Ted Barlow has a straightforward suggestion about how to make personal attacks against the Bush daughters, now that they're joining the Bush campaign: don't. He thinks that it's not nice (Ted always was a big softie) and not smart politics (being a big softie doesn't mean that you have to be dumb). Considering the unfair crap that got slung* against Chelsea Clinton, I'd have to agree, on both counts.
Of course, he still has to convince everybody else - certain of his commenters are, um, resistant to the idea - so I'll sweeten the pot. I hereby swear that I shall make no cheap shots at Senator Kerry's daughters for as long as Ted Barlow makes no cheap shots at President Bush's, and I encourage bloggers from across the spectrum to follow my lead. Let us have something about this election that isn't war to the knife, no matter how small it may be.
Moe
*Of the two specific examples, Rush was being drearily typical and if there's a human being out there that needs to have his name verbed to stand for something unfortunate, it's Derbyshire
Moe, I know you're huge and all... but surely you're not man enough to resist the lure of those Cannes pictures? I mean, what kind of steely-jawed non-ninja (honest!) man of steel do you think we take you for?
Posted by: Anarch | May 28, 2004 at 11:54 PM
I'll take that deal. But can we get more see-thru action? You know. Just for personal use.
Posted by: Harley | May 28, 2004 at 11:56 PM
But can we get more see-thru action?
Actually, Harley, you're right. Moe, in the interests of comity you're gonna have to convince the Bush twins to be a bit more, uh, transparent in their dealings with the public. 'Cause that's what it takes to be fair and balanced.
Posted by: Anarch | May 29, 2004 at 12:02 AM
You objectifying horndogs.
Moe, I think a general 'no cheap shots at all' rule would ratchet the decorum way up, but we'd probably get bored.
Posted by: sidereal | May 29, 2004 at 12:08 AM
As long as this isn't a sneaky way of getting us to lay off 41's kids, I'm game. They don't seem to be ideologues, and don't have an audience in any case, so let them be young. I've grown well beyond the days of challenging George P. Bush to a leg-wrestling match.
Posted by: carpeicthus | May 29, 2004 at 12:12 AM
I have had it up to here with your Derbyshire bashing!
Posted by: Nathan S. | May 29, 2004 at 02:27 AM
I hereby swear that I shall make no cheap shots at Senator Kerry's daughters for as long as Ted Barlow makes no cheap shots at President Bush's, and I encourage bloggers from across the spectrum to follow my lead.
Dunno, Moe: How about just swearing that you'll make no cheap shots (or even expensively gift-wrapped shots) at the children of politicians, not even if the other side does it first? (Fair dos: if the other side does it, you get to point out what scum they are and how good you are by comparison.)
Posted by: Jesurgislac | May 29, 2004 at 05:07 AM
"have had it up to here with your Derbyshire bashing!"
I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I loathe the man's political views on three or four fairly important topics, and I suspect that he'd feel the same way about mine. When all's said and done, I have very little respect for most of his work*.
Moe
*Although I understand that he is sound on the history of mathematics.
Posted by: Moe Lane | May 29, 2004 at 06:08 AM
"Dunno, Moe: How about just swearing that you'll make no cheap shots (or even expensively gift-wrapped shots) at the children of politicians, not even if the other side does it first?"
Because done that way it has none of the humor* of the original? It's not like Ted's going to do a 180 degree turn and free me from the obligations of my oath, after all.
Moe
*Well, humor to me.
Posted by: Moe Lane | May 29, 2004 at 06:15 AM
Um, what if I promise to be fair and take cheap shots at both candidates daughters?
Posted by: Robert McClelland | May 29, 2004 at 06:14 PM
Although I understand that he is sound on the history of mathematics.
As long as you restrict it to just the history...
Posted by: Anarch | May 29, 2004 at 11:02 PM