Andrew at the NW Progressive Blog has a post up, complaining about shots Stefan and I have taken at the netroots as of late, in follow-up to this post from Goldy on the matter. Andrew, like Goldy before him, are way off the mark in their characterizations of my post chastising the netroots.
Andrew and Goldy seem to be lumping me into this post where Stefan picked on Goldy's coverage of Doc Hasting's primary, but which incorrectly said Goldy had predicted a Hastings defeat.
Yet, if you read through my post on the netroots, you'll see I never said anything about anyone predicting a Hastings defeat. I did say there had been "some puzzling preening about the potential pitfalls facing Rep. Doc Hastings." Moreover, I did indeed criticize both liberal blogs for the content of their discussions of his race. Notably, I was particularly critical of the poll the NW Progressive blog was making so much over that implied Hastings was vulnerable to Democratic challenger Richard Wright. As I discussed further in my post, the actual results of the 4th Congressional District primary, in the face of strong Democratic turnout statewide, bore my criticism out.
Despite such complaints from Goldy and Andrew, I never once said anyone predicted Hastings defeat. I was, however, strongly critical of their political analysis in that race, and the race between Peter Goldmark and Rep. Cathy McMorris in the 5th Congressional District. Again, primary results supported that conclusion.
They can complain that Stefan may have misspoken in his shot at Goldy, but the merits of my critique of the netroots, especially in the eastern Washington Congressional races, still stand.
Ok, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 29, 2006 05:33 PM | Email ThisThis post is yet another example.
Posted by: Matt from Olympia on September 29, 2006 05:50 PMBut if you think my posts are giving issues you care about short shrift, please tell me what issues do interest you, I might give them a whirl.
Though I should note several of my posts this week have sparked some robust debate in the comments. I'm the first to admit I'm a bit of an odd individual, so I'm sure some of my posts have different appeals to different audiences. And I wouldn't be stunned, or hurt, to learn some regular readers of the site don't care for my work. But, I believe that's part of the reason Stefan and Matt asked me to join up, to offer more diversity of material for readers to choose to enjoy, or not.
AND
Posted by: Cheryl on September 29, 2006 07:21 PMPS: With just the right amount of political sarcasm for this sight. At least we have fun with what we do here.
Thanks!
Posted by: GS on September 29, 2006 11:12 PMEric and Stefan, stay the course. No need to defend yourselves. I wouldn't give it another thought or pixel.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 30, 2006 01:57 AMC'mon Eric. Drop your friggin' Rabbit Ears and grow some cajones.
Who gives a SH*T if Andrew and Goldie object to anything?!!!!!!!!!!!
Inviting comparisons between the content of this site and the scribblings and projectile vomit of golden-showers and his/her crew is pointless and boring.
Unless, of course, you enjoy inviting comparisons to a sh!t sandwich...
Posted by: alphabet soup on September 30, 2006 08:11 AMthe DHims HAVE had 1--not original, granted--but enduring, historically accurate thought & precedence: "let's tax the hell out of the subjects/peons in the name of righteousness and be their collective Daddy/Mommy/Lifeparent."
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 30, 2006 09:34 AMAndrew's claim to fame is that he is the only blogger who wears Huggies and has his laptop on his friggin' high chair!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on September 30, 2006 09:48 AMEric, this is your coverage of Andrew's coverage of Goldstein's coverage of Stefan's coverage of Goldstein's coverage of actual news.
The instinct for self-defense is perfectly natural -- it's why trolls can successfully change the subject -- but it's important to remember that no one in the true SP target audience takes seriously anything said by Goldstein, NWPI, and the like.
Posted by: TB on September 30, 2006 11:07 AMYes, cognitive dissonance can be painful - witness the outcome of the election contest, the implosion of David Irons Jr, the defeat of I-912, the resignation of "heckuvajob" Brownie among other triumphs both small and large.
Ooops! Dark clouds on the horizon in November!
Posted by: Jimmy Blue on September 30, 2006 11:40 AMDo you even know what it means?
Posted by: alphabet soup on September 30, 2006 12:33 PM
Sorry for the off-topic.
Blame it on the lack of political intelligence of the electorate. This state has one of the lowest political IQ's of any state - worse than Oregon and not much better than California. The Republican Party also deserves part of the credit. Unfortunately, many urban voters have a knee-jerk (brain disengaged) reaction of voting Democrat like they and their parents always have, instead of voting for the best person for the job. Meanwhile the today's Democrat leadership has embraced the hammer and sickle.
Posted by: KS on September 30, 2006 10:39 PM