Dissent crushed: CO Dem Sen. candidate fires Pat Caddell for speaking truth
Here’s what Democrat tolerance looks like: Via Politico, “progressive” Democrat Senatorial candidate Andrew Romanoff in Colorado has axed veteran political consultant Pat Caddell for calling out the radicalism and brutishness of Big Labor and Big Greens (hat tip: PPC):
Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff’s Senate campaign severed ties with strategist Pat Caddell Tuesday after video surfaced of the longtime Democratic adviser blasting environmentalists and labor, both critical constituencies in Colorado politics.
In a November appearance with conservative policy advocate David Horowitz, Caddell called the SEIU “thugs” and said environmentalists were out to “deconstruct capitalism.”
Hours after a video of the comments was posted on the political website, ColoradoPols.com, the Romanoff campaign announced it had removed Caddell from its campaign team.
“Today a video was posted on ColoradoPols, in which Pat expressed views that were completely at odds with Andrew’s campaign, his career and his commitment to the environment and to Colorado’s working families. Andrew heard those comments for the first time this afternoon and ended Pat’s role in the campaign,” said Romanoff spokesman Dean Toda in a statement.
If more Democrats exhibited half the courage and wisdom Caddell does in assessing the Left’s pathologies, the majority wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in now.
Here’s the video of Caddell saying the things that beholden Democratic politicians can’t say:
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Palin-endorsed Deb Fischer wins Nebraska Senate primary; will face Bob Kerrey in November
May 16, 2012 11:02 AM by Doug Powers
46 Comments
“Sacaja-whiner:” Elizabeth Warren and the Oppression Olympics
May 2, 2012 08:33 AM by Michelle Malkin
348 CommentsEverything you need to know about Occupy in one photo
May 1, 2012 10:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
158 CommentsEPA’s “Crucify them” guy throws himself under the bus
April 30, 2012 12:41 PM by Michelle Malkin
60 CommentsAnarchy 101: How Wisconsin’s Left embraces chaos (promo video)
April 30, 2012 11:34 AM by Michelle Malkin
36 CommentsGrin & Baier it: Debbie Wasserman Schultz tries to explain why the Senate hasn’t passed a budget in 1,091 days
April 25, 2012 04:40 PM by Doug Powers
120 Comments
Conservative consumers: Stand your ground
April 25, 2012 04:22 AM by Michelle Malkin
183 Comments
Pundit & Pundette
» Patterico's chilling account of harassmentNice Deb
» The Organized Left Now Stalking RomneyNRO
» Unleash Biden!NewsBusters.org
» Very Annoyed Matthews Rips ‘Horse’s Ass Right-Wingers’ Who Cite ‘Thrill Up My Leg,’ Calls C-SPAN Host a ‘Jackass’Gay Patriot
» Second term agenda? What second term agenda?
I was pretty sure Pat was going to get fired from his appearances and comments on Beck’s show.
I don’t know what Pat was like back in the day, but he makes a lot of sense now. He doesn’t even seem like a real Demonrat.
Excellent…!!!!
Separate the sheep from the goats…
OPERATION OVER-REACH hits ANOTHER milestone.
Woo-hoo, Pat Cadell! A democrat you can trust. Don’t worry, Pat; you will come out the winner in the end. These people are on a self-destructive path. And it certainly isn’t a path that the American people want.
Bayh supposedly isn’t seeking another term in Indiana because he is tired of dancing to the tune of the Marxists, nuts and thugs.
I don’t think there are enough sensible Demonrats to save that party.
Hence a lot of center-right and even center-left people, the Kirks, McCains and Grahams of the world, who definitely don’t fit there and don’t exactly fit with conservatives either.
I was kind of hoping after 2002 and 2004 that they’d be the ones with talk of a Third Party, with the more sane ones eventually establishing a center-left or even liberal, but patriotic party, and the loons fading to obscurity, but that didn’t happen.
Have I mentioned my theory that McCain and Graham, military vets, would have been Dems in the 50s or even early 1960s, but by the time they entered politics, the Demonrats were established as the anti-military/anti-patriotism party?
Jack Kennedy, Scoop Jackson, Zell Miller, and now Pat Caddell. These type Democrats are no longer welcome in the party.
Sort of a rambling conversation that assigns motive and concludes much, absent supporting references. Mentioned were SDS, ACORN, SEIU and communists. WHOA! SDS? Are they still around and active?
OK, maybe the format was free flowing and there was no time to have footnotes as if it was a paper that was being delivered. I found myself saying, very well finish the thought, and then the conversation went off in another direction. Cardinal Menzetti(sp?), Huh? Where did that come from and where was it going? To Missouri?
The one thing that I did learn was the ‘Discover the Networks’. I am going to check it out, and look for footnotes.
As for dumping someone from your campaign. It happens and sometimes the reasons are valid.
The truth hurts! Progressives can’t stand the truth. We are in this economic pickle because our gov and elected officials buried the truth and now the truth is exposing all the frauds.
Pat Caddell does not need the kind of progressive democrats who have stolen his party. He has come over from the dark side and once you come to the light, you will never go back. He is well rid of those disgusting slugs. If they think that his truth telling is inconsistent with their party values, what does that say about their “values”? They have none. Caddell can now feel free to roam around the country doing what he wants and not being tied to creeps.
Also, I wonder if zzzzyyyyzzzzgggg ever has anything nice to say about right-leaning people. Just wondering…because it seems like he/she becomes more trollish with every post. Now, that is not to say I am trying to engage zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I am definitely not. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz would just turn the thread into some kind of off-topic mess.
always liked Pat even thou he is a democrat. Thunderhawkk, you’ve got it exactly right!!!
If by “active” you mean friend of the Prez, helping him politically and praising “bombings” on 9/11, yes. If you mean girlfriend blowing herself up, then no.
Pat is a true American, although one I seldom agree with.
My dad was the kind of democrat that would have liked both Pat Caddell and Zell Miller. He would have recognized their beliefs and idiology. He would not have recognized the party as it stands today. My mother, being a strong republican, worked her magic on my political education, and yes, they cancelled each other’s votes every election.. My dad re-registered as an independent so that he could vote for Reagan and stayed one until his passing.
As far as CO – running on nothing more than a strong environmental ticket isn’t going to cut the mustard in any upcoming election. States are broke, the entire country is broke. We may have to break a few environmental hearts to put the millions out of work back to work.
Pat is on Glenn Fox show all the time and this man is one I can get behind. He knows what he is talking about, like him or not. If someone ‘dares tell the truth’ they get the boot! The same for Glenn, like him or not.
L
Pat represents what the Democrats were before they were taken over by communists. That’s why he’s no longer welcome, even though they are the most tolerant beings on the planet/sarc.
nice of the candidate to give the GOP one a great ad…. there’s a lot of moderates/independents that might not look to fondly on a candidate who supports thugs and wants to deconstruct capitalism.
Too late.
You wonder needlessly, just ask a question. Unlike many, I will respond.
Absolutely, I have nice things to say about right leaning people. Each morning when I wake up, I look into the mirror and say, ‘Zyzzyg, who are a hunk a hunk of burning love.’
My posts are in response to what MM posts. And, like it or not, as I said, dumping someone from your campaign happens. I commented on the video and on the theme of the post, getting dumped from a campaign.
Why didn’t you either agree, or disagree, with what I said with regard to what MM posted. You gotta stop focusing on the messenger and begin dealing with the message.
Moreover, what did I say so bad about those guys in the video? Did you watch the video in it’s entirety? Did the guys in the video talk about many subjects? Did they provide references (footnotes)? Did I say they were wrong, or did I say that I should check out their arguments by visiting the website they mentioned?
Did I call anyone names or use perjoratives? Who did not say anything nice? Oh yeah, you did. Not me.
No worries, I have no expectation that you will cut and paste my questions and address them one by one. You have established how you conduct yourself and I am OK with it.
Have a nice day.
Agreed.
He’s always sounded reasonable to me.
Maybe I’ve never heard what advice/strategy he has/had given to the socialists in the recent/remote past.
But, from his appearances and discussions that I’ve caught on TV, he has come across as a “
DSINO”.One of our sons said several years ago that yesterday’s
democratsunwitting, duped proto-socialists are today’s Republicans; and, today’sdemocratssocialists are, well…socialists(/communists).Democrats can either heed the words of Pat Cadell or be destroyed, period.
Apologies, VP; the second part of my post above was following up on your post:
One of our sons said several years ago that yesterday’s
democratsunwitting, duped proto-socialists are today’s Republicans; and, today’sdemocratssocialists are, well…socialists(/communists).Neither.
By active, I mean doing the same things they were doing 50 years ago in the 1960′s.
Maybe the Fox network can get Pat to replace Hernando Revolver, O’Reilly’s buddy.
My choice.
Pat Caddell speaks the truth;
So, does that mean Romanoff and his constituency support such things?
Kinda makes me wonder.
Mr. Caddell is better of not being associated with with this guy. Romanoff will probably lose too!
Should have listened to Zell Miller first but you are correct nonetheless.
Don’t think that they wouldn’t like to be doing it.They have their 60′s Woodstock idealist guy in power and believe all the radical things they wanted then will come to fruition.The problem now is instead of the Man getting in the way it is people like the Tea Party group that is determined to stop it.
ZZZZZZ – your obsession with challenging The Boss, Michelle Malkin, is becoming rather twisted. She created this forum for you, me, and others to discuss things. I value it and would hate to see comments suspended. I don’t remember seeing anywhere that she’d answer one specific poster (and that, dear heart, is what you are). I’d highly recommend you start your own website, along with the headaches, and our well wishes are with you. And, no, I don’t need your response because it would lead to nothing further than highjacking another thread.
Excellent Video!!!
On February 17th, 2010 at 6:24 pm, AlohaGuy said:
+1!
So apparently only union families are “working families”, gee thanks Andrew!
I always thought that Romanoff was a decent guy, even though he was a Dem. I guess I was wrong.
Romanoff let everyone in Colorado know, who he will be actually representing, if elected, and it’s not the citizens. If they vote for him, there won’t be any sympathy if the Audi ad comes true in their own communities.
“In a November appearance with conservative policy advocate David Horowitz, Caddell called the SEIU ‘thugs’ and said environmentalists were out to ‘deconstruct capitalism.’”
Dare I say, an inconvenient truth? Heh, heh…
Did you ever wonder why the World Trade Centers were chosen as targets in 1993 and 2001?
They were arguably the most well-recognized symbols of U.S. Capitalism.
9/11/2001 wasn’t just about jihad.
It was also about “deconstructing capitalism“.
Why did the far left attack Bush and claim that he had foreknowledge of 9/11? That’s classic Democratic Socialist projection… You’ve see it a hundred times before… The thing which the far left accuses the right of is the very thing of which they themselves are guilty.
I am not prepared to assign motive to anyone, especially to a group that I do not know is active, or not. Do you know if SDS is active and is doing what they did in the ’60′s?
Really? Are you in contact with the SDS and that they have told you what they are thinking and want? Or, are you speculating and guessing?
Determined to stop what? Stop a group of people who may, or may not, be active from getting what you are speculating and guessing as to what they want?
On February 17th, 2010 at 8:04 pm, Common Sense said:
“Working Families” is Democratic Socialist/Communist code…
Obama -> Working Families Party -> CPUSA
This is a good thing – it means that they’re going to go down in flames and leave a big smoking hole in the ground.
Like most liberals, Romanoff can’t handle the truth.
And zy… you sure seem to be able to rationalize just about anything.
Are you still doing the same things you were doing in the 1960′s?
Ziggy: “Hey, it’s my d!@# and my soap, and I can wash it as fast as I want! Now shut the bathroom door!”
This is good news. It means the leftist idiots still don’t get it and are going to run as far to the left as possible and they are willing to do it in public!
This is good for conservative candidates as the average voter is simply fed up with this left-wing stupidity…
Really? A charge, but no substance. What have I said about MM on this thread that is ‘twisted’? What have I ever said about MM that is ‘twisted’. Cut and paste. Cut and paste. Prove it.
Yes, MM created an open forum for discussion, and I wouldn’t like to see comments suspended either. We agree.
Though I have to say that is a curious statement, knowing that MM has established a ‘terms of use’. Are you contemplating violating MM’s ‘terms of use’?
Yes, I am a poster as you are, and MM has responded to input from posters when they have noticed something awry. MM has responded on several ocassions. You could have missed them.
Thank you for your recommendation. No.
You opened the door, I did not. I will always respond when taken to task.
Who really is highjacking this thread? You raised several issues that have nothing to do with the topic of this thread. My initial comments spoke directly to the video and dumping a campaign advisor. Yet, you’re taking me to task about highjacking the thread when you did not address what I said about the topic of the thread, and went on about everything but?
Shaking my head.
Nice try. Speak to the message, either agree or disagree, but don’t bother with the messenger becuase you are embarrassing yourself.
Whatever do you mean?
Be specific. Otherwise it is just another charge without substance.
No.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
It never ceases to amaze me how wiggy ziggy is so consistently obtuse and illogical.
Everybody sees it but wiggy ziggy. And because s/he doesn’t see it the problem is with our “reading comprehension.” In a peculiar fashion it is mildly amusing.
WE82 – I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of Zippy ZG. Here he makes a consise, honest and accurate statement exemplifying the entire range of his prodigious pontification on this site.
Agreed and well said ZZZZZyaaaaawn.
Why do you bother referencing me in your posts? You know that I do not take you seriously.
Yep, another charge without substantiation. No facts to back it up. No cutting and pasting, and absolutely no deconstruction of my arguments or opinions.
This is why I do not take you seriously.
Every body sees it, but you are incapable of demonstrating it. I am not challenging your reading comprehension this time, albeit extremely questionable. I am challenging you to prove your assertions.
If everybody sees it, as you suggest, then it should be easy for you to lay it out in a systematic inescapably logical fashion.
Go ahead. Seriously.
Pat Caddell is one Democrat I can identify with. He’s uncharacteristically honest and he knows who the true enemy is.
*With comments like that, Pat Caddell couldn’t possibly work for John McCain; Oh no, we must remain civil and conceal the truth!; As I have stated many times, the Democrat Party is the “Death to America” Party; They have been way better than Al Quaeda at bringing this country down a notch; That will cease in November!
1,648,923rd reason not to feed the trolls. They should be ignored…not heard.
Pat is actually what Democrats were like a few decades ago. In many ways, Pat is like what Clinton ‘triangulated’ himself into.
Unfortunatly, the socialists have overrun the traditional Democrats and cannot connect with the American people. Remember when Obama that laughingly mocked people during the campaign for thinking he might be ‘too socialistic’?
Obama knew then that the people would not support his true ideas for long.
That may be what you thought, but that’s not the point of the post. You draw attention away from the point of the post into your own musings about the performance of Caddell’s talk. So what? The post is about what Caddell’s CLIENT thought of what he said, which was obviously well said enough to cause him to get fired.
1: Caddell was fired IMMEDIATELY for saying something that his client did not wish to be associated with.
2: The CLIENT interpreted that something as being against “working families” and the environmental movement. There was nothing said about it being “rambling” or about how it was delivered at all.
3: MM views what Caddell said as actually truthful.
4: MM views the firing of Caddell therefore as evidence of liberal inability to handle the truth since rather than engage what was said, the move was made to immediately fire him.
So, as to your comments just quoted immediately above, do you have any thoughts on whether the reasons THIS MAN WAS dumped valid or not, based on the video tape of his comments and the subsequent reaction of the campaign?
As to the rest of your statement, you are simply stating the obvious. Of course people get canned from a campaign on occasion for valid reasons. MM is not remarking on that general fact. The point is, what about THIS situation?
MM is not posting because it is noteworthy that someone, somewhere was dumped from a campaign, she’s noting that this person was fired for having a less favorable view of constituencies that his client is politically beholden to.
This is why it seems to many, like me, that you’re not on the level with your comments. You seem to try and make situations that MM points out as noteworthy seem nondescript and routine, as if she’s making a big deal out of nothing, but then you yourself do nothing but spout generalities and don’t engage the specifics of the situation.
You’ve commented on Caddell’s rambling performance and then concluded with stating the obvious that people sometimes get fired from a campaign. Ok, but this post by MM was not about the general fact of folks being sometimes dumped from a campaign, but about THIS PARTICULAR PERSON BEING FIRED AFTER MAKING SPECIFIC comments his client found objectionable–something you have yet to say anything substantive about.
A must-see pictoral case study of that SEIU slogan:
An interesting and thoughful post.
I shared my thoughts, opinions and ‘musings’ on the take away that I got from MM’s post. I did not address what you thought was noteworthy, however I stand by what I said.
Now will you do the same for the many other posters who did not comment as you suggested? By not addressing the specifics of MM’s post?
Take the poster to task who mentioned Glenn Beck. MM made no reference to him.
Take the poster to task who spoke of sheep and goats. Was that noteworthy? Was that specific to what MM posted?
Take the poster to task who mentioned Sens Bayh, Kirk, Graham, and McCain. MM did not address them in her post either.
Or maybe, take the poster to task who called me out before I even posted to this thread. How non-specific was that to what MM had to say?
Did every poster speak to the what MM posted, or did a few of them go off on tangents?
You may not realize it but, we all have different ways of veiwing and responding to the same thing. I have no expectation that the comments to MM’s blog would be monolithic in nature and equally noteworthy and specific. Do you?
Are you prepared to be the least bit consistent and take every poster to task for not more directly addressing what MM has posted?
I would not have fired him, or anyone, for the comments alone. I would have talked to the him, and anyone, first.
The question is overly broad, and I addressed what my take away was from the post. Please be more specific.
Know this –
I rarely take any poster to task for their comments, opinions, ‘musings’ or take aways, in their response to what MM posts. However, when I am taken to task I will respond. Should you not like what I say, how I say it, or whether I am specific enough for you, you don’t have to comment on it.
But, when you do not like what someone says, how they say it, or that it is not specific enough for you, in their opinions, comments, ‘musings’ and take aways from what MM posts, I would hope that you would be consistent and take them all to task, as well.
Are you consistent?
Go ahead, be consistent and take all the posters to task who have not commented on the specifics of what MM posted.
I’ll wait.
Follow the link, read post #8 which is in response to post #2.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/29/violent-felon-granted-clemency-by-huckabee-now-sought-in-lakewood-wa-police-ambush/comment-page-1/#comments
It is only one example, but as I suggested there are more.
Hopefully for a very long time.
Yes and all too often quite prominent is academia and government.
I am inclined to agree with you.
Major O, like many other posters, rarely respond to direct questions, and explain themselves.
We may never know if the poster is consistent.
Horowitz has been my hero for years. It has always amazed me that it has taken so long for his message to get out to the public. This is a good example of how the media can suppress thought. I agree that this is the awakening. Amazing that the left claimed the internet, but now the right has broken the wall of suppression using the left’s tools…. the internet and community organizing. I will be on a conference call tonight with my tea party organizers. We are in constant contact through the internet.
When they start to eat their own it’s great news.
Caddell’s experience demonstrates what happens in today’s donkey party when you have the temerity to say, “Hey – the Emperor has no clothes!” Instead of people coming out of the trance, it’s the truthful observer who gets attacked.
Political correctness produces Shibboleths, perpetuated by true believers to whom questioning orthodoxy is the same as attacking it.
Caddell joins the ever-lengthening list of former (or soon-to-be former} donks who didn’t leave the party, but were left behind by it.
I’m sorry, it appears my humor missed the mark again. I was attempting to point out on whether or not you still engaged in masturbatorial excersizes, literally or figuratively, then and now.
Judging by the many replies to your posts, I think we know the answer to that.
See, the truth will set you free.
ZY…
I was referring to this. It seems that unless you witnessed the firing and interviewed the parties involved, you leave open your conclusions. This particular issue seems pretty cut and dry. He espoused some opinions that his boss didn’t like and he got the boot.
I notice that you tend to give those on the left “the benefit of a doubt” quite often, or perhaps always.
And I’m simply making an observation based on what I recall from your posts. The theme is very often “well, we don’t know for sure what he/she was thinking and there are no facts to refer to…”.
You don’t have to agree with me. I’m just making an observation.
I dont think it would take a very big step for Pat to become a conservative. He’s a smart guy. Where there’s life there’s hope.
After Pat’s comments on Beck I knew he wasnt going to be welcome in democrat circles for very long.
Zell Miller and Pat Caddell are both old school democrats who have been left behind by the socialist/communist democrat party of today. Democrats have moved the center of the political spectrum so far left over the last 50 years, with the help of rinos like juan mccain that people like pat caddell are right wing, and people like Lieberman are too right wing for their party. This is why lefty republicans like mccain are “right wing ideologues” and Beck etc are “extremists and hate mongers” In all the bipartisanship of the rinos over the last 25 years, did Fiengold, Kennedy, Schumer, or Pelosi ever support a key republican agenda bill like Mccain Feingold, or Kennedy Mccain, or anything to do with republican issues?
You went over the line.
Ummmm, OK. So, am I rationalizing cut and dried facts? Rationalizing suggests some sort of spin.
Nope. My posts are in response to what MM posts. The majority of the time she takes the left to task. My comments rarely dispute the facts and more often addresses the presentation. There are other variations to my comments and I try to make that clear when I do so.
Hence, it only appears that I give the benefit of the doubt to certain groups.
Carefully re-read my initial post in this thread. Did I disagree with the facts? Did I beat up on Cadell for his going off the Democrat reservation? Did I say I am commenting on the video?
Observations are a good thing. Though they can become clouded. I think we are all better served by remaining focused on the statements made in each single thread. There are entirely too many threads and too many comments of mine to draw a single narrative. There have been comments that I have made that have been agreed, and disagreed, with.
Have you observed that I have rarely take another poster to task for their initial comments and opinions, and only respond when they have taken me to task?
You see, I respect each poster’s opinion to what MM posts, and challenging it does nothing for me. I am not going to get my shorts in a bunch over what someone else says in response to MM, but I will address those who take me to task.
Fair enough. But, when you, or anyone, says something that I agree with, I will say so, and hope that you, or anyone, will do the same.
Have you observed me taking to task the initial post from anyone?
You are refering to your post #38
I apologize, my humor is not to everyone’s taste, and not the first time I have been reminded, and most assuredly, not the last.
So Major O proves you wrong by stating what many of us were thinking, and you criticize him for not deciding to prove other commenters wrong?
Major O has the right to pick and choose whom he proves wrong.
In the future, you might want to avoid the embarrassment by using a bit of logic in your comments.
For example, if MM builds a case that person A fired person B for a specific reason, then you might want to address the merits of her case. It damages your credibility to simply state that people get fired all the time, therefore the reason must be unknown.
Yes. And the reason they dumped him was because of his comments in the video. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Cadell has been truth telling on Beck since mid last year. Kind of makes you wonder how out-of-touch Romanoff and his campaign really are if this is the first time they have ever heard Pat’s thoughts on the way the Democrat party has been hijacked over the years.
No worries.
Rogue…I get! I love it! Keep em cumming.
I mean coming.
I should have mentioned this earlier…
Did you note what was said in the video about the Annenberg Foundation?
Remember that Bill Ayers and Barack Obama served together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
Also remember that the only people to vouch for the “authenticity” of the hard copy COLB for Obama were from…
Annenberg Political Fact Check.
The Hawaii Department of Health has never verified the authenticity of that COLB.
The Hawaii Department of Health has never verified the data on that COLB, other than saying “Obama was born in Hawaii”… but they only said that AFTER the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution saying “Obama was born in Hawaii”.
It’s anyone’s guess where you get the idea that I “rarely respond” to direct questions. It might have just a bit to do with that crazy concept of, you know, HAVING A JOB AND NOT BEING ON MM.COM ALL DAY.
But the reason I didn’t “take everyone to task” as you put it is because YOU specifically challenged folks to explain why you are viewed as a troll. I see one mistake in what I said.
What I mistakenly forgot to add was that the example you provide in your behavior on this post can be replicated across many many posts where you do the very same thing: you seem to be trying to make light or trivialize a point made against someone on the left. Do you do it all the time? I don’t think so and I’ve certainly seen you agree with situations that are absolutely beyond denial. But when there is ever a shadow of a doubt you tend to take this meandering, wandering, generalizing approach that leaves MANY of us scratching our heads.
Case in point, saying things like “people get dumped from campaigns all the time”. Well, not to be unduly harsh but, NO DUH! What’s your point?
I see the same thing at other times with other left-leaning posters here who are faced with undeniable wrongdoing by their party, but then will steer the conversation into an argument about some legal nicety that doesn’t overthrow the overall point. It’s the political version of the “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” debate. It just comes off like a distraction meant to defang or blunt the edge of MM’s criticism.
Take the poster to task who spoke of sheep and goats. Was that noteworthy? Was that specific to what MM posted?
Or maybe, take the poster to task who called me out before I even posted to this thread. How non-specific was that to what MM had to say?
Did every poster speak to the what MM posted, or did a few of them go off on tangents?
You may not realize it but, we all have different ways of veiwing and responding to the same thing. I have no expectation that the comments to MM’s blog would be monolithic in nature and equally noteworthy and specific. Do you?
Are you prepared to be the least bit consistent and take every poster to task for not more directly addressing what MM has posted?
Are you consistent?
Ummmmm, those are unanaswered direct questions that you have not responded to.
From you.
See how easy it is to resp[ond to a direct question and/or statement.
OK, then when you do post, respond directly. There is no time limit that you have to respond in.
No. I do not recall asking for an explanation, however I do recall asking for a definition. Just one mistake? [OK, that was sarcasm.]
Yes, I detailed how I approach posting. You don’t like it. So what? Again, tell everyone that you do not like how they post. Be consistent.
Yes, I have a style, and I do it all the time. I am not a bomb thrower and am reluctant to call people names. Sometimes I feel that I am pushed and have responded with invectives.
Scratching your head is an indication of a lack of comprehension. If you are confused, and require more detail, ask a question. [Not sarcasm, seriously ask a question.]
The words speak for themselves. It is one of those ‘situations that are absolutely beyond denial.’
OK. Why should I be concerned about what other posters are writing? I’ve already told you that what and how other posters say in response to what MM posts, is a non issue for me.
I get it. You don’t like what and how what others say in response to what MM posts. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, as am I. You and other posters can write whatever the heck you want, as can I.
I don’t take others to task, but you are welcome to take me to task, but know that I will respond.
Posters are not monolithic and each has their own way of doing things. Why do you have a problem with that?
The answer is, ‘one for each of us’.
Like I’ve said, you have your take, I have mine, and others have theirs.
Ummmm, are you going to address the unanswered questions from the previous post? There is no time limit. I’ll wait.
Why are you directing command statements to Major O? Why do you believe you can control Major O’s comments?
Congratulations. I think you’ve accurately diagnosed the issue. Major O has a problem with the fact that posters are not monolithic and have their own way of doing things.
Corkie, apparently thinks that if he makes some mindless command, the “major” in me will leap to obey? I have less than zero respect for his imagined authority so that’s not an issue.
You can keep on waiting, buddy, because I’m not beholden to answer you jack squat, especially as to your inane questions.
People that watch this blog know your standard MO: you comment in threads with a bent to always trying to equalize blame or deny culpability, most often when it is a Dem in the hotseat. You then often post interminably long responses and then say, “Respond to that”!” and the respondent’s unwillingness to get dragged into your mindlessness by meekly answering your demands for “answers” is supposed evidence of some sort of problem with them. Hang that garbage.
Just as you’ve done with MM’s post, you fail (on purpose?) to understand what I plainly said. Not once did I imply or explictly say that “every poster should be monolithic” in their responses. My point was you asked why conservatives here have a problem with your responses (this being a case in point). I pointed out as an examply how you sidestepped the point of MM’s post and in the course of it seemed as if you were trying to make light or blunt her criticism. It is something YOU ROUTINELY DO and that’s why I’m not alone in commenting on it. Don’t just take my word for it: think about how many posts a day you get slammed by several others for being “Mr./Mrs. Beside the Point” or a “troll.” There’s a reason for it.
It seems as if you pride yourself on being “logical” and rational, and yet when given a careful, reasoned explanation of why you appear to many of us as you do, you go on a tear about “why I’m not commenting on other posters’ behavior.” Well, let’s start with a basic: THEY DIDN’T ASK WHY THEY ARE VIEWED AS TROLLS–YOU DID! Is that plain enough? So when someone takes you up on your complaint, your answer is to then say, “Well what about others?”
Look, you asked for proof of why many on here view you as a troll and I gave you plenty to chew on. And your continued meandering in this specific part of the thread confirms me and (I’m guessing) others in our impression of what you’re about here.
On February 19th, 2010 at 2:08 pm, Major O said: #81
No. Not a command. It was a question. Moreover that poster cut and pasted a redacted version of my words taking them out of context. I imagine nothing. I am a literalist.
From your post #78
It’s anyone’s guess where you get the idea that I “rarely respond” to direct questions.
My response in post #79 is obviously correct. Answer questions, don’t answer questions, no skin of of my nose. But, don’t imply that you are fully engaged and respond directly to questions specifically ask of you.
I’ve demonstrated that you do not respond to direct questions, and now you have admitted that you don’t.
Yes, I have already said that I have a style. So what? Do you have a style? The reality is MM’s blog often puts a Dem in the hot seat. On the rare occaission that a Rep is in the hotseat, my approach has not changed.
Nope. My initial posts are often brief. My responses to people who take me to task are often long. Don’t tale me to task, and I wll not respond.
Good grief. You are doing it. How long was my original post in this thread? And, how was your post taking me to task over it? 12 lines versus 38 lines, respectively. You taking me to task over my original post is three times longer.
Yep, you asked me questions, and I answered them. Then, I asked you questions and you ignored them.
Not demands. Questions. And yes, I am troubled when I answer someone elses questions, and they do not answer mine. Yes, it makes me curious if they have a problem.
Nope. I asked you what your expectations were. It was a question. I first address this in post #53 and then reprinted the same question in post #79. It is good that you ar finally getting around to addressing it. See, I waited and it proved fruitful.
Very well, now that you agree that posters do not have to be monolithic, why take issue with their style, or what their take away is from what MM posts?
[Not a demand. A question.]
Nope. Never asked that question. The closest I have come is to asking you directly why do you have a problem with what I post in response to what MM posts. It is my opinion, my thoughts, my ‘musings’ and my takeaway. Since there is nothing monolithic about how posters should approach postings in response to what MM says, why continue to discuss the poster’s style?
For crying out loud. It is my style and approach. It is my opinion, my takeaway, and my ‘musings’. I don’t call people names or sling invectives. Approaches to posting is not monolithic.
It is not about me. It is not about you. It is about the post. It is about the message, not the messenger. MM posts a message and we all respond to that message with our own non-monolithic opinions, ‘musings’ and take aways.
Yes, people have taken issue with me and have ignored the message. This says more about them than it does about me.
Prove it. Cut and paste where I asked that question? I addressed this in post #79.
Prove it. Is that plain enough?
Nope. I addressed whatever had been said, and now want to know if that person’s position is consistent. And, I have learned that person is not consistent. Are we talking about you?
Moreover, it is called a follow-up. It is not a diversion or a tangent. I addressed and answered the complaint, and then . . . I asked, if that complaint is lodged against everyone whose approach to posting they do not like.
Again, I have never asked that question. Prove that I have, Cut and paste where I have asked that question. If (and I know you can’t) you can’t stop making that assertion.
I am only mildly concerned about your view view of the messenger, and am far more concerned with your (or anyone’s) view of the message.
It is weak and entirely too easy to insult the messenger, when you (global) can not deal with the message.
One more time – It is not about me. It is not about you. It is about the message. IMHO.
When I am called names and insulted, when my approach is taken to task, it is done at the expense of addressing the message. And that means the message has hit a nerve and in all likelihood is right.
I look forward to more discussions with you. Though we should avoid repeating ourselves, do you agree?
Wow! I came on this thread and tried to read some of the posts and all I got was another zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz hijacking. This time, it was WAY over the top. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, for the love of God, please stop!! Go back and re-read your argumentative, rambling, totally off topic and off putting posts. If you actually think you are not obsessive/compulsive, you are deluding yourself. These threads are not all about you! So get over yourself! And everyone else, PLEASE IGNORE THIS TROLL. He takes up way too much valuable space on these blogs and accomplishes nothing! Sorry I wasted my time, but I actually thought there would be something on this thread to enjoy or enlighten. I was wrong.
You have got to be kidding.
I made one post and a few people freak out taking me to task over my comments. My comments were in response to what MM posted. My opinion and my thoughts and my take away on what she posted. If you don’t like them, fine. You don’t have to comment, do you? Then why do you?
And, I have only responded to those who challenged me. What am I supposed to do? Not defend myself? I am asked questions and I answer those questions.
Have I taken anyone who posted a comment to task? No.
Have I challenged anyone’s comments to what MM posted? No.
I have highjacked nothing. Others have gone on about how I post and what they think of me posting. I did not raise that issue, they did.
Yes, go ahead and ignore me. Though should you take me to task, know that I will respond.
And, now you are doing it. Don’t comment about what I post, and you will not have to worry about me responding to it. For the love of god don’t take me to task over my comments or insult me for making them, and I will have nothing more to say.
Do you understand?
Actually, don’t answer the questions, your silence will speak for itself. My only hope and expectation is that you take your own advice and ignore me.
You just proved my point. Case closed.
No. You proved my point.
You were supposed to ignore me, and you can’t.
Yes, hopefully the case will be closed and you will never comment on what I have to say.
Andrew Romanoff is a better looking verson of Rham Immanuel. The libdems in Colorado like him because he is ruthless. He is also humorless. I’m surprised he hired Caddell to begin with.
Caddell’s views were out there in the media long before now and Romanoff had to know his views – and probably agrees with them. Caddell just got too provocative for Romanoff to defend him. But what honest consultant could fail to advise his client regarding deconstructionist Marxist kooks such as those Romanoff is courting? Truth is truth.
Ironic that he has the surname of the last Tsar.