Michael Hood reacted to my recent post "Who's the most vulnerable Seattle City Councilmember?" by leaping to an astonishing conclusion:
Ace-boom Seattle Republican blogger, Stefan Sharkansky, left the tea leaves in the bottom of his cup, Thursday, for all to read.Wrong. I have no intention or desire to run for Seattle City Council or any other public office, either this year or in the future. And that's not the only thing Michael gets wrong in his creepily obsessive post about the Mrs. and me.Unless our political headlights have totally dimmed, we'd say Sharkansky is considering running for Seattle City Council against Peter Steinbrueck.
Michael's headlights have not merely dimmed. His bulbs have burned out, his battery is dead and his engine is missing. He is a man who has nothing under his hood.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 03, 2007 08:02 PM | Email ThisA gratuitous slander against your family...is this guy scared?
Posted by: BOB R on January 3, 2007 08:49 PMPicture a little Pekinese yapping at the heels of an unconcerned Great Dane as it passes by and then trotting back into his yard, head held high, as his owners pat him on the head saying "Good boy, good boy." At that point the Pekinese is a legend in his own mind and the Great Dane never even knew there was a Pekinese.
It's nice to know the good folks who vote in this state have enough savvy to recognize a right wing wacko when they get to vote for one.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on January 3, 2007 11:03 PMI know nothing about Michael Hood and I take Stefan at his word that he's not running. But complaining that someone is "creepily obsessive"? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Posted by: Bruce on January 3, 2007 11:08 PMImagine the horror of living in a world where your worst nightmares keep getting re-elected to public office, like say having to endure a second term of a George W Bush presidency.
"Universally consistent"?!?!?!? Do we all look the same to you like the slaves once did?
Posted by: Dustin on January 4, 2007 06:43 AMOn another note, Stefan, referring to Michael Hood as a "journalist" is a real reach. But that disproves Witz's point as well.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 4, 2007 08:47 AMIf there's a better example of projection than that statement, I've yet to see it.
Posted by: jimg on January 4, 2007 09:29 AMThis commentary by Mr. Hood is indeed creepy and downright mean. You have to wonder about the true motivation of someone who refers to Stefan's wife as a "certified Asian", a comment no conservative would be allowed to get away with.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 4, 2007 09:36 AMSo Bruce, you're implying that prying into my family finances is on the same level as investigating Maria Cantwell's financial relationship with a lobbyist. Not that your opinion of me interests me all that much, but I guess I should be flattered that you're elevating me to the same stature as a United States Senator.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on January 4, 2007 10:04 AM(Bruce)"Stefan who oozes slime onto the personal lives of Democrats whenever he can"...
so--when Dems/libs do it, it's called a noble pursuit of the truth, full disclosure and ending the culture of corruption. when the shoe's on the other foot, it's too tight.
(Witz)"...dogged pursuit of anything negative he can find about either Dean Logan or Ron Sims."
again, Dems/libs call this monitoring good government and being a vigilant political activist watchdog. when shoe's on other paw, it's a witch hunt.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 4, 2007 10:23 AM
Not examples of where I disagree with their public acts, but personal attacks. Also note that nearly everything that Michael Hood writes about me is not true. Please be sure to note where my comments about the above public figures' personal lives are not true. Not just where you disagree with my opinions, but where I make incorrect assertions of fact.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on January 4, 2007 11:00 AMBut anyway, feel picked on if you wish. Defend yourself as much as you want; it's your blog. (Or maybe your wife's. Oh, sorry.) Your reaction is revealing.
Posted by: Bruce on January 4, 2007 12:07 PMCluck, cluck.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 4, 2007 12:19 PMOkay, Bruce, so you've admitted you're a liar. Sure, I criticize politicians here, but you can't document what you wrote above because it is not a true statement. Disagree with my opinions all you want and prove me wrong when you can. I welcome it. But I don't offer a comments section so people can post lies about me. Either prove or retract your assertions and don't post any other comments here until you do.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on January 4, 2007 12:31 PMSeriously, you might want to consider suicide....
Posted by: H Moul on January 4, 2007 12:58 PMMoreover, there is ample proof (that Stefan has documented rigorously) that shows that absentee ballots were improperly handled, accounted for, etc. in the days leading up to the certification of the election in King County. Fraudulent does not have to mean organized fraud to indicate an erroneous and/ or poorly accounted for result. And there is really no way to prove that is not the case either given a margin of 130 votes. There were easily 130 mistakes throughout the state that went overlooked. Even if you simply regard the result as a musical chairs finish with the final winner simply declared after three counts as a final and fair outcome, the election itself was a fraud. The citizens of this state deserve a much more convincing and open result than what we got from King County, in the case of close elections.
I agree that at times there is a lot of mean-spirited invective in the political arena. Welcome to American politics. Go back and research the history of US elections and you will find that vicious character attacks amongst politicians were quite common in the late 19th and early 20th century. But if you want to compare apple to apples, what Hood has written falls far more along the lines of vicious personal attack on a private citizen, and are far more mean-spirited than anything Stefan has ever written. And I challenge you to disprove that fact.
Finally, while invective is common in the political arena, Stefan's wife and personal life are clearly out of bounds, and especially with respect to vicious personal and racist remarks. By attempting to apologize for and/ or equivocate Michael Hood's remarks in this area, you show your own lack of morality quite well.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 4, 2007 01:25 PMI don't regularly read Michael Hood and in no way defend him in general. To me, the article in question was unnecessarily rude, as well as probably wrong in its central prediction, but not wildly inappropriate. My point is Stefan is living in quite the glass house here -- as well as, apparently, having a glass jaw.
Misty, yes, I have read personal attacks over at HA as well. And Goldy is foul-mouthed besides. But since I agree with his politics, he's a saint.
Posted by: Bruce on January 4, 2007 01:54 PMCome on--we all defend our opinions. I think you are smart enough to distinguish between thread topics, jovial verbal boxing/exchanges and true non-related (mean) personal attacks.
As for Mrs. Shark, like me, I'd defend personal family attacks (esp. off topic thread) with that & even more viciousness. Why does her personal defense make her an open target or part of the discussion topic? Don't you defend your loved ones, partners or whomever?
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 4, 2007 02:27 PM
http://www.horsesass.org/wp-trackback.php?p=2376
Posted by: chris on January 4, 2007 04:03 PMActions speak a lot louder than blogs Stefan.
I've said it more than once here; liberals don't understand conservatives. The evident prejudice about who conservatives are, what they believe, and how they act has been well illustrated in this thread.
On the other hand what conservatives believe about modern liberals can be clearly confirmed. Just run over to HA and read as much as you can stand. Here's a little unedited quote from Goldy this very morning, you don't have to do any tedious research to find this stuff it's there every day,(obscenity left in deliberately to illustrate the point).
"Miller writes a post in which he authoritatively cites Amir Taheri, an Iranian journalist known for making shit up about the Iranian government."
Hey Cato, how much voting reform or good government legwork did YOU do lately? Seems like Stefan did a lot of pavement pounding & research.
Where were you all that time? Teaching a diversity class? Founding a Tent City? Working the on ramp ("God Bless")?
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 5, 2007 11:45 AM"Blogs (SP) speak louder than Cato"
Posted by: Chris on January 5, 2007 11:50 AM