This is one that everyone can play: the Commissar is calling for people to disagree with a blogger that they respect. Sounds like a plan: I'll start by disagreeing with... the Commissar, actually. Those were not nice things that you said about the Left in the process, Commissar; not very nice, not particularly fair and probably even a bit counterproductive.
We have all got to start being kinder to one another. A futile hope, I'm sure - I mean, the election is finally revving up even as I type this - but what the hell.
I respect his Moe Lane fellow. Indeed I would go so far as to say I like the cut of his jib. But I must disagree with him. The hope that we treat each other with respect and decency is not yet futile.
Posted by: sidereal | July 26, 2004 at 10:38 PM
Hey, Moe, can't we do both? Disagreement need not mean a fight to the death. Can't we disagree on principle but continue to respect someone with whom we disagree?
Posted by: Dave Schuler | July 26, 2004 at 10:39 PM
"Hey, Moe, can't we do both?"
I would say so.
Moe
Who will nod, abashed, and withdraw 'futile' from 'hope'.
Posted by: Moe Lane | July 26, 2004 at 10:49 PM
Respectfully, I disagree.
Posted by: praktike | July 26, 2004 at 11:48 PM
I typically only bother disagreeing with bloggers I respect. I don't bother with Atrios, yet I'll disagree with Kevin Drum.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | July 27, 2004 at 12:07 AM
i'll disagree with Sebastian. Frequently thoughtful, he far too often dismisses those who disagree with him, as opposed to engaging them.
he is, for example, pro-life, but refuses to articulate (in anything i've read, at least) what the consequences of prevailing on his pro-life views would mean.
he is, also, frequently far too snide. like the 12:007 am post above. atrios is one of the most popular liberal blogs, according to NZ Bear's site. he is a red-meat blogger no different than, say, much of tacitus. SH's lack of respect indicates, to me, a lack of willingness to understand why so many people consider the current US administration to be abhorrent, a rejection of key american values.
cheers
Francis
Posted by: fdl | July 27, 2004 at 01:16 AM
I respect Kim du Toit very much for many of his opinions and his can-do attitude, but some of his invective turns me off.
Posted by: crionna | July 27, 2004 at 04:51 AM
I'll disagree with Andrew Sullivan...no, that's too easy.
Hmmm...I know, I'll disagree with Tacitus!
No, I don't think I'm doing this right.
Maybe I should disagree with Kos. Actually done that plenty of times.
Got it. I'll disagree with Katherine. (Fat chance actually, but I'll keep an open mind about it.)
I've been noticing a move toward what you're calling for here Moe, and even before the apparently synchronized effort to declare it at the convention. There seems to be a spreading realization that we're gonna have to accept the outcome of the election and be ready the next day to face the world, and especially our enemies, united. So come what may election day, in the haze of hangovers (from victory parties or pity parties) on November 3, we stand as one nation. And God help the fools who underestimate our resolve.
Posted by: Edward | July 27, 2004 at 08:53 AM
I take the polarization of the blogosphere as a given. So, to call for disagreement "across the aisle" would be redundant. The idea was to help prevent a Conservative "Party Line" mentality.
My characterization of The Left may not have been nice. And such characterization can apply to extreme Right blogs as well.
In any case, Moe, you're one of the reasonable guys, on either side of the aisle.
Posted by: The Commissar | July 27, 2004 at 08:55 AM
I'm curious about the whole idea of sucking it up and lining up behind the boss. How do you square that with the need to question bad policy, call dishonest leaders to account, etc.? I think it's hard to find the right balance there--on one side, you question everything and undermine a new president's ability to do anything, so that instead of the (in your opinion) wrong policy, he manages to get nothing done. On the other side, you silently nod your head or make occasional polite expressions of dismay while your president leads the country off a cliff.
You're a Japanese advisor to the Emperor in 1939, and the prevailing winds in the government are all toward gearing up for a war with the US. Are you more of a patriot if you get behind the push for war, or if you openly and loudly point out that Japan's industrial capacity is a fraction of the US', and that Japan is sure to be crushed in any long-running war. When should you stop pointing out impending disaster so that your country can have unity in its rush off a cliff?
--John
Posted by: John Kelsey | July 27, 2004 at 09:20 AM
I'll agree with Edward: disagreeing with Katherine is the best I can come up with. She and I frequently part ways in political discussion, but of all the people I frequently disagree with, I find her the most eloquent, erudite and...well, convincing. I don't think I've ever noticed Katherine making excuses for anyone simply because they vote the way she does, which counts a great deal in the integrity column. And is, unfortunately, all too rare.
But she might be disqualified because she's no longer blogging. Damn.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | July 27, 2004 at 09:48 AM
A blogger I what now?
Posted by: norbizness | July 27, 2004 at 10:47 AM
I do believe the point was to disagree with someone you routinely agree with.
I don't really routinely agree with anyone, so I feel kind of left out.
Posted by: sidereal | July 27, 2004 at 01:20 PM
I belive politicians set the standard on this. When they can behave civil towards eachother I'll give it some serious consideration. You lead by example, and politics are no different.
Attack ads on Max Cleland showing him in the same space as Osama, Bush/Hitler ads that should never have been posted (however shortly) on Moveon, bumper stickers espousing that Osama supports Kerry, these are all things that contribute to the decline of civility and only serve to enrage the other side to the point of hostility. Coulter doesn't help, Moore doesn't help, Al Franken doesn't help, Limbaugh, Hannity, the list goes on. None of that crap helps and it makes me sick.
Posted by: Bill | July 27, 2004 at 02:21 PM
Of course, I probably don't help either.
Posted by: Bill | July 27, 2004 at 02:23 PM
This is actually a comment to pledge #1, but you ask that the comments there be restricted. I don't think this one will be particularly inflammatory, though.
What does VRWC stand for?
Posted by: Jennifer | July 27, 2004 at 05:11 PM
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy...
something Hillary Clinton noted was the source of her husband's problems
used tongue-in-cheekly by Republicans now.
Posted by: Edward | July 27, 2004 at 05:29 PM
used tongue-in-cheekly by Republicans now.
I don't know what the hell you're talking about, Edward. Nothing new, though.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | July 28, 2004 at 09:40 AM