Where Kaus Slept: Not In Vietnam!

Midget Mickey Kaus triumphantly trumpets -- with an exclamation point! -- his supposed debunking of a lie told by Senator Kerry. Kaus claims that Kerry lied when he said he did not sleep on the Mall in Washington D.C. while protesting the Vietnam War with his fellow veterans. The hairless hack unequivocally states:

Kerry didn't throw his own medals over the wall in that 1971 antiwar protest and he didn't sleep on the Mall with his Viet Vet buddies either. He snuck off and slept in a Georgetown townhouse.

But Kaus doesn't even begin to make his case for his assertion. The only source he cites is a Robert Sam Anson piece from the New York Observer in which Anson plainly does not state that Kerry slept at a Georgetown townhouse.

The hairless hack also sneers at Kerry's website for its denial of the charge:

Kerry's own Web site dismisses the Kerry-slept-in-Georgetown charge as an attempt to "smear him with the same unsubstantiated charge the Nixon White House used in 1971." Now not so unsubstantiated ... although I suppose Kerry will now claim he secretly snuck back to the Mall to sleep after the brandies in the library. ... (Emphasis added.)

Had Kaus bothered to read the Kerry page to which he links, he would have seen this:

In Fact, Kerry Biographer Says Kerry Slept on Mall, Used house for business and organizing (its not like he had a cell phone in 1971).

"Although he slept on the Mall, he [Kerry] used the Georgetown home of Oatsie and Robert Charles as a place to conduct business." [Douglas Brinkley, Tour of Duty, p. 364]

So the Kerry campaign's description of Kerry's activities is fully consistent with the Anson article, while Kaus's misreading of the article is not. And the website provides a source -- the Brinkley book -- which the hack didn't bother to consult.

Let's recap: Little Mick asserts, unequivocally, that Kerry "didn't sleep on the Mall .... He snuck off and slept in a Georgetown townhouse." He then links to an article which doesn't say that Kerry slept in a Georgetown townhouse, as proof of his claim. He then bashes the Kerry campaign for calling the charges "unsubstantiated" without bothering to substantiate the charges. And he insinuates that Kerry will have to change his story ("I suppose Kerry will now claim...") when Kerry's story is already consistent with the Anson piece.

That's got to be the Triple Crown of Hackery!

But that's not good enough for Kaus; he wants the Lifetime Acheivement Award. In a later post, Kaus simpers:

If Kerry spent only one night in Georgetown and several nights on the mall, why didn't he just say that, instead of denying the charge and letting his campaign call it a 'smear'? If he just drank brandy in the library (see Update), why doesn't he say that?

You see, it's Kerry's fault for denying the allegation that was made against him, rather than another one that exists only in Kaus's mind. ("Kerry failed to reveal that he drank brandy during the same time he was protesting the war!") And it's not Kaus's burden to present actual evidence for his own assertion. Here are my questions: If Kaus has no evidence that Kerry slept where he says he did, why doesn't he say that, instead of repeating a smear? When the Anson article doesn't say what Kaus claims, why doesn't Kaus just say that?

It's amusing -- and easy -- to point out Kaus's hate-fueled hackery, but the deviant workings of a small and twisted mind aren't all that important. The more significant matter is Kaus's bashing of Kerry on matters of little significance. Kerry served -- and slept -- in Vietnam, while Kaus, though fit for service, did not serve his country in the armed forces. Did Kaus protest the war or make any sacrifices to end the war? Who knows. But the fact that Kaus is obsessed with Kerry's sleeping arrangements and completely ignores the relevant issues behind the trivia -- the validity of the War in Vietnam, military service, the military draft, and the right to dissent against government policies -- demonstrates that Kaus is a man of no substance, unfit (though entitled) speak on any matters of national importance.

The Opposite of Cyber Sex

The New York Times has an article taking the piss out of Midget Mick and his hardcore video chat site. (The first hint is in the title.)

The author, Ginia Bellafante, caught Kaus and a cohort exchanging video views on the topic Ann Coulter: Hot or Nuts? Kaus took the Nut's side of the debate:

As it turned out, Mr. Kaus was reluctant to demonize Ms. Coulter, rejecting Mr. Wright's claim that any anatomization of her thinking would logically conclude that she was either (1) "dishonest" or (2) "stupid." Instead Mr. Kaus offered the counter-theory that she was a more or less sensible person whose zealotry often drove her to exaggerate.

Yes, a sensible untruthful zealot. Sounds familiar.

After noting that Mr. Kaus had been seen in Ms. Coulter's company, [Robert Wright] went on to intimate that maybe, possibly, Mr. Kaus thought she was pretty, that perhaps he had a crush.

That's out of line. Kaus is a one-Lucianne bigot lover.

Getting bored, the author decides to slap Kaus's head around a bit:

One of the many pleasures of bloggingheads.tv is watching two skilled rhetoricians who rarely let loose the clamps on their assiduously framed arguments. Were Mr. Wright and Mr. Kaus ever to conduct a debate about shampoo -- Prell, say, versus Herbal Essence -- they would apply the same legalistic reasoning they bring to discussions about Karl Rove or China.

In Kaus's case, it's also as theoretical a debate as one about sex.

But she doesn't stop there.

As it happens, some bloggers you want to see and some you don't. This is not to suggest that some look like George Clooney, while others have faces meant, well, for blogging.

But she'll suggest it anyway.

Mr. Wright is a liberal; Mr. Kaus a liberal undone by all that's wrong with contemporary liberalism.

Undone, unhinged, unlovely and uninteresting.

[Kaus] surmised that if we accepted the claim that homosexuality was genetically determined, why then couldn't we imagine that there might be a gene activating an aversion to homosexuality?

Sure. And another one to explain the universal aversion to Kaus.

Mr. Wright and Mr. Kaus talk to each other from their home offices, and to Mr. Kaus I would say: Your bookcase looks like it's about to fall over, and I am worried.

Huh? Clearly the bookcase is too far away to do ... Oh.

Never mind.

(Thanks to a reader for the link.)

Creepshow

Mark Kleiman asks:

If anyone can explain to me what's behind Mickey Kaus's characterization of Clark as "creepy," I'd be grateful. (Note that Kaus doesn't bother to try to justify it, he just asserts it as fact. Dec. 24.) I think it just means that Clark is exactly the kind of Democrat Kaus keeps telling people he wants to vote for, and if Kaus couldn't detect some character flaw he'd have to think about actually voting for a Democrat, which would make him very unhappy.

Anyone? Anyone? Mr. Geldof?

They can see no reasons
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to be shown?

Actually, I doubt even Chucky Krauthammer has enough training in abnormal psychology to explain Kaus.

For the record, I could only find two Kaus entries (here and here) at Slate where Kaus even approaches a substantive critique of General Clark's opinions or positions. And there's not much substance there, just references to others' criticisms of Clark. Maybe someone could squeeze a coherent thought out of Kaus's critique of "tough doves," but it's beyond me. And since Kaus never took a position on the Iraq war, it's hard to take his analysis of someone else's positions seriously.

There is, of course, nothing in any of Kaus's Clark commentary that would explain why Little Mick thinks General Clark is creepy.

But there is one article where Kaus snidely cheapshots Clark as another pol "unexpectedly discover[ing] Jewish roots," based on the fact that Clark discussed his Jewish heritage with The Forward in January 2003. The facts are that Clark's Jewish father died when he was four, and his non-Jewish mother remarried and raised him as a Baptist. Clark learned about his heritage and made contact with his late father's family when he was in his 20s. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Clark has been disingenuous about his past or that he is using it for political advantage. The only creepy thing about the story is Kaus's use of it to belittle Clark.

Kaus Fails Again

Mickey Kaus, the slapheaded slug who leaves a trail of failure in his greasy wake, all while keeping up a patter of constipated, self-righteous drivel, was sacked yet again today. This time the hack was sacked for being too far right for the loons at the far right hate site The Daily Caller.

"It's pretty simple," Kaus said in an interview, "I wrote a piece attacking Fox for not being the opposition on immigration and amnesty -- for filling up the airwaves with reports on ISIS and terrorism, and not fulfilling their responsibility of being the opposition on amnesty and immigration.... I posted it at 6:30 in the morning. When I got up [they don't call him Kaus Hackula for nothing - ed] , Tucker had taken it down. He said, 'We can't trash Fox on the site. I work there.'"
....
Kaus says when he told Carlson he needed to be able to write about Fox, Carlson told him it was a hard-and-fast rule, and non-negotiable.  [Para.] "He said it was a rule, and he wouldn't be able to change that rule. So I told him I quit," Kaus explained.

Mickey's needs are simple.  He needs for FOX to broadcast his pet hates.

I don't know what's more disturbing, Kaus' pretense that he thought Tucker Carlson had ever any integrity, or his pretense that he, Kaus, ever had any integrity.  It's almost as if that Kaus doesn't understand that FOX and The Daily Caller are commercial enterprises designed to separate rubes from their money, not charity wards for the unwashed boobs who stop by Kausfiles for their daily hate.

Kaus is now blogging on cardboardsign.com, next to one of the 305's many metered off-ramps.

Me, I can't wait for Howard Kurtz to give Tucker Faye 15 minutes to defend himself against the wild-eyed radical Democrat, Kaus.  

Covered In Shame

ABC's story on Howard Dean and Dennis Madore is so vile that even the illiberal Mickey Kaus condemns it as a smear. Of course, to Midget Mick, the significance of the story is that shows Lucianne Goldberg is not a hypocrite.

Kaus "writes" (or is that 'writes'?):

Take that bus and shove it! I can't quite believe ABC ran with that Dean "affidavit" story (as Drudge tactfully calls it). There's no evidence presented that Dean knew of the actions of the former employee involved, certainly not before he filed his affidavit. Nor is it even really clear exactly what those actions were. Read it yourself. ABC (Mark Halperin, you too) should be ashamed. The network doesn't just report the story--it hypes the story (in the attempt to make it a story). If I were Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi, I'd have tried to kick ABC off the plane too. ... Hypocrisy Watch: And if Democrats had tried this sort of last-minute smear on, say Arnold Schwarzenegger, you can bet Republicans like Lucianne Goldberg would have immediately denounced it. Yet when the late hit is on Howard Dean, Lucianne Goldberg ... well, actually her site immediately denounced it. ("ABC falls for ... lame hit job.") This is one reason I like Lucianne Goldberg.

Two things Kaus conveniently omits:

1. There is a similar, but more substantive, story to be told about Arnold Schwarzenegger. Arnold S. has hired and retained an alleged spouse batterer as one of his top consultants. Don Sipple was a highly-paid political consultant for Arnold during Arnold's 2003 campaign. Sipple was recently named by Arnold to co-lead two of Arnold's newly-formed political committees. Sipple was accused by two of his ex-wives of battering them. These allegations were made under oath, in court, during a custody hearing. (Sipple denies the allegations.) The allegations were well-known when Arnold hired Sipple in 2003: They were the subject widespread media attention in 1997, as well as the subject of a published 1999 California appellate court opinion affirming the dismissal of a defamation lawsuit Sipple filed against the publishers of Mother Jones, which first reported the story.

Kaus admits there's no evidence Dean knew of the allegations against Madore (who of course was a state employee, not a hand-picked and well-paid campaign consultant). Certainly there was no sworn testimony by two witnesses against Madore at the time Dean signed the affidavit. In contrast, Arnold would have to be brain-dead not to know of the allegations against Sipple in 2003. So why does Kaus suggest that a story about Arnold S. hiring an accused batterer would be "a smear"?

2. Kaus uses ellipses to shorten Goldberg's supposedly praiseworthy condemnation of ABC -- by two words. Goldberg didn't write "ABC falls for ... lame hit job." She wrote "ABC falls for Chris Lehane lame hit job." Why does Kaus omit those two words, eleven letters? It's not like Kaus doesn't loathe Lehane. (See here and here.)

As Kaus might say, "there's no evidence presented for" Goldberg's charge of Lehane's involvement. (The ABC story cites Jerry Diamond, "a Dean supporter and former Vermont attorney general who was the lawyer for Madore's wife," as a primary source.)

Goldberg's denunciation is only praiseworthy if the entire sentence is true. Otherwise, it's another last-minute smear and right-wing hit job, albeit one directed at a Dem other than Dean. Kaus should either endorse Goldberg's entire statement or leave the hideous hater and her racist bulletin board out of the discussion altogether.

Mickey Kaus' Version of Honesty

A bitter hack writes:

I would go so far as to say that Breitbart had an instinctive honesty -- pretty much the opposite of what Frum charges. I don't know the ins and outs of the Shirley Sherrod mess, in which Breitbart posted a video the end of which had been lopped off before he saw it. But I guarantee you Breitbart posted it because he felt it truthfully made a legit point (and he wasn’t aware what the rest of it would show).

It's telling that Kaus' proof of Dimbart's honesty is something Kaus admits he doesn't know much about. Yet Kaus is willing to "guarantee" Breitbart acted in good faith because ... well, Kaus doesn't say why ... so, using Breitbart/Kaus journalistic standards, we can speculate that Breitbart never stole Kaus' blow when he left it sitting on the nightstand.

It's even more telling that Kaus claims that Breitbart was honest because Breitbart felt he was making "a legit point," even though Breitbart knew he didn't have all the facts and did nothing to enlighten himself.

Those who, unlike Kaus, are interested in the truth about the "Shirley Sherrod mess" should read Ta-Nehisi Coates, who did bother to examine the facts of the matter.

Kaus also names "Wienergate" as Breitbart's "greatest triumph," and cites Breitbart's ass-covering when he thought he'd been fucked over by an anonymous source as an act of honesty. I guess when your biggest accomplishment in life is recalling a story about Arnold Schwarzenegger from your old copy of Oui magazine, you can't help but worship someone who was the recipient of a congressman's dick photos.

Kaus Piles

They just get bigger and steamier.

Kaus attempts to clarify his latest slam on Senator John Kerry and fails miserably. The fake quotes are the original comment; the parenthetical is the putative clarification:

Kerry: 'I might have been brainwashed!' ... Whoops, he said "misled." Sorry ... [???-ed. Click here. Search for "Romney." ... Or just go here.] 11:25 P.M.

The first "explanatory" link states:

(In 1968, when Michigan Gov. George Romney claimed that the Johnson administration had "brainwashed" him about Vietnam, Sen. Eugene McCarthy quipped that in Romney's case "a light rinse would have done.")

Well, that explains nothing. John Kerry didn't claim he was brainwashed, he claimed that Bush misled the country about the reasons for going to war. There's no equivalence between claiming to have been brainwashed and claiming to have been lied to (or claiming to have believed a lie). Is Kaus suggesting Bush's statements were so obviously fraudulent that Kerry and the American public shouldn't have believed them? Kaus certainly didn't claim that at the time the statements were made. Is he criticizing Kerry for stating that Bush misled the country? Neither the original comment nor the explanation supports that interpretation, and Kaus offers nothing to demonstrate Bush's veracity. The only thing Kaus's statement reveals is an irrational hatred of Kerry.

It's also interesting that Kaus brings up Vietnam, since Kerry served honorably and with courage in that war while Kaus (legally) avoided service. Kaus chose a particularly poor analogy by which to claim moral or intellectual superiority to Kerry.

In Kaus's case, a brainwash would be flooding the Dead Zone.

I've Got Nothing to Do and All Day to Do It

Midget Mickey Kaus is managing approximately one post every other day between his two shitty websites. Most could have been written in under 10 minutes, while Breitbart was smothering Kaus with a pillow.

Kaus' newest campaign issue is himself: He's not getting to speak at the California Democratic Party Convention. Kaus suspects that the "machine" fears his oral abilities. Sane people suspect that Kaus doesn't have any platform or policies to run on. Perhaps the Golden State's electorate is looking for a bold leader who will link to an anti-union article every odd-numbered day. A solon who will beg for campaign contributions before offering solutions. A statesman who will do nothing for weeks except issue a press release about about how mean his party is.

Kaus doesn't deserve a place at the convention because he has nothing to offer. We know you can bitch about the unions, Pee Wee, but why can't you explain what should be done with them? If you can be bothered to offer solutions on your own website, why should the Party assume you would be able to articulate them at a convention?

Senator Boxer can manage to spell out what she stands for on a whole range of issues, including labor issues, even though she faces no competition in the primary. Sure she has financial support beyond the rolls of adult video store tokens Kaus's wingnut pals are sending in, but Kaus pretends to be a professional journalist/blogger. Surely he could manage to pinch out a single page of policy positions and "common sense" ideas -- if he had any. (Maybe Ruth Shalit could plagiarize such a page for him from a Tea Party website.) Right now, Kaus' sole articulated message is that Democrats suck. Sure, it's the only thing he believes, but it's not much of platform.

Kausfails Again

Reduced to sleeping in Tucker Carlson's broomcloset, next to Jim Treacher's used medical supplies, Mickey Kaus continues to blather on about his pet hates. Here's his latest post on teachers' unions:

Unionism + Legalism = Government Failure: How to fire a bad Chicago public school teacher in only 2-5 years! …
What’s unclear to me is how much of this daunting procedural labyrinth is written into state law–so it would survive even if Chicago’s teachers unions were stripped of their bargaining power. …

Now Kaus may claim he's not endorsing the accuracy of the chart he links to, but he is. He doesn't say, "worrying, if true." He links to the chart without even acknowledging the possibility it's inaccurate, for the obvious reason he wants it to be true. So let's look at how inaccurate Kaus's thesis is.

First, the chart only applies to tenured teachers, a point Kaus omits. According to this link, teachers in Chicago public schools can only get tenure after three years at a particular school, and the school is not required to give tenure after three years, but can keep a teacher on probation. During the pre-tenure period, a teacher can be fired in 2-5 seconds. So what Kaus is talking about is firing teachers that already have been deemed qualified by their school.

Second, the chart describes the procedure for firing any tenured teacher, not just "bad teachers." Does Kaus think that good teachers should be shitcanned without any due process? He doesn't say. He just pretends that the process only protects bad teachers.

Next, the "2-5 year" claim is not supprted by the linked chart. The Tribune chart says the first stage, "Remediation," takes "1 year." But the "Time Frames" given by the chart for all the steps in the Remediation stage add up to 131-140 days, a little more than 1/3 of a year. The second stage is given a total time frame of "About 4 Months," but the steps only add up to 90 days. The third stage is defined in such vague phrases as "at least 1 month" and "up to 30 days" that it's impossible to give a truly accurate time frame.

Finally, note that "The teacher is fired" comes before the last step in the third stage, before the "2 to 3 year" final phase. The fourth phase involves the teacher filing a civil action for wrongful termination, in which the teacher must prove that the termination was arbitrary, capricious or against the manifest weight of the evidence (a pointless endeavor unless the teacher was terminated for improper reasons). This is like the civil suits terminated workers who are not union employees and who are not teachers and/or public employees can and do file against their former employers all the time.

In summary, the chart does not apply to all teachers, it does not depict a "2-5 year" process before the teacher is fired (according to the chart itself), and the chart's numbers do not add up (according to chart itself). If you accept and add up all the given numbers for the period before the firing, they add up to 306, less than one year.

Maybe Kaus thinks that school districts should be able to sack incompetent, non-performing deadweights as easily Newsweek magazine can (that is, in 4-5 months). But that's how it works in the Chicago public schools too! And Kaus forgets his Wingnut 101, which teaches that public adminstrators (principals, superintendents, etc.( are also evil, parasitic bureaucrats. Are schools better served by a system where administrators have total power over firing, or one which places checks on that power? Don't ask Kaus. He hasn't found an inaccurate chart to answer that question for him.

More On Mickey Kaus

Mickey Kaus has now posted at Kausfails.com the posting that got him Tucker-canned from The Daily Caller.  It's even stupider that I imagined.

Kaus grouses that "immigration amnesty supporter" Rupert Murdoch won't incessantly bash immigrants on his property, the Fox News Channel.  (The slaphead's slim sampling for proof is limited to the one show he wakes up to watch key-word search transcripts of, The Kelly File.) Why, Megyn Kelly never made the evils of immigration the top story in the month and a half Kaus hate-watched the show.  It's almost as if Murdoch wasn't giving enough airtime to promote a view he doesn't agree with.  Who could have imagined?

Kaus can't suss why FNC would ignore immigrant-bashing when such bashing appeals to FNC's Obama-hating base.  It doesn't occur to him that FNC's viewers will tune in no matter the cause of the channel's Obama-bashing, so the channel has the incentive to promote a more telegenic and exciting cause to bash the Kenyan usurper. Perhaps Kaus could get some undocumented workers to dress him in orange and behead him on digital -- surely that would dominate the cycle!  But those selfish assholes are too busy working to make breaking news.

Kaus simpers that the insufficient level anti-amnesty coverage is "a proven pro-anmesty posture."  ("The absence of animus," &c...., apparently.)  So-called family values Obama-haters surely would like for FNC to program more anti-homo-themed Obama-bashing. (Kaus might enjoy that too, especially if the homos were immigrants.)  But Kelly's failure to lead with the President's LGBT-friendly rhetoric at Selma, or the beefs of a breeders-only baker, doesn't mean Kelly, or FNC, is pro-equality.

So Kaus is out of work, left to search for an immigrant-hater with deep pockets -- at least deep enough to pay some fraction of the pittance Carlson was paying him -- to keep him as he's accustomed.  Since the blogging thing isn't working out for him, maybe some sort of manual, non-union labor will suit.  Good luck, Mickey!

(No link to Slappy.)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

More Clowning From Kaus

The wingnuts are usually on the lookout for a supposedly liberal press misquoting the beloved Bush. In his latest drivel-filled epistle, however, mental midget Mickey Kaus bashes the press for quoting Bush accurately.

The question asked of Bush -- which Kaus omits -- was this:

Mr. President, in regard to the June 30th deadline, is there a chance that that would be moved back?

Bush said this:

THE PRESIDENT: No, the intention is to make sure the deadline remains the same. I believe we can transfer authority by June 30th. We're working toward that day. We're, obviously, constantly in touch with Jerry Bremer on the transfer of sovereignty. The United Nations is over there now. The United Nations representative is there now to work on the -- on a -- on to whom we transfer sovereignty. I mean, in other words, it's one thing to decide to transfer. We're now in the process of deciding what the entity will look like to whom we will transfer sovereignty. But, no, the date remains firm.

The Washington Post, which Kaus criticizes, used the following headline to summarize Bush's remarks:

Transition Date Still Firm, President Says

To recap: Bush states the June 30 transfer date "remains firm." In response to the question of whether there is any chance that the June 30 deadline would be moved back, Bush says "No." The Post reports that Bush said the "transition date still firm." Seems entirely accurate to me.

The pint-sized pundit, however, disagrees. He thinks Bush's words mean that Bush is "considering postponing transition." Kaus sees equivocation because Bush used the words "intention" and "I believe we can" in his answer. He ignores the first word out of Bush's mouth -- "no" -- and the last words --"no, the date remains firm." And there's really no contradiction: A person who "intends" to stick to a deadline and "believes" the deadline can be met can state, without contradiction, that the deadline is firm.

Of course, the other alternative is that Bush is "flip-flopping," that is, he knows the deadline is bullshit and intends to weasel out of it without clearly saying so. But Kaus would never impute such actions to his fearless leader.

The Post chose to report Bush's actual words, while Kaus plays a mind-reading game where he can divine that Bush meant the exact opposite of what he said. And some people actually respect Kaus.

Regrettably, and through no merit of his own, Kaus isn't the biggest embarassment on Slate this week. The honors go to Tim Noah, who devotes an entire column (and was presumably paid for writing it) to the question "Why did Jenna Slosson read her book upside-down?" (Answer: She didn't, and Noah is an idiot.)

kf Gets Plugs

Midget Mickey Kaus is back to his usual pointless wanking.

1. He complains that the New York Times was "plug[ging] a band in which Howell Raines' son is a member. In truth, the article mentions the band -- but hardly promotes it -- in an article about numerous acts at a three-day music festival attended by 80,000 fans. Since the festival's promoters put the band on last year's "best of" CD, it's hardly surprising that the band merits a mention in the article. And since Kaus knew nothing about the band except its Raines connection, his bitching is admittedly based on ignorance. I'm certain Jeff is less of a disappointment to the Raines family than Mick is to the Kaus clan.

2. Kaus also notes a six percent drop in the value of New York Times stock Wednesday, and makes the idiotic (and purely speculative) claim that the stock's value dropped because of the Blair, et al. scandals. One could equally claim -- with the same lack of support -- that the stock dropped on word that the new editor, Joe Lelyvald, sold out readers in 1996 by cutting a deal with Dick Morris to promote Bill Clinton for re-election.

3. The low point (though the week is not done) is Kaus's latest comment: "Kerry: 'I might have been brainwashed!' ... Whoops, he said 'misled.' Sorry" Of course, if you click the link, Kerry said neither one. Rather, Kerry said that Bush "misled every one of us" with respect to Iraq's weapons capacity in order to justify his war. The sad part is not Kaus's pathological hatred of Kerry or his pathetic attempt at what he undoubtedly claims is a gag. No, the sad part is Kaus's lack of concern as to whether the Administration misled the public. Kaus is all over trivia such as Gary Condit and Greg Packer, but when a Senator asserts that the President has misled the country on matters of national security, all Kaus can manage is an incoherent crack aimed at the Senator who raised the issue.

P.S.: I'm not talking about hair plugs!

The Krappy Kaus Kampaign

The Krappy Kaus Kampaign consists entirely of Kaus posting the same old poorly-written anti-Dem blogposts under a campaign slogan instead of under the Slate.com logo. One suspects that Kaus was canned by Slate but allowed to cover up his termination by disguising it as a career change.

Meanwhile, Kaus' "campaign" consists of peddling fraudulent Palin/Teabagger claims as "common-sense" thoughts. Says the hairless hack:

They–we–know there will almost certainly be a big additional bill to pay down the road. It will be even bigger if, as we can hope and expect, government attempts to restrict potentially useful treatments in the name of economy prove unsustainably unpopular.

Yes, Kaus plays the Death Panels canard. Contrast his concern about government attempts to restrict potentially useful treatments in the name of economy with insurance company attempts to rsetrict potentially useful treatments in the name of economy. What's that? You can't find any posts reflecting Kaus' concern with insurance company restrictions on potentially useful treatments in the name of economy?

But I'm sure Democratic voters will ignore his attacks on health care reform as long as Kaus continues making pointless references to the "Feiler Faster Thesis" and his fake editor. Tell us what you really think about Brian Williams and Meg Whitman's "hotness," Mickey. Who needs health care when you can read self-masturbatory crap on the internets?

We All Scream For Mickey Kaus Making An Ass of HImself

How big of a moron do you have to be to be a friend of Mickey Kaus? At least as moronic as Kaus himself. The slaphead midget reproduces a tearful e-missive from one of his non-imaginary friends, which reads as follows:

OK. So depressed about this election that I had to go to Baskin-Robbins and just buy a pint of ice cream and some caramel cones for [my son].
And of course, of course, I get there trying to drown my sorrows, and the flavor of the month is
"Whirl of Change."
"Whirl of Change" with a little Democratic donkey sign.
It's like peanut nougat ice cream with chunks of chocolate enrobed in more chocolate.
And I think it's also some kind of horrific multiracial metaphor.
But anyway so "Whirl of Change." Flavor of the month at Baskin Robbins.

Boo frickin' hoo! Hearing this news, Kaus can't help but prance through a puddle of his own pretend victimhood. He whines, "Baskin-Robbins is doing its part!"

Sorry to ruin the pity party, Mickey, but you can go down to your local B-R parlor and suck on the "Straight Talk Express" until you're as blue in the face as a U.S. map come November 4.

In frozen confections, as in real life, Kaus is the biggest loser.

Update: (10/24): Kaus has now added the link to the Baskin-Robbins site as "Background," without noting that he made the change 4 or 5 days after the original post. Maybe he reads this site.

The link, of course, undermines the paranoid point of Kaus's post, which was that Baskin-Robbins was shoving Barry X into the faces of poor persecuted Republicans, who can't even enjoy a cone without facing pro-Democratic propaganda. Kaus's fellow right-winger has such a persecution complex he didn't notice that the company offered flavors for both candidates, which anyone with a two-digit i.q. could have guessed. His little pal's next e-mail will claim the soda jerk carved an X into his forehead with one of those little wooden spoons.

In any event, the real outrage here is the lack of treats honoring Bob Barr (a cafe au lait fudgesicle covered in whipped cream and fruit loops), Cynthia McKinney (mint chocolate chip) and Ralph Nader (something made of hummus and mohair).

What A Hack Wants

Diminutive dimwit Mickey Kaus thinks a major problem with the Los Angeles Times is that it doesn't print enough gossip. Shockingly, not enough Times readers know about Mayor Hahn's divorce. And it's the Times' fault, because the paper's only mentioned it three times in the past eighteen months.

Kaus says Hahn's marital status is more newsworthy than the Times thinks because "[o]ur single-dad mayor has no nanny. Does rushing home to try to take care of his children rob from the energy and time he can give to his duties?" But Hahn's kids are at least 15 and 11 years old. Why the hell would Hahn have a nanny?

Of course, if the Times did have a gossip column, Kaus's constant complaint would be that the column slanted left. Every omission of a third-hand anti-Dem rumor shared among Kaus and his thigh-rubbing right-wing clique would be an excuse for Kaus to post the rumor at Slate and slam the Times for imagined bias. For proof of this premise, one need only recall Kaus's gleeful wallowing in Drudge's fraudulent Kerry smear, and his self-emasculating obsessions with Senator Kerry's hair, forehead and height.

Kaus tries to argue that political gossip would cure political apathy, as more shallow idiots like himself would be inclined to vote if the private lives of L.A. pols were made public. Of course, they'd be voting for idiotic reasons which had no rational relation to the pols' policies or plans. But Republican Kaus will take G.O.P. votes however he can get them.

Mickey Kaus Demands A Cover Up

Mickey Kaus is the new Oliver North. Without the hair and the service in Vietnam. (The running around his home naked, waiving a revolver, we don't want to know.) To Kaus, the real scandal of the U.S. military's abuse of prisoners of war is not the mistreatment itself, but congressional demands for information and oversight.

Senator Daschle's Outrage: Leave it to a U.S. Senator to confront shameful acts of inhumanity that endanger the nation and get all outraged over ... a disregard of Congressional prerogatives! "Why were we not told in a classified briefing why this happened, and that it happened at all?" asked Senator Daschle, in a complaint echoed by Senators McCain and Warner. "That is inexcusable; it's an outrage." (Why, they had to hear it on CBS! They were unprepared!) Leave it to our get-a-new-angle media culture to play up these self-serving institutional complaints as if they were in the same universe as the abuse itself. No wonder politicians succeed by running against Washington. ....

How, exactly, would briefing senators have helped the situation? It wouldn't have stopped the abuse, which had already transpired. Mainly, it would have multiplied the number of potentially talkative people who knew, increasing the chance that the news would get out and do the damage to America's reputation that it has done, no? Daschle's complaint is a traditional means by which Senators and Congresspersons protect their careers by distancing themselves from a scandal. ('We didn't know!') It's also part of the routinization of horror, in which a jarring and morally charged event gets sucked into a more familiar and arid Washington dispute, losing its valence. Too bad that while America starts to yawn at Daschle's "outrage," the rest of the world is still sputtering with rage at the original offense. ...

Predictably, the Republican Kaus targets his attack on a Democrat, Daschle, though the article to which Kaus links makes clear that Republicans on the Senate Armed Services committee were equally outraged at the Administration's nondisclosure.

Kaus also complains that briefing the Senate would result in the disclosure of the information, increasing the chance that the news would harm the reputation of America (read: the Bush Administration). Does anyone believe for a second that the Iraqi people don't know what is happening in Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere in their own country?

Not to mention the linked article states this: "Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) complained that when Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon officials came to Capitol Hill last week -- hours before CBS's '60 Minutes II' first aired photographs of Iraqi prisoners being physically abused and sexually humiliated -- they neglected to mention the coming disclosure." How exactly would disclosure to Daschle hours before the 60 Minutes II program -- which the Administration knew was coming -- "increase[] the chance that the news would get out?"

But the most telling point of Kaus's poorly-written diatribe is his refusal to acknowledge a Congressional role in the prosecution of the War against Iraq. He suggests the Senate Armed Services Committee has no need, or right, to know what the military is doing in Iraq. Congress's demand for information about the war, why, that's just "self-serving institutional complaints." And to Kaus, it would be just fine if the American public never learned of the abuse of war prisoners. (We must consider our rep!)

How would have disclosure to senators helped the situation? Well, any disclosure makes it less likely the same abuses happen again (or, less likely to be photographed again). It makes it more likely that the perpetrators, and those who ordered or permitted those soliders to act, are given appropriate punishments. And it makes it more difficult for the Administration to sell their next brutal venture to the American people.

Hack to Basics

Little Mickey Kaus is back to his old tricks again. The plagiarists' pal is criticizing Howie Kurtz for not commenting on Bernard Weinraub, a NYT journo who lifted paragraphs from a website for a showbiz story in the Times. Kaus wonders why Kurtz wrote about a Denver Post plagiarist but is silent on Weinraub.

If you click on the link to Howie's story, you see the Denver plagiarist was guilty of 13 separate incidents of plagiarism, which might make his misdeeds more newsworthy than a single incident by Weinraub. But Mick doesn't have a hardon for the Denver thief like he does for the Timesman. (Kaus could try to find 12 more incidents (or even one) by Weinraub, but that would require actual effort.)

And why isn't Kaus kvetching about Howie's lack of coverage for Slate's own resident web-plagiarist, Margo Howard? Does Kurtz have to clear all his plagiarism stories with Kaus to make sure he's writing about a Kaus enemy?

And let's not forget Kaus' own friendship with the woman who invented cut-and-paste journalism, Ruth Shalit. I don't recall Kaus waxing moralistic when any of her many thefts were disclosed.

In From The Back Door

For a Breitbart site it's a relatively small inaccuracy, but rather telling. Over at Big Girl's Blouse, Kristinne Taylor and Andrea Shea King "report" on a protest of an August 21 Jerry Brown fundraiser in Venice:

Also observing the scene was Andrew Breitbart, who was wearing inline skates, as well as prominent blogger Mickey Kaus of Slate, who heard the disturbance from his house across the street. He came out and observed, but did not join the protest.

Sadly, no. Kaus is no longer employed by Slate; the site has even removed Kausfiles from its blogroll.

You'd have thought Kaus' pal, Breitbart, would have corrected the error as soon as he got back from the roller disco and started scanning his sites for mentions of his own name.

Taylor and King may even be mistaken about the Kaus sighting, as Kaus hasn't blogged about the incident at his own moribund website. Surely Kaus' mad reporting skillz would have kicked in if such a momentous event happened so close to home that he wouldn't have to change into a clean sweatsuit to cover it.

Without Kaus' unique take on the event, readers are left with only this word picture from Taylor and King to memorialize the goings on:

Jerry Brown sneaked into the house from the back door while Melanie Morgan threw her body onto the sidewalk shouting, “Code Pink supports terrorists!” When not laying on the sidewalk, Morgan stood outside the back gate, “yelling through a screen at [Evans] while she sipped her white wine as Brown’s security guard watched from inside his SUV with the engine running for two hours.”

I feel sorry for the sidewalk.

(No link to Big Girl's Blouse.)

Failing Down

It didn't take Tina Brown long to flush Mickey Kaus at Newsweek, but the hairless hack has bobbed up again at The Daily Choler:

Kaus was also the co-founder of the long-running "Conventional Wisdom Watch" at Newsweek. He will join Daily Caller veteran Jim Treacher, author of the sites [sic] Daily Trawler.

Turns out Tucker Carlson had more change in his couch cushions than Joe Farah and Lucianne Goldberg. Still, I give it two weeks before Tucker shoves Kaus into the path of an SUV to generate traffic.

It was just four months ago that Kaus was pretending to be thrilled about Newsweek's pity hire:

"I'm very happy to be at Newsweek, a great magazine filled with talented people and friends with whom I've worked twice before," Kaus said in a statement. "I look forward to mixing it up in the coming debates during a difficult time for the country."

I can't imagine why Newsweek didn't consider Kaus's incessant but sporadic whining about immigrants and unions to be internet gold. I can imagine why failed legacy Tucker Faye Carlson does.

P.S. Tucker Faye calls Kaus "one of the funniest people blogging in English." And Tucker Faye knows funny.