Comments on: Unmitigated Gall Department http://informedspeculation.com/2006/08/02/unmitigated-gall-department/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:00:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Ryan Bonneville http://informedspeculation.com/2006/08/02/unmitigated-gall-department/comment-page-1/#comment-72101 Ryan Bonneville Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:10:11 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/08/02/unmitigated-gall-department/#comment-72101 You don't see how that's silly? He didn't decide to pay attention to the groups he was associating with until he decided to run for the Senate and <i>image</i> mattered? "I can't be bothered to care about racism, but I can't have anyone actually know that about me!" You don’t see how that’s silly? He didn’t decide to pay attention to the groups he was associating with until he decided to run for the Senate and image mattered?

“I can’t be bothered to care about racism, but I can’t have anyone actually know that about me!”

]]> By: mikebdot http://informedspeculation.com/2006/08/02/unmitigated-gall-department/comment-page-1/#comment-72022 mikebdot Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:54:47 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/08/02/unmitigated-gall-department/#comment-72022 Ryan, I'll half agree with your half agreement. I think it's him admitting that once he decided to run he had to think long and hard about any appearances he may have been giving off. Which is akin to saying "Oh, I hadn't really noticed it was an "exculusive" club in the race sense, but now that you mention it there are indeed few black people around here". I don't think it's a silly thing to say, per se, but I can see how it could be construed as silly. :) Ryan, I’ll half agree with your half agreement. I think it’s him admitting that once he decided to run he had to think long and hard about any appearances he may have been giving off. Which is akin to saying “Oh, I hadn’t really noticed it was an “exculusive” club in the race sense, but now that you mention it there are indeed few black people around here”. I don’t think it’s a silly thing to say, per se, but I can see how it could be construed as silly. :)

]]> By: Ryan Bonneville http://informedspeculation.com/2006/08/02/unmitigated-gall-department/comment-page-1/#comment-71990 Ryan Bonneville Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:29:07 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/08/02/unmitigated-gall-department/#comment-71990 The flyer is fairly silly, so I'll half-agree with Mike. On the other hand, I can't imagine that anyone doubts that Lamont is a really unserious Senate candidate. He didn't pay attention to the exclusiveness of his rich-boy country club until the election? Even without Lieberman mucking up the message, that's still a shockingly idiotic thing to say. The flyer is fairly silly, so I’ll half-agree with Mike. On the other hand, I can’t imagine that anyone doubts that Lamont is a really unserious Senate candidate. He didn’t pay attention to the exclusiveness of his rich-boy country club until the election? Even without Lieberman mucking up the message, that’s still a shockingly idiotic thing to say.

]]> By: Sean P http://informedspeculation.com/2006/08/02/unmitigated-gall-department/comment-page-1/#comment-71981 Sean P Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:37:30 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/08/02/unmitigated-gall-department/#comment-71981 Ordinarily, I'd consider this type of attack below the belt, but because of the dynamics of this campaign, I think its appropriate. Here's why: It seems pretty clear that, but for Lieberman's position on Iraq, there would be no primary challenge to his campaign. But for whatever reason, Lamont's supporters don't want to admit this, so they have concocted this fiction that its about deviations from the party throughout his career. But since Lieberman has been a very loyal Democrat outside of foreign policy (and school vouchers), Lamont has been forced to play up votes that were extremely minor, symbolic and/or actually supported by other Democrats at the time. As a result Lieberman is being pillored as insufficiently pro-choice because he opposed the filibuster of Samuel Alito (which 29 other Democrats did) -- even though he voted against confirmation, Lieberman is criticised for his environmental record despite a lifetime 95% rating from environmental groups, and Lieberman criticised for bashing Clinton for his personal transgressins (while acquiting him of any impeachable offensive) when most other Democrats followed his lead (and, in so soing, salvaged the 1998 midterm elections from a potential disaster to a surprising success). Since playing up of minor and/or symbolic party deviation is acceptale for Lamont, why not for Lieberman, who seems to be doing nothing more than ripping a page from the Lamont/ Kos playbook. Ordinarily, I’d consider this type of attack below the belt, but because of the dynamics of this campaign, I think its appropriate. Here’s why:

It seems pretty clear that, but for Lieberman’s position on Iraq, there would be no primary challenge to his campaign. But for whatever reason, Lamont’s supporters don’t want to admit this, so they have concocted this fiction that its about deviations from the party throughout his career. But since Lieberman has been a very loyal Democrat outside of foreign policy (and school vouchers), Lamont has been forced to play up votes that were extremely minor, symbolic and/or actually supported by other Democrats at the time.

As a result Lieberman is being pillored as insufficiently pro-choice because he opposed the filibuster of Samuel Alito (which 29 other Democrats did) — even though he voted against confirmation, Lieberman is criticised for his environmental record despite a lifetime 95% rating from environmental groups, and Lieberman criticised for bashing Clinton for his personal transgressins (while acquiting him of any impeachable offensive) when most other Democrats followed his lead (and, in so soing, salvaged the 1998 midterm elections from a potential disaster to a surprising success). Since playing up of minor and/or symbolic party deviation is acceptale for Lamont, why not for Lieberman, who seems to be doing nothing more than ripping a page from the Lamont/ Kos playbook.

]]> By: mikebdot http://informedspeculation.com/2006/08/02/unmitigated-gall-department/comment-page-1/#comment-71974 mikebdot Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:15:43 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/08/02/unmitigated-gall-department/#comment-71974 Mark, that flyer is awful. The phrase "I didn't pay as much attention to that before the race began, to tell you the truth". "THAT" in that sentence isn't referring to race IN GENERAL (which is what the statement "He didn't pay that much attention to race" above it implies), it's referring to race in the specific instance. It's a stupid flyer to say "oh, yeah, that's a good flyer, I'll endorse that". Page 1 was fine. If he left it at that, no big deal. It's a stupid move. I don't care necessarily who wins, but Joe is acting like a little bit$h. Mark, that flyer is awful. The phrase “I didn’t pay as much attention to that before the race began, to tell you the truth”. “THAT” in that sentence isn’t referring to race IN GENERAL (which is what the statement “He didn’t pay that much attention to race” above it implies), it’s referring to race in the specific instance. It’s a stupid flyer to say “oh, yeah, that’s a good flyer, I’ll endorse that”. Page 1 was fine. If he left it at that, no big deal. It’s a stupid move. I don’t care necessarily who wins, but Joe is acting like a little bit$h.

]]>