Comments on: Worst Laid Plans

By: philosopher

philosopher — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:01:34 +0000

(Oops — sorry about the multi-posting.)

By: philosopher

philosopher — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:23:33 +0000

I believe that you’ll find my usual pattern is snarky name-calling in and around my arguments, but always accompanied by arguments, thank you very much. In this case it is _you_, Eric, who decided to opt out of offering anything like an argument here, thus leaving nothing for me to do but point out that you’d basically abandoned the field. I’d still be happy to engage with any substantive response you might choose to make to my initial points; but I don’t think anyone is going to be fooled into thinking that the “lalalalalala” *hands over ears* of your earlier reply is in fact anything that would remotely count as substantive.

By: philosopher

philosopher — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:13:06 +0000

By: JohnS

JohnS — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:56:44 +0000

As usual, Eric? I for one haven’t noticed any such thing. How about some links to back that up? Or don’t you have the “time or inclination?”

By: Eric Seymour

Eric Seymour — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:08:24 +0000

As usual, when phil can’t come up with a persuasive argument, he starts calling names.

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:41:04 +0000

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Phil on this one. Ever since 9-11, the Republicans have dished out “attack” ads like no other. The new one from the RNC is horrible. Coupled with Fox News and talk radio, it is disheartening.
I have always been a Republican, but this year, my vote goes to anyone that isn’t an incumbent. I never thought I would see the day that I would actually be rooting for the Democrats to take over the House and the Senate.

By: ucfengr

ucfengr — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:50:57 +0000

Sounds like philosopher is in a bit of denial about his own biasses.

By: philosopher

philosopher — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:18:57 +0000

That has got to be one of the lamest responses I’ve ever seen on this blog by anyone not named “lawyerchik” or “Alan Henderson”.

By: Eric Seymour

Eric Seymour — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:10:10 +0000

phil,
I’m not denying that GOP candidates have run nasty ads; I’m just denying that the GOP is more aggressive or nasty in its attacks than the Democrats. I don’t have the time or the inclination to dredge up Democrat ads and/or statements to match the GOP mudslinging you’ve linked to, but what I have noticed over time is that while my personal bias leads me to find GOP attack ads less offensive/dishonest than Democrat attack ads, my counterparts on the left instinctively find the opposite to be true, while political independents find both sides to be equally nasty. Thus, my conclusion that no party has an “advantage” in negative campaigning.

By: philosopher

philosopher — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:45:45 +0000

Eric, follow the links– they aren’t random anonymous wingnuts on freakshow sites — which, I agree, are not the thing to judge a party on — but the paid advertisements by major GOP-coordinated groups, and the statements of GOP candidates themselves. And those are what one can judge a party by, as actions taken by the party itself.