So, two or three times a month Michele trots out some egregious insult that the
Michele tries to throw a cloak of relevance over her morbid fascination with the DU by pointing out that Kerry's website links to the DU frontpage. Well, whatever. The DU explicitly states that, "this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party".
And, just for the record, let me take this opportunity to disavow any attempt to portray my own morbid fascination with Michele's antics as anything other than what they are: the byproduct of casual annoyance and an excess of bile on my part.
Which brings me around to my point. When the DU publishes something obnoxious, I'm mostly inclined to ignore it because— well, who cares what the DU thinks? When Michele publishes something obnoxious, I sometimes feel inclined to hack it apart here because— well, why not? But I'm basically in touch with the fact that me, the DU, and Michele are all functionally irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. So again, as they used to say in the glory and bygone days of my youth, "whatever."
But, when the GOP publishes something obnoxious, I'm inclined to take a little more notice because— well, it's the GOP, for god's sake.
Evidently the GOP has, for whatever reason, decided to publish a long, detailed, and frequently misleading smear sheet on John Edwards which, I am given to understand, has been mailed— like, "printed on actual paper and physically mailed" —to their membership.
Now, when Michele posts something obnoxious from the DU she usually goes through a little routine around it that looks something like this: "Look at what these crazy people are saying! These people are evil and stupid! And crazy! And these are the kind of people who support John Kerry for president! And he has a link to them on his website!"
This kind of generalization is of questionable relevance when aimed at the DU because the UD is, as they themselves are quick to declare, not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor does it speak for the Party. On the other hand, such generalizations do seem a bit more relevant when applied to the, you know, actual Republican National Committee.
But getting back to that smear sheet...
Personally, my favorite part is this one here:
Edwards Claims “Natural Connection” With Rural People, But Flunked Funk’s Rural Q&A. (Matt Bai, “Nascar-Lovin,” The New York Times, 9/15/02; Tim Funk, “Q&A With John Edwards,” The Charlotte Observer, 5/26/03)
* Edwards Has “Never Done Any Serious Farming.”
* Edwards Doesn’t Follow Weekly NASCAR Races, Adds He “Doesn’t Follow Anything Except Politicking.”
* Edwards Hasn’t Hunted Or Fished “In Years.”
* Edwards Has “In The Past Been A Country Music Fan.”
* Edwards Can’t Even Remember Make Or Model Of His Own Truck.
In other parts of the letter, the GOP lists additional important points against Edwards, such as:
* Edwards Believes In Right To Privacy When It Comes To State Sodomy Laws.
* Edwards Sided With Unions Over Bush. Edwards sided with labor unions against Bush in the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, voting six times against the President’s plan.
For clarification, that last point regards the Bush administration's efforts to forbid employees of the largest government bureaucracy in the history of the nation from exercising their rights to collective bargaining.
So yeah. These are the kinds of people who support George W. Bush for president.
And please note that when I say "support" in this context, it means something very different from what it means when Michele rattles on about the Democratic Underground and the tinfoil hat marching band.
Posted by Joshua at July 12, 2004 02:16 PMNone of which changes the fact that Kerry should pull down that DU link because, let's face it, it amounts to passive approval of a venue where hatred and bile are bandied about on a daily basis. I mean, really, it would be kind of like me walking around with a small "KKK Rawks" button on my hat but then saying "Well, I don't really APPROVE of the KKK, I just like the button."
Posted by: Ryan at July 13, 2004 10:35 AMit would be kind of like me walking around with a small "KKK Rawks"
Yeah. Or, hey, maybe not; because, for one thing, the KKK has a long history that includes lynching, terrorism, and racketeering. None of which is true of the DU. They are obnoxious and hateful. But they don't do anything; the mixed blessing of American "radical" liberalism.
And as for this "Kerry should take the link down" business-- hey, newsflash, Kerry obviously didn't build the fucking website. His approval of the contents of the website is probably limited to having some campaign underling read it over and see if anything looks fishy. And one generally has to actually dig at the DU site to get to the really offensive stuff. On the surface, it just looks like some semi-radical ranting. In sum: I sincerely doubt that most people in Kerry's office are even aware there's a controversy around the link.
Fuck's sake; you and Michele can forgive George W. Bush for damn near anything, often on the basis that he was misinformed by his subordinates, but you hold John Kerry personally responsible for one link on a huge web page that goes to a site where assholes regularly read and comment on the discussion board. At least that mistake hasn't killed anyone. How 'bout you maybe get your priorities straight.
And while we're on the topic of questionable links, Ryan, I notice you still have a link to A Small Victory on your blog, in spite of your frequent disavowals of the behavior of Michele's commenters. I bring this up, not to suggest that you should take the link down; merely to suggest that a link does not an endorsement make.
"It amounts to passive approval".
Jesus christ on a pogo stick. That sort of seems to suggest that maybe it amounts to kind of a lot of qualification. I mean, if I take a piss in the Mississippi north of Minneapolis, sooner or later some of the water from that urine— maybe just a few molecules of it —will find its way into your drinking water. Does that amount to passively pissing in your mouth? If you like the taste of the water, does that amount to you passively liking it when I piss in your mouth? Is that what it amounts to? Passively?
...sigh.
Oh, for fuck's sake right back at you, Joshua. Of course I don't think Kerry's sits in front of a fucking Compaq, personally updating his goddamned Web site. Give me some shred of fucking credit here. I actually doubt, if you were to ask Kerry about it, he would know what the hell DU even is.
But they don't do anything; the mixed blessing of American "radical" liberalism.
Ah, I think I understand. Just because some of the more raving lunatics only "say" they're going to kill Bush if he gets re-elected, that doesn't mean anything because, you know, they'll never actually DO it. Sure, it's hate-filled rhetoric masquerading as political discussion, and sure they advocate some fairly treasonous shit from time to time, but they don't really MEAN it. It's okay to be obnoxious and hateful so long as I don't have a history that includes lynching, terrorism, and racketeering? So noted.
How 'bout you maybe get your priorities straight.
Listen, dingleberry, this is Michele's crusade, not mine. I'm merely of the opinion that the DU link probably shouldn't be there, mmkay? I'm not out on the street corner yelling at motorists that Kerry's site has a link to DU. I mostly don't fucking care beyond expressing my opinion quickly here at the Red Pages. In other words, it's fairly low on my list of priorities which, trust me, are pretty fucking straight.
And while we're on the topic of questionable links, Ryan, I notice you still have a link to A Small Victory on your blog, in spite of your frequent disavowals of the behavior of Michele's commenters.
*glancing over to the left side of the page*
I'm not saying that a link is an ENDORSEMENT of ALL the content. But, here's the deal, DU, generally speaking, touts some pretty radical shit, yet Kerry has taken a pretty centrist message on the campaign trail. So, which is it?
And I continue to link to Michele mostly because of the clinging hope that she'll conduct a poetry or limerick contest sometime down the line, though my hope if fading with each passing day.
So, to recap: DU link on Kerry's site, by most reasonable expectations, should not be there (an opinion, all my own, not a crusade, or a result of some fucked up priorities).
Posted by: Ryan at July 13, 2004 12:08 PMAh, I think I understand. Just because some of the more raving lunatics only "say"... [snip] ...from time to time, but they don't really MEAN it. It's okay to be obnoxious and hateful so long as I don't have a history that includes lynching, terrorism, and racketeering? So noted.
I didn't say it was "okay", you pantywaste. I said having a link to them is different than wearing a button advocating for the KKK.
*glancing over to the left side of the page*
Different. My link is there because I talk shit about Michele here. Linking to her page is the bare minimum I can do by way of offering her side of the story.
But, here's the deal, DU, generally speaking, touts some pretty radical shit, yet Kerry has taken a pretty centrist message on the campaign trail. So, which is it?
Yes, that's a good question: which opinion relfects the real John Kerry? The one he personally talks about in front of television cameras, during interviews, and in editorials and articles? Or the one espoused by the readership of a site that has one tiny fucking link in the sidebar of his gigantic campaign web site? Hm. I wonder.
So, to recap: DU link on Kerry's site, by most reasonable expectations, should not be there (an opinion, all my own, not a crusade, or a result of some fucked up priorities).
I agree. It should not be there. But I don't think the fact that the link is there really says anything about Kerry or his values. And (I actually doubt, if you were to ask Kerry about it, he would know what the hell DU even is) evidently, neither do you. So what are we arguing about here?
In retrospect, this whole thing was pretty pathetic, wasn't it?
Oh well, it's not like I had anything better to do.
Posted by: Ryan at July 13, 2004 01:05 PMActually, I just realized what's really upsetting you here. The first blogger I dedicated the Red Pages to talking shit about was you.
God, it's all so clear now. You're just upset that I started using this blog to talk shit about Michele, aren't you Ryan?
Hey, buddy: it's okay. Don't be upset. You still annoy me too. She just annoys me more right now. But it's a passing thing. Eventually I'll get bored with her bullshit. And when that happens, I'll always come back for a big helping of your bullshit.
Because that's the kind of friendship we have.
Wanna hug?
Posted by: Joshua at July 13, 2004 01:05 PMOh, and it's "pantywaist."
Although, "pantywaste," now that I think about it, is actually more insulting somehow.
Posted by: Ryan at July 13, 2004 01:06 PMin my efforts to ignore the Flaming Left, i'd never seen or heard of the DU. and now i have. so thanks for that little tip; i needed more things to get agitated over.
Posted by: leblanc at July 13, 2004 04:21 PMi share leblanc's lack of knowledge of the DU. if the GOP is publishing weak material, like the opinion of kerry's stepson (that one kills me) at least they admit it. but…
kerry's people should have that site combed as well as saddam's scalp. which sorta send a mixed message, i think. DU doesn't represent kerry, fine. neither does moveon.org. but they do a fair amount of heavy lifting for capt'n kerry. i'm not inferring that DU and moveon.org have the same messaging going on. but one has to think that kerry doesn't mind some of the things that moveon puts out. having a link to DU on his official site makes me wonder about his support of their ideas. could be a clerical error.
which gets at my lack of enthusiasm for capt'n K. take last weekend's celebrity gala—the one with whoopie and (her) bush. kerry thought it was ok to stand up on stage and lather himself in the "opinions that represent america…" until he got caught, which leads to his familar back peddle. you never know exactly where he's coming from.
oh and i think pantywaste is more demeaning. gotta go.
Posted by: seed at July 13, 2004 04:55 PM