s skippy the bush kangaroo: who needs repubbblicans when we can fight with ourselves? or, can't we all just get along?

skippy the bush kangaroo



Sunday, February 24, 2008

who needs repubbblicans when we can fight with ourselves? or, can't we all just get along?

we have said several times before we don't have a dog in the clinton-obama fight.

but we have to say that we are most unsettled by manifestations of that fight that have been creeping more and more into otherwise reasonable people who write here in blogtopia, and yes, we coined that phrase.

we don't mind when bloggers, who have chosen one side or another, point out various insufficiencies and hypocrisies on the part of the opposing candidate; that is, after all, why bloggers blog.

but as of late people whom we admire and respect have begun silly sniping towards each other, simply because of what has been said on blogs about the two dem candidates.

and folks aren't just pointing out bad logic or inconsistent arguments; there are a lot of personal digs being thrust about. things have gotten so bad that it's almost as if we don't even need the hardly-ever-right wing bloggers as targets for our wrath. it seems that we'll all be happy hating other progressives, simply because of whom they endorse for the dem nominee.

the dem daily takes great exception to booman's taking great exception to talkleft:

booman (booman tribune) has apparently taken on the role of netroots police and has deemed that talk left for the clinton leanings probably shouldn’t be trusted after the primaries are over, to “get back on board” for the general election.

i don’t know why i care what talk left says. i think it is just pride in the artform of blogging. i can’t stand to see analysis so bad that it is indiscernible from straight-up undisclosed shilling. talk left is an insult to the genre of left-wing political blogging. it’s so easy to debunk their crap that it is an beneath most people to even bother.

and it’s impossible that they can just shrug off their performance in the primary and get back on board for the general. they have so little credibility…who would want them as an ally?
what kind of crap is that? booman took offense to jeralyn’s post that included a link to republicans for obama and the quote that i also posted from jeralyn in my post below:

who’s really picking our democratic nominee? if it’s the democratic youth or african american voters, i’m okay with that. that’s fair. if it’s republicans, i’m not. we’ll get trounced in november.without reliable stats to show obama’s support is from those who will for the democrat in november, i’d say the best way to ensure republicans stay out of our race and don’t steal another election from us is for dems to vote for hillary to be the nominee.
i’m curious… will booman start blacklisting all the clinton supporters in the netroots? because there are more than a few of us. the implication that any blog or blogger in the netroots that supports clinton shouldn’t be trusted “get back on board” for the general election is in a word asinine.
t-rex gets even more down and dirty when he starts comparing taylor marsh to michelle malkin:

but, moving right along, marsh really started chewing the scenery today when she freaked out about michelle obama’s offhand comment about being really proud of america for the first time in her adult life, etc. etc.

michelle obama does not speak for me

“for the first time in my adult lifetime i am really proud of my country. and not just because barack has done well, but because i think people are hungry for change.” - michelle obama (video)
the love i have for this country does not depend on a political campaign predicated on the notion of “change.”

the love i have for this country does not depend on one person, certainly not some politician with a slogan that others have used, which he has re-used.

the love i have for this country does not depend on aiding the winning of someone for president, without a clue what he or she is offering in the guise of one word, “change.”

the love i have for this country does not depend on ignorance of what patriotism requires to serve a personal goal.

my uncle dick certainly didn’t serve his country and get battle fatigue in wwii so people could pick and choose pride in this nation based on personal association to some politician, forgetting the greater glory we all serve through our country’s ideals.
taylor, darlin’, i feel fairly confident that mrs. obama doesn’t want to dig up your uncle dick’s bones, piss on them, and re-bury them upside down. call it a guess, a hunch, even, but that seems to be the level of insult that you’re dealing with here.

the thing that really bugs me about this taylor marsh post, though, is how much it stylistically resembles this bit of vintage wingnuttery, michelle malkin’s “john doe manifesto”:

dear muslim terrorist plotter/planner/funder/enabler/apologist,

you do not know me. but i am on the lookout for you. you are my enemy. and i am yours.

i am john doe.

i am traveling on your plane. i am riding on your train. i am at your bus stop. i am on your street. i am in your subway car. i am on your lift.

i am your neighbor. i am your customer. i am your classmate. i am your boss.

i am john doe.

i will never forget the example of the passengers of united airlines flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of islam without a fight.
blah, blah, blah. this species of hot-faced, clench-jawed jeremiad may feel marvelous to write, but a post that feels like a blazing tower of righteousness at the keyboard can have a distinct tendency to read like an unhinged, holier-than-thou diatribe when it pops up on someone else’s monitor. just fyi.

i said earlier that i like and respect taylor. she was a delight in the few minutes we had to converse face to face at ykos, but i think it would be good for her to scootch the chair away from the computer for a couple days, dust off her hands, and maybe go rent a batting cage or take out a wall in her house with a sledgehammer.
hey, folks, let's just take a breath and settle down here...

we have said this before and we'll say it again...neither one of these candidates are progressive! hell, they are barely democrats, at least not democrats in the roosevelt/kennedy definition.

you can make the case that getting a dem into office will be good for the dem party (assuming the dems retain a majority in congress). we can and have argued that that's not going to make a difference, but we won't go into that again here.

what you shouldn't do, if you are a blogger, is start accusing fellow progressive bloggers of such things as manipulation, losing touch w/reality, meglomania, igorance, hatred, and other deadly sins usually reserved for labeling of gop bloggers.

let's remember, we're on the same side here. it doesn't help to burn any bridges that we might have to cross again after denver, when we need to ban together to defeat mclame.

if someone you admire seems to be going over the edge, the best way to handle it, in our opinion, is with a private email. and make sure it's a polite email, and well-thought out, and prefaced with a plethora of your positive opinion of that blogger.

we need each other. we don't need to fight.

we must hang together, as ben franklin said, or we will surely hang separately.

addendum: well, it could be worse:

according to cops, ortiz, 28, stabbed sean shurelds last thursday night in the kitchen of an upper providence township home. according to a criminal complaint, a copy of which you'll find here, the 41-year-old shurelds, an obama supporter, told ortiz that the illinois senator was "trashing" clinton (apparently in regard to recent primary and caucus results). ortiz, a clinton supporter, replied that "obama was not a realist." while not exactly fighting words, the verbal political tiff led to some mutual choking and punching. and, allegedly, a stabbing in the abdomen. ortiz, pictured in the mug shot below, was charged with a felony aggravated assault count and two misdemeanors and jailed in lieu of $20,000 bail. shurelds was flown to hahnemann university hospital, where he was admitted in critical condition.

Labels: , , ,

posted by skippy at 5:17 PM |

15 Comments:

Circular firing squad, you got it right, skippy
commented by Blogger nunya, 11:00 PM PST  
Skippy!

My God I completely agree with you, and everything you say. This isn't leading up to a 'but we disagree on...' phrase, either. This S#!T has to stop soon.

I'm getting tired of hyperbole as debate point, or emotion (or lack thereof) as a badge of honor. Why are we in such a binary mode nowadays?

I think I have lost some of the most intelligent and canny friends I've ever had because I refused to accept their 'arguments' that I HAD to vote for their candidate. They used dishonest tactics and appealed to me to 'ignore the facts - facts can mean anything' and go with my GUT. When I poured a vat of heavily-sourced facts on them (without anger, just in the interest of healthy debate and I wanted them to see how I arrived at my decision), I never heard from them again. That was the night before the California Primary.

I really, really hope I haven't lost them. As soon as our nominee is decided I'm going to contact them again, and see if they are ready to talk again.
commented by Blogger Blogtopus, 11:42 PM PST  
好秘书 中国呼吸网 肿瘤网 中国皮肤网 癌症康复网 工作总结 演讲稿 竞聘演讲 就职演讲 比赛演讲 征文演讲 节日演讲 演讲技巧 方案制度 工作意见 活动策划 工作方案 整改方案 实施方案 企划文案 销售方案 培训方案 应急预案 规章制度 法律法规 材料大全 事迹材料 先进事迹 个人事迹 申报材料 学习材料 考察材料 经验材料 交流材料 个人鉴定 自我鉴定 模板范例 技巧经验 工作计划 工作规划 年度工作计划 学校工作计划 个人工作计划 财务工作计划 团委工作计划 工会工作计划 单位工作计划 德育工作计划 教学工作计划 班主任工作计划 党支部工作计划 先教活动 整改措施 剖析材料 反腐倡廉 三农问题 和谐社会 三个代表 八荣八耻 先进性教育 党团工会 党团知识 党员相关 党会发言 党性分析 民主生活会 入党志愿书 入党申请书 入团申请书 转正申请书 公文写作 板报设计 办公表格 谈判技巧 外贸信函 公文 秘书 广告启事 通知 求职指导 求职信 自荐信 简历封面 简历模板 简历范文 简历制作 英文简历 面试技巧 学术论文 企业文化 毕业论文 经济工作 财经金融 城建环保 教育教学 工矿企业 党政司法 合同 合同知识 买卖合同 承包合同 投资合同 招标合同 建设工程 劳动合同 运输合同 房屋合同 借款合同 销售合同 租赁合同 保险合同 其它合同 秘书 述职报告 呼吸机 氧气机 决定不掉泪 一杯咖啡 最熟悉的陌生人
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 12:51 AM PST  
I got about halfway through this post and just plain gave up -- I am so goddamned tired of all this stupid-assed political posturing on the part of my fellow bloggers that I now want to give Duncan Black's idea of blogroll amnesty a whirl.

What is their problem? I sided with Barack Obama, I wrote a post explaining why, and I didn't say anything even remotely resembling "Die, Hillary." How hard is that, anyway? It's jut a friggin' election, folks -- if it really meant as much as these more-liberal-than-thou idiot bloggers make it out to be, we wouldn't be able to vote at all. Enough already.

Jesus H. Fuckin' Christ.

We really are re-enacting the fall of Rome...
commented by Blogger Jim Yeager, 6:59 AM PST  
yeah, skippy, i must say i am really disappointed in this site with this seemingly endless blather about democratic infighting. it seems to me that in fact you have been churning those waters pretty efficiently, and this post certainly does nothing to change my belief. yes, there are two candidates now; yes, some people support one candidate over the other; but why does the skippy-reading public have to be subjected to an irrelevant dog fight? especially one which you apparently decry?

i had you as my "home page" for over a year but as a result of the dog fight here, i've switched over to avedon carol for the time being. i do check back now and then to see whether the kerfluffle has ended but, as they say, sadly, no.

please let's go back to the kind of posts that once made skippy the bush kangaroo the quality venue that i was proud to have as my home page.

love you dearly but now from a slight distance,

karen marie.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 8:43 AM PST  
To those of you who are "tired" of this subject, I say, go to bed and get some rest. I'm glad Skippy and other progressive bloggers are writing about this issue. What Skippy is saying is correct. We are all on the same side here and even though we may support different candidates, we don't have to become unhinged about it. We're not wingers, so let's stop acting like them.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 8:49 AM PST  
well, at least karen (anonymous) post proves, you can't please anyone.
commented by Blogger skippy, 8:53 AM PST  
The laughter of Karl Rove is faintly audible above the noise.

Somewhere, Darth Cheney and his minion Darth Addington work Sith Lord mind tricks on the unwitting.

And neither of these geeks will end the war unless we unite and make 'em, even if one of them wins.

You tell 'em, skippy.
commented by Blogger kelley b., 9:06 AM PST  
Thanks, Skippy. I had missed this round, and I think your idea of private e-mails as a first response is a good one, certainly with the high profile folks.

Dem primaries always have in-fighting, so that's nothing new. As Will Rogers said, "I belong to no organized party. I'm a Democrat." But as Digby pointed out not long ago, 70-80% of Democrats would vote for either candidate, and the real ugliness sadly has been in the blogosphere. I've really been taken aback by some of the vitriol. I believe quite a few of us have written similar "stop the insanity!" posts recently.

I've got serious concerns about both candidates, but have also tried to bat down unfair criticism of them. There are meaningful differences between the two of them, but I don’t view one as vastly superior to the other, and all those differences are nothing compared to the differences between them and McCain, Bush and the GOP. Iraq, judicial appointments, the economy and the health care, reproductive freedom and agency appointments are among the most important of many divisions.
commented by Blogger Batocchio, 10:17 AM PST  
It might be a nicer playing field if there was a general consensus to argue FOR our candidate of choice by posting and praising their virtues instead of bashing the other candidates on the field.

Right out front I'll say that I lean HRC 55%, Obama 45%. But what I've found among bloggers and posters is that far too many are willing to eviscerate my candidate instead of proffering any reasons for preferring theirs.

Campaign tactics usually don't bother me, until they rise to the level of Rovian nonsense along the lines of claiming Max Cleveland is supporting terrorists and both he and John McCain are unpatriotic.

And in SOME Obama supporters I've found the same. Claiming Clinton is racist, referring to her as Shillary or Shrillary or Billary. The attacks questioning her even being a woman or her femininity, and so on and so on. And it just gets nastier. It's absolutely disgusting. This is a woman who bore the brunt of GOP attacks for 16 years and the best those Democrats who don't support her in being President can do is to join the republicans in their attacks on her. All the while acting holier than thou.

So yeah, if you become Rovian in your commentary, don't expect me to roll over like Dems usually do -- I will blast back and then some. F**K you. Sorry it's just my NY nature.

But when the primaries are done, I'll vote for the winner because we absolutely CANNOT have another republican in the White House.
commented by Anonymous sean on li, 11:10 AM PST  
Hey Skippy,
This is the part where we discover that the only reason we are on the same side is that there are only two sides to choose from.
Authoritarianism is not exclusive to neocons, unfortunately.
commented by Blogger the bewilderness, 11:44 AM PST  
It is an intriguing phenomenon, to be sure. Ever since I endorsed Hillary, and particularly since Obama started running the table, I've noticed a distinct "Fuck you, Jack" attitude from Oama supporters anytime anyone criticizes The Chosen One (said deliberately, but tongue in cheek).

He still needs my vote, as well as all us other Hillaryites. His supporters ought to consider that, particularly as they rub their hands in glee over "uniting the country" behind him.
commented by Blogger Carl, 2:41 PM PST  
Carl, while I understand some frustration, that goes all around, and it sounds like you're threatening to pull a Lieberman. Not that I think ya would, but…

As I mentioned before, 70-80 of Democrats (at least) will support the eventual nominee regardless. The most vicious fighting (outside of the actual campaigns perhaps, and that's only "perhaps") has been in the blogosphere.

That's not to validate any unfair crap flung your way at all. However, I've certainly seen obnoxious supporters for both Dem candidates. Meanwhile, personally, I don't think I've received much if any "pander luv" from either candidate. Obviously there's nothing wrong with being honestly excited about a candidate, nor in honestly arguing why one thinks that candidate is better, but personally, I'm looking at November pretty pragmatically. The Republicans (candidate, pundits, bloggers, rank-and-file) are far more obnoxious and dangerous taken as a whole than either Dem or their most impolitic supporters. There still may even be a joint ticket. Saying "I'll vote for the Dem nominee whoever it is, but please, knock it off you folks, and that goes for the obnoxious people backing my candidate, too" seems like it might be the most helpful attitude to take. Just my two cents.
commented by Blogger Batocchio, 4:26 PM PST  
batocchio--

Maybe that's one of the key problems, that I'm failing to see (from my side of this argument)those willing to support both candidates. Those who want to take their ball home with them if they don't get their way by refusing to vote for either Democratic primary winner, is considerable when seen on-line. Follow the commentary on AOL, Kos, HuffPost, etc. The threat is if Obama doesn't win, they'll vote McCain or Nader or not at all.

What that feels like most is betrayal and desertion, childish, but almost personal nonetheless.
commented by Anonymous sean on li, 10:06 AM PST  
I agree, Sean, hence the post from Skippy and many more like it from other bloggers (including me). I'm actually a bit wary of delving into even legitimate criticism of both Dem candidates for that reason, but there should be a place for that — although I think it's important to be mindful of McCain, Bush, and the GOP. I think those of us online have a distorted view of Americans as a whole on this one. Many bloggers are better informed and more passionate about politics than the average citizen, but the polls are out there — most likely Democratic voters are excited about both candidates, willing to vote for either, and excited about voting in November.

GOP stalwarts like Rush Limbaugh who bashed McCain were always going to vote for him, but the NYT piece just gave them their excuse. As Digby wrote recently, if and when he loses in November, they'll turn on him again and claim he lost because he wasn't conservative enough. (As if.)

Given that, it'd be pretty sad if liberals fracture and can't do that same. I would like to think that anyone who remembers the 2000 election and the past eight years, or McCain's actual policies (100 years in Iraq, more money for the super-wealthy, far right judicial appointments), wouldn't need much convincing, but in the worse case scenario, I guess we'll have to make those cases all over again after the Dem nominee is settled. A joint ticket is still possible, too.

Personally, I want to continue to scrutinize Clinton and Obama, and defend each from undue attacks, to the best of my imperfect ability. But we just can't afford another Republican in the White House. The damage Bush has wrought in so many areas is just devastating, and simply "not being horrible" would be a huge improvement.

(And if we do get a Dem in the White House, and perhaps veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress as well, we need to keep on kickin' 'em in the their asses to do the right thing.)
commented by Blogger Batocchio, 3:55 PM PST  

Add a comment