Thanks to our friends over at NoVA Squishes ... er, Too Conservative ....
You know, I might just have to change that moniker. It doesn't seem those folks are all that squishy, it's just that they seem to: (1) have bought into Sean Connaughton's cult of personality; and (2) possess an entirely immature and wholly personal resentment of yours truly. It's kind of funny, really, when you consider that the carping against me comes from people who hide behind a veil of anonymity, while Jim Riley and Scott Hirons are people whom I can respect and, not coincidentally, don't hide their identities.
Well, anyway, back to the original point (and I do have one). The boys and girl over at TC found this link, with a wonderful little parody of Delegate Jeff Frederick, soon to clean Hilda Barg's clock.
I seem to recall that our friends on the far Left were in high dudgeon over an advertisement run by Jerry Kilgore against Tim Kaine, in which the latter was rendered cartoonish, to reflect his cartoonish commitment to higher taxes and more government spending. Both Waldo and the boys and girls at Raising Kaine complained about that one.
Or was it simply a case of far Lefties opportunistically appealing to objective criteria which are abandoned when inconvenient?
Take a particular look at comment 17 on Waldo's blog. Identifying the foibles of the far Left is a burden, but someone has to do it.
4 comments:
Mitch,
I'm not sure to which hostility you refer. Hostility to you guys? Ehh, maybe a little (mostly jealousy over your number of hits, I suppose). Or hostility to the far Left?
I would ask another question: Why is it so frequent that some belittle criticism as "hostility"? Lack of ability to rebut the criticism, perhaps?
As to the ads, I agree with you, in fact, though my laugh was more for the incompetence that the anti-Frederick piece demonstrated than for its inherent humor. It wasn't all that funny, even to a non-partisan.
James, I'm confused.
I criticized the Kilgore campaign for their insulting ad. (1 Republican.) Then, the next day, I criticized the Weed campaign for their similarly-insulting ad last year. (1 Republican, 1 Democrat.) Then, last night, I criticized the House Democratic Caucus for their nasty anti-Frederick ad, doing so in a line-liner that can only be linked to here awkwardly. (1 Republican, 2 Democrats.)
Then, today, you asked me when I was going to criticize the anti-Frederick ad. I responded three minutes later with a link to my previous evening's criticism.
What do you want, James? Blood?
Blood is not necessary, Waldo. Consistency is. Kudos for your (brief and qualified) criticism of the Frederick ad. I note that you did not go on at length about it as you did with the Kilgore ad, nor concede the factual basis of the Kilgore ad.
As for Weed's campaign last year? Puh-lease! Nothing like talking about it when it's no lnoger relevant.
I note that you did not go on at length about it as you did with the Kilgore ad
What's there to say that I hadn't said? A cut-out is rude. Blah blah blah. There have been three condescending animated ads in Virginia races the past year, and I've criticized all three.
It's OK, you can admit it -- you were wrong. It doesn't make you a bad person. You can't be expected to know everything that I say on my blog; it's a big world out there, and there's a lot to read. I'm OK with that. :)
Post a Comment