Sound Politics: I'd Say That Wasn't Good Blogging Etiquette

November 28, 2007

I'd Say That Wasn't Good Blogging Etiquette

Perhaps you've already read about this odd little story out of Yakima, where a spouse was anonymously saying not-so-nice (and false) things about her husband's political opponent via the mighty power of the Internets. Very poor form.

Posted by Eric Earling at November 28, 2007 07:47 AM | Email This

Comments

1. Sound pretty typical of the Repugnant's MO to me! :)
-Bring on the Clintons'!!-

Posted by: Duffman on November 28, 2007 08:08 AM

2. I was told it was illegal (wink, wink) for a political party to endorse on a nonpartisan race. They do it, of course, but it is word of mouth and not an "endorsement". That is what is surprising.

Posted by: swatter on November 28, 2007 08:31 AM

3. I remember when some local democrats made vaguely similar accusations in an eastside city race about a republican candidate. duffman, because of that I was sure this was going to be a democrat who did it.

Posted by: Michele on November 28, 2007 08:36 AM

4. Indeed Michele, they 'all' do it. Reinforcing the old adage that 'if a Politician's lips are moving - they're likely lying'. :)

Posted by: Duffman on November 28, 2007 09:05 AM

5. She must have been a conservative. Shame on her, and she'll get real justice. But, such behavior happens all the time in the Progressive blogosphere, and within those circles, it's a badge of honor.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 28, 2007 09:07 AM

6. Like demorats are pure as the driven snow?

NOTHING should happen to this guy. What his wife did id perfectly OK... after all, our state supreme court just got done telling us it's perfectly OK to lie in a campaign, and many here agreed with that.

Well, since it's OK to lie (Unless the "lie" results from a technical issue in an initiative... like 747) then it's OK for this guy's wife to do what she did.

"Lie" supporters cannot have it both ways. And while it is NOT "illegal" for party's to endorse in nonpartisan races, it IS moronic and frequently it blows up in your face... like it did in the Camas mayoral race, where the GOP endorsed candidate nailed down a SOLID 26% at the polls.

Posted by: Hinton on November 28, 2007 09:15 AM

7. Hinton,

I think there is a marked difference between "legal" and "perfectly OK," especially when it comes to campaign ethcis. Oathed statements excluded, I do not think that anyone wants lying in general to be illegal. But does that make it ethical to do so, especially when in an elected position of power, and about something where there is no actual need to lie? That is the pertinent question.

I'm not sure there's any proof that the candidate was directly involved in this blog. But lying about someone's non-existent record of drunken driving to achieve elected office? Constitutional or not, legal or not, worth resigning over or not, shame on him as a human being.

Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on November 28, 2007 10:16 AM

8. Sorry you Clinton supporters/Cato, but Zogby stands by his polling for Hillary.
(Go to Zogby web site)

Darn, she just can't get a break! LOL

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 28, 2007 10:22 AM

9. Democrats don't need amateurs to do their well-poisoning for them. They've got the P-I, the Times, and the Spokesman-Review to do it for them.

Posted by: Rey Smith on November 28, 2007 10:31 AM

10. Army Medic/Vet,

I'm not sure what poll you're referring to (did you mean to put that comment elsewhere?) but I'd argue that Zogby standing behind a poll result traditionally is a fairly good guarantee that it's wrong. ;-)

Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on November 28, 2007 12:10 PM

11. BJA: Of course there's a "marked difference." Not to mention the fact that HE wasn't the one blogging, yet HE is being held accountable.

"Lying" is always wrong in politics... everywhere but here, where our state supreme court has strengthened the practice with its decisions.

We are falsely told that it makes no difference. I repeatedly pointed out here that these decisions WILL result in this kind of crap. And now that it has, how can we complain?

The victim in all of this has filed suit.... but that won't get this guy unelected.

No matter, let the lies continue, and let those "paying attention," like so many here demanded, suffer the consequences.

Posted by: Hinton on November 28, 2007 12:16 PM

12. Zogby stands by his polling for Hillary.

You could put an internet poll up on here asking for your favorite GOP candidate. Guess what, Ron Paul could win. Would you consider that a poll be a true reflection of the posters here based on the comments that get posted on this blog?

Nice try Army M/V. =)

Posted by: Cato on November 28, 2007 12:56 PM

13. Cato is right, Ron Paul would win! :)

And I would make sure I voted exactly once.

Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 28, 2007 02:39 PM