860 offers ideas, too. Comparing Lincoln intellectually and physically to animals, and not favorably, was commonplace as were disparaging remarks about his ancestry, schooling, marriage and manners.

American invective sadly deteriorated in mid-20th century. Are we witnessing its rebirth? Time, and desperation, will tell.