« Outrage of the Day | Main | Ignatius Hearts McCain »

July 31, 2008

Comments

"The Clinton-era economy, and the esteemed position of America in the world, seem almost fairy-tale like in comparison to our present predicament, making Gore look even better for the nostalgic."

Congress and the President divided between two parties is what I'm nostalgic for. :)

We've had that for the last two years, Sebastian--how's that working out for you? Not so well for me, but that's largely because the President has decided that Congress is irrelevant.

Congress and the President divided between two parties is what I'm nostalgic for.

See, I was pining for a modicum of competence. You know, a belief that you appoint people to powerful, important positions based on actual ability. Radical.

for some reason i was watching PBS' News Hour last night (i never watch TV news, ever - i see enough of it from clips on-line and glimpses in airports to know there's nothing there). they were talking about this latest McCain smear-job. after letting a guy from WaPo and one from FactCheck.org roll their eyes at the sheer BS of it, they actually told viewers that this only ran on a few stations, only a few times, and that it wasn't so much of an ad as a "press release" designed to get free air time because of the "controversy" it caused. and with that, the host gave a hint of a sneer said "and so we'll leave it at that".

that is, someone on my TV actually told viewers exactly what the ad was: false, cynical, and intended to exploit the MSM's idiotic he-said/she-said mentality.

i was shocked.

cleek,

I had a similar reaction watching CNN last night (a rarity I must be careful to note lest my street cred goes down the intertubes). David Gergen, the host (filling in for Cooper) and the whole panel basically laid out the...facts. It was remarkable. They all agreed these attacks were shameful.

Throw in John Weaver, and we got pushback!

I know it is a philosophical difference, but I tend to believe that competence and competition are closely related.

I wouldn't mind a perfectly competent and totally benevolent string of dictators if it weren't for the fact that they just don't exist in the real world.

From a practical point of view I tend to believe that ruling parties which don't have to deal with the other side much get arrogant and make lots of stupid decisions because even people with a modicum of competence can do stupid things when they aren't tested against reality or if they don't have to leave the echo chamber.

That is part of why I'm a government skeptic--government works better if we are always skeptical of it and testing it.

"(i never watch TV news, ever - i see enough of it from clips on-line and glimpses in airports to know there's nothing there)."

I watch the PBS Newshour all the time, because it's pretty darn good.

And the BBC America news is also pretty good. And there's quite a fair amount of good stuff spread amongst the three network news evening broadcasts, actually, although the overall balance is quite off, and some pieces are much worse and some much better. But various individual pieces can be informative.

It's the morning shows that are crap, and local news that isn't news, and cable networks that suck like mad.

If you watched the PBS Newshour more often, you might be less shocked. You might even be surprised at how much decent or good stuff is still on the three evening network news broadcasts, along with some mediocre and crappy stuff. But the cable networks don't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath.

"I know it is a philosophical difference, but I tend to believe that competence and competition are closely related."

So the Red Cross is incompetent?

It is a philosophical difference, because it's my observation that competence and competition are only sometimes related. Not my belief. My observation.

Actually, the Red Cross is incompetent, at least in one area.

Congress and the President divided between two parties is what I'm nostalgic for. :)

Given that 40 votes are all that you need to effectively block the Senate, I'm inclined to think that one party still controls both Congress and the Executive branch. If Obama wins, you might just get your wish for divided government, since I think it is unlikely that the Democrats will get to 60 in the Senate. (Actually, I think the probability that they do so is much less than the probability that Obama wins).

I respectfully disagree with you Eric. This election will not be about Bush or Rove. This election is 100% about Obama. Because Obama is insisting upon making this election about Obama. See the non-provoked race card he threw out today. This is a bad strategy for the Democrats. The Democrats should just keep quiet. They would win if they just kept quiet.

His RealClearPolitics lead is down 1.5% since he left for his Eurotour.

"Given that 40 votes are all that you need to effectively block the Senate, I'm inclined to think that one party still controls both Congress and the Executive branch. If Obama wins, you might just get your wish for divided government, since I think it is unlikely that the Democrats will get to 60 in the Senate."

But I'm not a big fan of the filibuster, especially as used in the past 20 years.

By the way, I'm inclined to agree with Seb's theory of competence and competition, with two minor caveats:

1. I see the effect as mitigating already existing tendencies. Bush picked crooked and stupid people to run the DOJ because he's a stupid and crooked fellow; the Democrats didn't force him to do that. In contrast, Clinton picked top tier professionals to run FEMA because he valued competence in that area and there's nothing particular that the Republicans did to compel his behavior in that choice.

2. Assuming that government organizations always lack competition while private sector organizations always face competition is unwise. Private sector organizations work hard to ensure that competition is minimized (see the tapestries of patent agreements whereby old-guard companies collectively block new entrants) and they're often successful.

Incertus, it's bad enough that Bush has decided that Congress is irrelevant. What makes it worse is that Congress seems to agree.

But I'm not a big fan of the filibuster, especially as used in the past 20 years.

Big deal. Unless you have some way of stopping it from being used in any way other than a Sebastian-approved manner, whether you're a fan of it or not has no effect on how it's used.

Although in theory I agree with Sebastian that it is better, if not all (elected) branches are in the hand of the same party but given the GOP behaviour for too long a time, I'd be willing to have one-party rule for awhile from the other guys until the GOP can be let safely out of the asylum (methaphorically speaking, certain individuals notwithstanding) again.
What the GOP now needs is a devastating defeat leading to a mass purge of those that have led the party astray (although I fear that the party is beyond redemption and will develop an even more virulent and noxious form of rabies*).

*including directed violence, I hope Obama has his last will in order because I think the probability of another "lone wolf"** killing him is non-negligible.
**of course without any connection to the GOP but an ardent fan of Rush, Malkin, the Coulter etc.

But I'm not a big fan of the filibuster, especially as used in the past 20 years.

OK. I'm not sure I am either. But regardless of your feelings, the filibuster does exist and does confer a significant amount of institutional power to parties that don't have a majority in the Senate but are able to muster 40 votes.

My contention here is that because of Republican (ab)use of the filibuster, the Democrats have less effective control of Congress than their nominal majorities would suggest, and that that state of affairs will continue unless Democrats are able to win 60 seats in the Senate. Do you disagree with any of that?

I Came As a Rat

it takes a long time, but god dies too. but not before he'll stick it to you.


Given that 40 votes are all that you need to effectively block the Senate, I'm inclined to think that one party still controls both Congress and the Executive branch. If Obama wins, you might just get your wish for divided government, since I think it is unlikely that the Democrats will get to 60 in the Senate. (Actually, I think the probability that they do so is much less than the probability that Obama wins).

What Turb said.

Over the last half century at least the Democrats have shown much less internal party disciple and more of a tendency to behave like a loose coalition of multiple related parties with mutually overlapping goals in some areas, than have the Republicans. Which means that fears of undivided govt. in control of the Dems strike me as a bit of a strawman argument.

Look at the times when the Democrats have enjoyed “control” (in the loose sense of the term, ignoring flip-flops over control of a narrowly divided Senate) over both Congress and the White House. I come up with the 1st half of the Clinton admin., the Carter administration, and the Kennedy-Johnson years. Aside from the period 1964-1966, what portion of those periods featured liberal Democrats running wild and having their way in all things? I can’t recall much, and that was during a period when votes on cloture were comparatively rare by the standards of today. Now the Democrats need 60 votes in the Senate to pass a resolution in favor of Mother’s Day.

So I’m not getting all worked up about the reign of red terror that will be unleashed if the Dems have the audacity to take the WH while retaining control of Congress this year.

So I’m not getting all worked up about the reign of red terror that will be unleashed if the Dems have the audacity to take the WH while retaining control of Congress this year.

maybe you're not. but other people are.

    Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, a leading voice for the party’s younger generation, met last week with a few of his GOP colleagues with an eye toward a new Republican messaging strategy that focuses less on energy issues and more on the negative news about prominent Democrats.

    In a preview, one GOP aide declared: “By November, every American voter will know the name of Charlie Rangel the way they knew Tom DeLay in 2006. Count on it.”

oh noes! it's Charlie Rangel!!

A clarification to my comment above regarding periods of Democrats control of both Congress and WH: that should be the 1st half of Clinton's 1st term (1992-1994), not the whole 1st half of his 2 term administration.

Hard to argue with Gus.

Here's a vote for new leadership other than Reid and Pelosi.

but this fool is willing to put his money on the proposition that the American people have had enough exposure to the tactics of Karl Rove that they're just not buying this crap the way they did in 2000 and 2004.

I've taken to looking at this election as a referendum on the American people. If they are dumb enough to fall again for a guy who tells happy stories about all the great things that are going to happen with his policies as long as we don't ask too many questions, well so be it.

The 40 votes thing in the Senate is a little miss leading. At no point in this congress have the Republicans actually been forced to actively filibuster. One vote and then the Democrats cave.

Making the minority party really filibuster over a period of weeks or even days would put many of them in untenable positions. There has been no Republican filibusters in this congress.

Of course on FISA the Democratic leadership was more than willing to encourage a vote for closure.

"I've taken to looking at this election as a referendum on the American people."

Yeah, I guess you could say that -- the American public was dumb enough to elect Bush twice.

I thought this election would be a referendum on that mistake -- on George Bush, on his war in Iraq, on his lying, cheating ways, on Big Oil, on the depressing economy.

So how, then, are the Republicans making it a referendum on Barack Obama?

Eric,

For what it's worth, I think David Gergen is one of the most fair-minded, measured commentators on TV or any forum.

I agree completely. As someone else said this kind of dignity worked so well for president dukakis. Look, Obama needs to turn the meme around--not "I'm shocked, shocked that John McCain lives up to his nasty nickname" but "hey, when McCain talks trash about me, he's really talkign trash about all of my supporters and voters." which is true. The object of Mccain's attacks is to make obama toxic to voters, so they don't identify with him adn they won't vote for him. The right thing to do is turn this on its ear so that every time a voter hear's an attack on Obama they understand it as an attack on them.

I want something else from the Obama campaign--I want Obama to work the "he's attacking *us* routine." Obama should laugh and say "when I speak in front of 200,000 expatriate americans and foreigners abroad I don't see what McCain sees--apparently he just sees me, one lone black guy up there. I look out and see *all of them* and I know they are seeing *all of us, united, democrats and republicans in america who want change. Am I "all that and a glass of milk" no. But united we americans are just that important. Those world leaders and people aren't turning out to see me, they are turning out to see what America can do with new leadership, they are waving those flags for us all.

Is it all about me? certainly not! Can I run this country all on my lonesome? Certainly not! That's why I've been working, when I'm not out talking to regular people, to put together a kitchen cabinet of some of the brightest minds and most devoted americans who will help us get our american agenda through congress. I've got 300 people advising my campaign on everythign from foreign policy to energy policy--who is John McCain leaning on? Oil Companies, Karl Rove's flunkies, big corporations and lobbyists. Look, John McCain can call it presumptious all he wants, I'd call it working hard to give the American people what they want and deserve--a candidate and maybe a president who is prepared from day one. Whichever of us the people choose one of us is going to be president in the next term, one of us is going to have the honor and the duty of picking up the pieces of the mess left by the republicans after eight years of running roughshod over the american people. I'm trying to do the best job of getting ready I can, tapping the best and the brightest and asking for the help of every voter. What's McCain doing? mooning over my foreign tour and complaining that I've got more fans than he does? Its pathetic."

aimai

I think aimai is expressing the frustration of many Democrats.

The Obama campaign is not doing a good job of putting McCain in his place.

McCain -- tied so closely to Bush -- should be an easy target. If so, why is Obama seemingly on the defensive more often than not?

What's been Obama's message since returning from his world tour?

How about something new:

Keep Obama front and center, hone his message on the George Bush economy, on gas prices, on the Bush economy, on the credit crunch, on job losses, on the "Wall Street Got Drunk" economy, and name a VP candidate -- hello, Sen. Biden -- to handle all of the incoming fire and bullshit from McShame and his band of bullies.

Biden will do it with a smile. He'll make McShame look small. Obama can stay above the frame and talk about the economy and hope for a better future.

Whatever happened to his message of hope? I can't remember the last time I heard, "Yes, we can."

Obama needs to get back to that, back to being the can-do candidate and draw a stark contrast to McShame and Bush and their been-there, done-that failures.

"Keep Obama front and center, hone his message on the George Bush economy, on gas prices, on the Bush economy, on the credit crunch, on job losses, on the 'Wall Street Got Drunk' economy, and name a VP candidate -- hello, Sen. Biden -- to handle all of the incoming fire and bullshit from McShame and his band of bullies."

I like Joe Biden, but how about, I keep repeating, Chris Dodd? (Sebelius remains my runner-up.)

The object of Mccain's attacks is to make obama toxic to voters, so they don't identify with him adn they won't vote for him. The right thing to do is turn this on its ear so that every time a voter hear's an attack on Obama they understand it as an attack on them.

Amen!

And I would go farther, myself. I would advise Obama to write off the Stupid Vote, by explicitly saying that McCain's attacks are obviously aimed at stupid people. Obama's pitch to voters then becomes: "you're not stupid enough to fall for that crap, are you?"

Naturally, that will offend voters who are bound and determined to be stupid. But it will raise the self-esteem of the others, and they will thank Obama at the ballot box.

-- TP

The object of Mccain's attacks is to make obama toxic to voters, so they don't identify with him adn they won't vote for him. The right thing to do is turn this on its ear so that every time a voter hear's an attack on Obama they understand it as an attack on them.

Amen!

And I would go farther, myself. I would advise Obama to write off the Stupid Vote, by explicitly saying that McCain's attacks are obviously aimed at stupid people. Obama's pitch to voters then becomes: "you're not stupid enough to fall for that crap, are you?"

Naturally, that will offend voters who are bound and determined to be stupid. But it will raise the self-esteem of the others, and they will thank Obama at the ballot box.

-- TP

What a lame-ass ad. Change you can believe in? Examples? Supports Telecom immunity and illegal spying like Bush. Supports government funding of religious groups like Bush. Supports the death penalty for non capital crimes like Bush. Supports repeal of gun control laws like Bush. Supports NAFTA like Bush. Supports Bush claims for immunity from prosecution like Bush. Obama must believe the electorate is as stupid as his fauxgressive supporters. Both McCain and Obama are relying on the stupidity of the voter.

"Supports government funding of religious groups like Bush."

No, he doesn't. Bush supports the right of federally funded charities to discriminate; Obama doesn't. That's the only issue that matters.

"Supports [...] illegal spying like Bush."

When there's evidence for this, get back to us.

"Supports repeal of gun control laws like Bush."

Cite?

"Supports NAFTA like Bush."

Cite?

"Supports Bush claims for immunity from prosecution like Bush."

Cite?

Obama should not have responded to McCain’s Paris Hilton reference. It drew attention to himself and made him look petty. Obama should not have publicly proclaimed his prediction that McCain would go negative in the future. It drew attention to himself and made him look petty. That was potentially a NCM. Obama was on TV earlier promising more checks if he is elected (who would have predicted that?). He is again drawing attention to himself.

It is unfair to accuse McCain of centering the national debate on Obama. Obama is doing it to himself, with a little help from his musical friends. Obama should stop because the more people see him the less they like him. See South Dakota.

Update: His RealClearPolitics lead is now down 1.6% since he left for his Eurotour. The most recent poll has the lead down 3.5% since he left for his Eurotour. There is a ring to 3.5%. If this keeps up, we will be seeing JNMs within six weeks.

Gary, methinks Mike is a troll. If not, he's severely confused. That is, unless he wants to provide citations and rational arguments to back up his claims.

Gary, methinks Mike is a troll.

Perhaps he's the answer to Nell's question about where the Naderites are.

I want something else from the Obama campaign--I want Obama to work the "he's attacking *us* routine."

here's part of the campaign email Obama just sent out:

    Given the seriousness of these issues, you'd think we'd be having a serious debate. But instead, John McCain is running an expensive, negative campaign against us. Each day brings a desperate new set of attacks.

    And they're not just attacking me. They're attacking you.

    They're mocking the desire of millions of Americans to step up and take ownership of the political process.

    They're trying to convince you that your enthusiasm won't amount to anything -- that the people you persuade, the phone calls you make, the donations you give, the doors you knock on are all an illusion. They believe that in this election the same old smears and negative attacks will prevail again.

    They're wrong.

aimai = overlord

OK, let me try this one out:

I want something else from the Obama campaign--I want Obama to pay me $500,000 a month to blog for him from now until November.

Cleek: keep me posted on the emails. You're in for a finders fee.

cleek,

Obama's email was spot-on.

One problem, however: He's preaching to the choir.

We keep hearing about the record sums of money he has raised. Well, explain those sentiments in a well-done ad. Or two.

Also, have some articulate, media-friendly surrogates expressing them.

And: Name a VP choice already.

What better surrogate than that?

Put McCain back on the defensive and show how ineffectual, inarticulate and inept he is.


And: Name a VP choice already.

While I understand the question, I do wonder why? I don't think McCain will announce his before Obama announces (I actually don't think they feel they can decide until they know Obama's) and with the Olympics coming up, the media window seems a bit tight. I could see Obama announcing it in that little window between the end of the Olympics and the beginning of the convention, which would, if the Olympics goes off without a hitch, would have the VP choice appear in front of a background of international understanding yada yada, and segue right into the DNC.

I don't particularly like it (it seems a bit Leni Riefenstahl-ish), but that seems like one potential strategy.

"Obama should not have responded to McCain's Paris Hilton reference. It drew attention to himself and made him look petty."

Bill, Bill, Bill:

I've been here at work since 9 this morning, so I may have missed something. But when did Obama respond to McCain's Paris Hilton reference?

What's more, that ad drew attention to McCain's desperation and dishonor.

And speaking of petty, what do you call McCain's assertion that Obama would rather win a campaign and lose a war?

Oops -- I'm sure you agree.

McCain is already using the same Karl Rove brass-knuckle tactics that took him down during the 2000 South Carolina primary.

Seems to me McShame would rather lose his soul to win a campaign.

liberal j:

Do it Monday, Aug. 4.

The Olympics start Thursday, Aug. 8.

I know the Olympics are a big deal but is
the campaign really going to come to a halt during the Games?

Anyway, you're right: If it isn't done Monday, it will be right after the Olympics, right before the convention.

Not that the Obama campaign listens to me, but now that Saint John McCain has chosen to exploit, for political purposes, America's sweethearts Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, perhaps Obama can exploit a couple of things himself.

This 2003 interview in which a gum-chewing pre-headshave Britney tells a still-bowtied Tucker Carlson that

Honestly, I think we should just trust our President and support any decision he makes and be faithful to what happens.

The relevant bit is between 2:55 and 3:40 in the clip, if you wish to minimize nausea and other side-effects. McCain attempted to portray Barack as an airhead like Britney. It would be, like, totally fair to point out that Britney is indeed an airhead, but she's a REPUBLICAN.

And the Obama campaign ought to print up a million bumper stickers that say

John McCain thinks
PARIS HILTON
Needs another tax cut

The GOP is forever protecting American values from Hollywood sleaze by ... giving tax cuts to Hollywood celebrities! Making sure that Paris Hilton inherits daddy's money tax free is the Republican version of down-home values.

I would not normally recommend picking on poor, defenseless blonde bimbettes in a political campaign, but since McCain opened the door ...

-- TP

"Cleek: keep me posted on the emails. You're in for a finders fee."

David Plouffe has been my bestest internet buddy for the longest time. He writes me several times a week! We're bestest friends!

And I hear from Michelle now and again, as well as Barack! They love me!

Incidentally, do you know that right now would be an excellent time to donate? ...right now, we have a few hours left to prove them wrong in a very concrete way.

Can you make a donation of $25 or more right now before the July fundraising deadline at midnight tonight?

Barack and David and Michelle can be a bit naggy about this. But they're just trying to be helpful!

My pal David, earlier today:

Less than 24 hours ago, the McCain campaign launched the latest and lowest in a series of misleading attack ads.

This Karl Rove-style ploy misleads people about Barack's energy plan and even mocks his ability to inspire voters and bring Americans back into the political process.

Watchdogs in the media are calling McCain's accusations "bogus," "desperate," "wrong," "misleading," "ugly," "offensive," "reckless," and "a nasty turn into the gutter."

Some of McCain's own supporters agree. One senior Republican strategist quoted by the Washington Post called the latest ad a "wild swing at Obama" that reflects his campaign's "increasing bitterness" and the lack of "any coherent strategy to elect McCain."

Even John Weaver, a strategist who worked for McCain's presidential campaign in 2000 and on his current campaign last year, called the ad "childish," adding that this negative strategy "diminishes John McCain" and "needs to stop."

But we will not let any attack stand. Barack himself responded quickly and forcefully, and within hours our campaign created a response ad to take their smear tactics head-on.

[...]

Your support will also give this campaign a crucial boost in momentum as we build our organization to compete in all 50 states.

There are only hours left to make an impact in July.

Watch the new ad and make a donation of $25 or more before the midnight deadline.

Etc.

I know it is a philosophical difference, but I tend to believe that competence and competition are closely related.

I agree with this. Keep'em on their toes.

The problem here is that the failures of the Bush administration are not due to incompetence. Or, at least, incompetence is not the root cause.

IMVHO, Bush is not about governing. He's about aggrandizing power. He's actually been very good at that.

The fact that the proper functions of government have gone to hell in a handbasket is a feature, not a bug. It's one of the ways he's achieved his actual goal.

That's my take on it, anyway.

Thanks -

bedtimeforbonzo I’ve probably watched too much TV today but http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/31/1238125.aspx ">here:

“But so far, all we’ve been hearing about is Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. I do have to ask my opponent, is that the best you can come up with? Is that really what this election’s about? Is that what is worthy of the American people?”

One possible translation: ‘Is that what is worthy of me?’

McCain spent long periods of time on deployment with not much to do. One game some learn during these times is finding personality tweeks among others, and if deemed appropriate, to learn to pick at these tweeks. Monkey Butler.

If McCain was one of those, he will subtly use imagery of Paris and Britney in future ads. Very subtle. It would accelerate the JNM.

I wonder how BOB will explain Obama winning the election.

Guess you're not going to take me up on my suggestion you read Dreams From My Father, eh, Bill? Scared it might get in the way of your prejudice and race bigotry?

Which reminds me, I wonder how Jay Jerome is doing. Maybe he and Bill can commiserate after the election.

If Obama wins the election Gary, it will be because he has promised a big enough ‘economic stimulus check’. He flew that one today to augment his strategic tire pressure plan. But he should definitely not be compared with Paris Hilton. Dammit. McCain cannot handle the truth that there is no parallel between Obama and Britnay. McCain should shut up!

The thing that sucks about making commitments is that they create expectations.

Personally, I’m just sitting here watching the world go round and round.

"Personally, I’m just sitting here watching the world go round and round."

So how come you don't want to read the book?

I dunno if BoB actually saw the video of Obama's "best you can do?" comment, but it was really solid. He just waited for the perfect moment and knocked it out of the park. That transcript doesn't do it justice.

McCain spent long periods of time on deployment with not much to do. One game some learn during these times is finding personality tweeks among others, and if deemed appropriate, to learn to pick at these tweeks. Monkey Butler.

You know, I haven't even posted in this thread, or much at all for the past several days, so I see no reason for you to have brought me into this. Therefore, I'm going to consider this a second violation of the posting rules -- following your prior warning from hilzoy on July 20 -- and ask to have you at least temp banned if not permanently banned. Happy?

Phil: was that a reference to you? If so, I didn't get it.

Yes. See here and here.

Phil: Ah. Thanks.

Bill: Bye.

BOB:

When I got home from work, I saw the video and Obama's reference to Paris Hilton on CNN's 10 pm newscast.

Had the same impression as Adam: Obama hit it out of the park with his "best you can do?" comment.

Really: Is this the best that McCain can do? Paris Hilton? Britney Spears? I guess McCain's completely forgotten who Osama Bin Laden is.

This campaign has turned into a complete bullshit fest.

Geez, Hilzoy.

I hit the post button 1 minute after you say "bye" to Bill.

Sorry for the bad timing.

Really, the Monkey Butler stuff is/was too much.

Please tell me that was perma. The average quality of discourse on this site will rise considerably without him constantly vomiting up his usual race baiting, misogyny and Republican Zombie Lies.

Catsy: yep. I mean, he can appeal if he wants, or I can be overruled by my co-bloggers, and so my personal judgment is not the final word, but: my personal judgment is, that was final.

ditto Catsy. and thank you, hilzoy.

Thank Maude.

"Catsy: yep. I mean, he can appeal if he wants, or I can be overruled by my co-bloggers, and so my personal judgment is not the final word, but: my personal judgment is, that was final."

Wait, is there some kind of rule about who gets temporarily banned, and if so for how long, versus when one gets permanently banned, or what?

I won't weep over BoB, but I'm a big fan of fairness, consistency, and predictability.

I'm not even sure what "Monkey Butler," in context, meant, but I do find this revealing: "One game some learn during these times is finding personality tweeks among others, and if deemed appropriate, to learn to pick at these tweeks."

Yes, that's BoB's entire approach to this blog: try to stir sh*t with the libruls by trying to infuriate them.

"Tweek" isn't a word, though. (Ironically, it was the name of an sf fanzine done initially by me, Patrick Hayden, Seth McEvoy, and Anne Laurie Logan, in 1977, and later me, PH and ALL, as a tri-weekly fanzine and successor to Seth and Jay Cornell's Bweek, though it only went four issues.)

I'm not even sure what "Monkey Butler," in context, meant

I can't believe I'm saying this to Gary, but: click through and read the links. :)

The short story is that Monkey Butler is a pseudonym that Paul uses at another site. BOB has been stalking Paul and insinuating that he's really someone else and is lying to everyone, and seems to enjoy repeatedly tweaking Paul with this despite Paul having made it clear that he is dead serious, legal-action serious, about how unacceptable this stalking and lying is.

So, BOB comes in and, after describing how to pass time by discovering people's hot buttons and stomping on them, proceeds to give an example of doing so by saying "Monkey Butler", thinking that it's oblique enough that everyone else will just glide past it, figuring they don't get the joke, but his intended target will flip out and look like a fool for making a big deal about such a "little" thing.

And somehow, in that post, Phil became Paul. I blame my coworker Paul for harassing me while I'm writing this. :)

Shows you how gullible I am.

Bill being Bill, I thought Monkey Butler must have had some kind of racist overtone.

Nevertheless, this internet stalking that Catsy describes sounds just as bad.

To quote Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?"

"I can't believe I'm saying this to Gary, but: click through and read the links. :)"

You misunderstand me; I'm quite familiar with the exchanges, and recall them well. My point is that a sentence fragment is, by definition, unclear. What the two words mean, alone, or were intended to mean, I don't know. I don't know how anyone could know. All anyone could do is guess. This is not a defense of BOB; it simply is what it is.

That it was a "tweak" at Phil seems like the most likely interpretation, but deliberate incoherency can be a useful technique, particularly when it's difficult or impossible to distinguish from normal incoherency, which is a specialty of BOB's.

Here's Brick Oven Bill.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad