Cue Blogosphere Triumphalism Entry
Donald Rumsfeld reads old Roger L. Simon posts from the podium at the Pentagon. Shades of Dick Cheney!
Weirdly, I felt safer when the freelance shills took their cues from our rulers than I do now that our rulers have started taking their cues from the shills. If Sinatra started asking Joey Bishop for advice, would you want to hang with the Rat Pack?
Comment by Jim Nelson —
November 30, 2005 @ 8:37 am
Still, he acknowledged that his point may not be supported by the standard definition of ‘insurgent.’ He promised to look it up.
HAHAHA!
Comment by matthew hogan —
November 30, 2005 @ 9:20 am
Funny, I always thought Joey Biship WAS the real brains behind the Rat Pack. After all, who’s the only one around with the last laugh these days?
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
November 30, 2005 @ 12:26 pm
You’ll know he’s really taking cues from the PJM crowd when he starts sprinkling his speech with terms like ”Dhimmitude”, ”RoP”, ”MSM”, ”Islamofascist”, and so on.
Comment by Jim Henley —
November 30, 2005 @ 1:42 pm
Froggie: What’s ”RoP?”
matt: Wait - does that mean it was a good idea to invade Iraq after all?
Trackback by Political Animal —
November 30, 2005 @ 2:02 pm
The March of the Blogosphere
THE MARCH OF THE BLOGOSPHERE….Instapundit on politicians and the hawkosphere:THE WHITE HOUSE has released its Iraq strategy document. I think it owes a bit of a debt to Steven Den Beste.Jim Henley on the same subject:I felt safer when the…
Comment by matthew hogan —
November 30, 2005 @ 2:38 pm
”Wait - does that mean it was a good idea to invade Iraq after all?”
Not sure, haven’t heard from Joey Bishop as of yet.
Comment by Brian C.B. —
November 30, 2005 @ 3:23 pm
Okay, maybe Jim should have used Peter Lawford in his analogy. Still, I think it’s just awesome how Donny can speak to the grievances of the Iraqi people, and assure us they don’t have any, in spite of the fact that many of them are shooting at our troops.
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
November 30, 2005 @ 3:28 pm
Jim: RoP is ”Religion of Peace”, ironically/sarcastically referring to Islam. For example, this LGF headline referring to suicide bombers: ”RoP Strikes in Bangladesh.” Pretty neatly encapsulates the concept of mistaking sarcasm for wit.
(I literally just pulled up LGF to see if I could find an example, and there it was right on the main page.)
Comment by penalcolony —
November 30, 2005 @ 3:45 pm
Peter Lawford is definitely the better choice. Since Joey Bishop wrote most of the material for the Pack’s night club appearances, he actually was (sort of) the brain behind their public image.
Comment by matthew hogan —
November 30, 2005 @ 5:49 pm
”I literally just pulled up LGF to see if I could find an example, and there it was right on the main page.”
Hunting idiotic bigoted anti-Islamic references on LGF is like searching Mein Kampf for anti-Semitism. You dont even need to know the language.
BTW, See, I KNEW Bishop was the man. TWO, yes TWO, reasons now to think so (the ”TWO” is for those of us ancient enough to remember him on Carson.)
Isn’t Lawford dead or is that just a natural Kennedy assumption?
Comment by Hesiod —
November 30, 2005 @ 8:23 pm
You’ll know he’s really taking cues from the PJM crowd when he starts sprinkling his speech with terms like ”Dhimmitude”, ”RoP”, ”MSM”, ”Islamofascist”, and so on.
Too late. Bush already used the term Islamofascist in one of his ”How we’re goinna win in Iraq” speeches.
Comment by Jon H —
November 30, 2005 @ 10:12 pm
”After all, who’s the only one around with the last laugh these days?”
Shirley MacLaine and the other ”broads” (Angie Dickinson?)
Comment by Johnathan Pearce —
December 2, 2005 @ 11:06 am
”taking their cues from the shills”, writes Jim. So much easier to dismiss these folk as ”shills” than address their arguments, right?
Comment by Frank —
December 2, 2005 @ 9:08 pm
Mr Pearce-
You have read this blog havent you?
Comment by obnoxious lurker —
December 3, 2005 @ 10:23 am
”taking their cues from the shills”, writes Jim. So much easier to dismiss these folk as ”shills” than address their arguments, right?”
ALthough Jim will speak better for himself, I suspect that it is actually easier to say the arguments are stupid, ignorant, and proven foolish than to do the tedium of connecting the shill-like dots of who parroted whom and when.
The overall point is right, when one starts letting the echo chamber lead the talk, things have really sunk.
Comment by Jim Henley —
December 3, 2005 @ 11:07 am
Jonathan, saying EVERYTHING there is to say in a single post is Arthur Silber’s thing <G> (And God bless him for it.)
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
December 3, 2005 @ 1:25 pm
The only thing worse than being a shill is being a shill for the shills. Sad, really.
Pingback by Triumph of the Shrill (Shills) § Unqualified Offerings —
December 4, 2005 @ 2:00 pm
[…] ere Triumphalism Entry | Main | December 4, 2005 Triumph of the Shrill (Shills) Downblog Jonathan Pearse takes me to task for “dismiss[ing] these f […]