Baghdad Blue
By Mitch Berg
I’ve long been convinced that 90% of leftybloggers crib most of their writing from about a dozen original “proto-leftyposts” that appeared on Daily Kos, Atrios and RushLimbaughtomy maybe five years ago.
If not the entire post, certainly the headline.
And while that does mean the leftyblogger can dash past the whole “writing a catchy headline” bit – it’s all been done for you, by Kos, back in ’03! – it sometimes leads to some comical lapses.
The other day, I wrote a post about how Republicans in “safe” congressional districts – like Michele Bachmanns’ CD6 and John Kline’s CD2 – should oughtta think about diverting a buck or two to the long (very, very long) term goal of contesting CD4 and 5 (to say nothing of winning the First back). The reason, of course, is that, whatever Tic nominee Steve Sarvi’s pluses (he’s an Iraq and Kosovo vet, is the former mayor of Watertown, and is not Colleen Rowley), barring a major “oops”, there’s just not that much to worry about at this point.
In other words; nobody’s scared of Steve Sarvi.
So I read “Blue Man in a Red District” this morning, and my first instinct was…
…to call 911. The guy’s blue. Obviously a cardiopulmonary problem.
But with that out of the way, his top post this morning was slugged:
And I thought “Good question. After pointing out quite clearly that this right wing blogger – the only one cited in his post – is not scared of Sarvi, why am I?”
It’s a puzzle.
Blue actually does go on to post some information that isn’t the inverse of factual:
CD 5 has not elected a Republican to Congress in 45 years. The last 4 elections, a GOP candidate has garnered no more than 26%.
CD 4 had not gone red since 1949 and no one has come closer than 25% of Betty McCollum in years.
That’s right, Blue. That’s one of the things you’re supposed to do in politics – change peoples’ minds. It’s tall order in my town, but if Brett Schundler could do it in Jersey City, we can do it here.
Bear in mind, I said “change minds”; not merely write a headline; with a nod to Blue, “Why Is The Fourth District Really Republican?”
It’s harder than that.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I’ve long been convinced that 90% of leftybloggers crib most of their writing from about a dozen original “proto-leftyposts”
As compared to posting complaints about NYT not addressing a story based on a read of a righty blog…Mitch, pot meet kettle. At least most leftybloggers actually also consume other forms of much more balanced media than the Sorosphere or Scaifenet. You, by contrast, recently admitted you don’t really watch much of the mainstream news, read much of the mainstream news articles or sources… as was clearly on display in your complaint about NYT..
Frankly, this sounds like defensive attack mode.. claim the other guys are doing what you KNOW you do in spades.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
The old “I know you are, but what am I?” response.
It never gets old.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
At least most leftybloggers actually also consume other forms of much more balanced media than the Sorosphere or Scaifenet.
OK, now I know you’re just chain-yanking. You may be improving, but AC still does it better.
You, by contrast, recently admitted you don’t really watch much of the mainstream news, read much of the mainstream news articles or sources… as was clearly on display in your complaint about NYT..
Enh. We all make mistakes. I copped to mine promptly.
Mainstream media is, however, not “balanced”. Parts of it are getting incrementally better – they see how the market is going – but no. Just no.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Is Peev going to comment about your post today, Mitch? (Ever?)
May 13th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Actually Mitch, I don’t KNOW that I’m anything of the sort. I don’t either have a blog or get my news from wickedly biased blogs.
Defending yourself with a casual brush-off by cliche’ doesn’t change the fact that it’s your modus opperandi (sic).
Past that, copping to your mistake amounted to NOT suggesting you were wrong, but rather that they had subesquently corrected things.. I actually applaud your correction, but let’s be real here. Anyway, let’s leave that alone. My point wasn’t that you didn’t admit to it- it was that you do the same thing. Beyond that Mitch, to be frank, the verbaige you use is nearly exactly the verbaige of the conservatives who opposed changes in the 20’s, just prior to the greatest compression AND greatest growth of incomes (during the 40-70s’) in US history. If you want to bring up regurgitation, I think we should start there.
As for the media being biased, Mitch, at least they cop to theirs and, like you did on your error, WORK TO DO BETTER, WORK TO OFFSET IT. You, on the other hand, openly embrace yours. It’s like saying, we both steal, but Bob tries to restrain his, I, on the other hand, because I’m incapable of doing any better, advocate and promote stealing. Nice work if you can get it I guess.
Badda – I actually had hope for you, but you’re now with PaulC and Yoss- I’m sure you think that’s good company, but go read their drivel. Joel, Troy, Kermit, and a number of others, seem to be able to actually add something to discussions, rather than live on the periphery simply sniping away with invective and ugly, angry sentiment. You are a truly sad little man. I must admit, I truly cringe at the thought of you actually ‘putting me in my place now’, as if such blustering claptrap bespeaks anything but that you are a fool, but I’m done playing with you – which is neither threat nor bravado. Your comments no longer merit reading or consideration. Other righty commenters seem able to sustain a civil conversation, and to add points worth discussion. You’ve departed controlled flight. Best of luck to you, get help. My one question for you will always be, if you feel my comments aren’t worth reading, why are you reading them, much less responding. This isn’t my blog – I’m just pointing out inconsistencies – so you’re not shaping minds and you certainly aren’t changing any, least of all mine.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Defending yourself with a casual brush-off by cliche’ doesn’t change the fact that it’s your modus opperandi (sic).
No, you’re right. The fact that it has nothing to do with my modus operandi, however, applies.
Past that, copping to your mistake amounted to NOT suggesting you were wrong, but rather that they had subesquently corrected things.
Yep.
My point wasn’t that you didn’t admit to it- it was that you do the same thing.
I copy, idea-verbatim, a naming convention that turns out to be exactly the opposite of what was actually said?
Do tell!
Beyond that Mitch, to be frank, the verbaige you use is nearly exactly the verbaige of the conservatives who opposed changes in the 20’s…
Er, what on earth are you talking about?
As for the media being biased, Mitch, at least they cop to theirs
No, Peev. As a general rule – and with a few notable exceptions, like ABC’s Mark Halperin – they expressly deny any bias. It is rare to find a reporter who is employed by a major news organization that will actually stipulate that the MSM trends to the left. Very, very rare.
You, on the other hand, openly embrace yours. It’s like saying, we both steal, but Bob tries to restrain his, I, on the other hand, because I’m incapable of doing any better, advocate and promote stealing.
No, it not like saying that at all. Being honest about my biases isn’t a handicap or pathology; lying about, or being unaware of, having a bias in the first place, however, is either dishonest or a symptom of an ingrained cultural bias.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
You, on the other hand, openly embrace yours.
Yeah, it’s MITCH’S blog. When will you ever, EVER actually get that? Mitch can do whatever he wants on HIS BLOG. Besides, Mitch is an Everyday Internet Hero, so he’s afforded certain rights and priviledges.
rather than live on the periphery simply sniping away with invective and ugly, angry sentiment.
My art, let me show you it.
Your comments no longer merit reading or consideration.
OH NO! Another one falls to the dreaded “Peev Silent Treatment.” Oh, the horrors implicit under this banner of shame I can only begin to tell you. We can form a support group where we’ll get together and brood, wallowing in our ugly, angry sentiment. Together, perhaps we can one day, hopefully, amount to a hill of beans as people!
Peev, you ignorant slut
Know what? I’ll tell you what.
Go take a leap
You joykilling creep
You’re not worth a pick of my butt.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Should have gone with “sniff” instead of “pick”. . .
Oh well.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Did Peev manage to explain who all of the extremists are in this thread? (With evidence?)
[waiting… waiting… waiting…]
He don’t get half pissy, don’t he?
May 13th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Peev,
Mitch is remarkably patient with you. I daresay that 99% of the other bloggers in the world, if confronted with a troll as consistently obtuse and nasty as you are, would have told you to piss up a rope a long time ago.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Your comments no longer merit reading or consideration.
If only he woud actually mean it and include the entirety of SITD…
Should have gone with “sniff” instead of “pick”. . .
No, Yoss, you were right the first time. Pick is way funnier.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I’ve long been convinced that 90% of leftybloggers crib…”
What a coincidence. I’ve been long convinced 90% of the bootlickers that make up rightwingnut bloggers are lapdogs for those that are neither Republican nor conservative, but are indeed the leadership of today’s GreedOverPrinciples party.
You know, the morons that still think Boy Blunder is the ‘future sixth face on Mount Rushmore”? The 23%ers? The idiots that aren’t going to have a clue why the GOP got it’s ass kicked this upcoming November?
May 13th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Thia ia why the Right is concerned, and they should be!
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/05/democrats_win_mississippi_spec.html
“”The victory marked the third time this election cycle that Democrats have won a Republican-held seat in a special election and seemed to suggest that the national political atmosphere could significantly broaden the House playing field in the fall.
Mississippi’s 1st district had long been a conservative stronghold. President George W. Bush won it with 59 percent of the vote in 2000 and 62 percent in 2004. Roger Wicker (R), whose appointment to the Senate seat vacated by Trent Lott (R) created the vacancy in the House, had held the district easily since 1994 — never winning reelection with less than 63 percent of the vote.””
May 13th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Peev, though almost always obtuse,
Can, indeed, serve some sort of use
He could perhaps wrangle,
Calculations, triangle;
Yet his comments just seem to cause snooze.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Uh, Flash…
Cook: Don’t over-interpret special elections
Many read great importance in a single district and try to extrapolate
“WASHINGTON – It is very easy, often tempting, to over-interpret the meaning of a special congressional election. Many read great importance into the results of a single congressional district and try to extrapolate that meaning to 434 other districts for the next election.
The truth is that there are often unique or local circumstances that play an important role in determining the outcome of the election. They don’t call these contests “special” for nothing.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24486786/
And yes, there is a lot that you could point to in this article and say “See! See! Told ya so!” However, it is telling that MSNBC would run the article with that headline and that lede, isn’t it?
May 13th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Yes, but special elections tend to favor the Right due to lower voter turnout, and B this is a trend of 3 races, not just one out of the blue.
Now, I agree with the premise that special elections are about as accurate as polls in being a predictor to future events. However, that doesn’t take away from my point that even perceived safe districts are vulnerable. If Mitch et. al. want to bet on the safeness of the 2nd on some long term victory strategy in the 4th or 5th, that is just fine with me. These are the same people that thought the Fighting First in southern MN was safe and we all know how that turned out.
Flash
May 14th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Flash wrote:
special elections tend to favor the Right due to lower voter turnout . . .
This means that either the voting public has grown disenchanted with the right or that the GOP is no longer a particularly conserve party. I tend to believe the latter is the case.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Yes, but special elections tend to favor the Right due to lower voter turnout,
I’m not sure I understand that statement. Yes, the Right has some more reliable voters (i.e. older voters), but GOV efforts favor the Left because of the density of urban areas. We had our asses kicked in that Northfield special election recently because the DFL with huge union help had an organized and effective GOV in place quickly.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
I’ve been long convinced 90% of the bootlickers that make up rightwingnut bloggers are lapdogs for those that are neither Republican nor conservative, but are indeed the leadership of today’s GreedOverPrinciples party.
Mommy?
Is that you, Mommy?
Don’t lie – if that’s you, tell me.