« Public Service Announcement | Main | Transparent Fools »
September 01, 2004
Fafblog! is better than yours
For some solid bi-partisan blogging from the RNC, Giblets and Fafnir over at Fafblog! are doing a tremendous job. That week at the beach seems to have done them some good.
The Medium Lobster seems to be staying above the fray for now, as befits his humongous intellect. Hopefully it will chime in at some point.
Posted by Half-Cocked at September 1, 2004 11:57 PM
Comments
"Bi-partisan" anything simply reinforces the false choice between only two candidates. Vote Nader!
Posted by: Kevin at September 2, 2004 09:44 AM
Kev, did you bother to click through before posting your idiocy. And anyway, voting for Nader is voting for one of the two candidates, esp. since all his money comes from GOP donors.
Posted by: Steve at September 2, 2004 11:34 AM
that liddy dole post is the bestest:
[quote]
Giblets does not spend much time on Republican women other than to respond to the eternal query, "Which of the Bush twins is the hottest?" (Obvious answer: Barbara.) But one has lit a flame in my Gibletsian heart. Yes, the flame of Liddy Dole, whose spastic, stream-of-consciousness appeals from one right-wing cause celebre to another have melted Giblets's iron heart! Who else could effortlessly segue from anti-abortion rhetoric to gay-bashing in a single sentence? Who else could claim the invocation of Christ on the penny as an inalienable human right? Giblets was hopin' she'd top it off by dropping her pants, mooning the cameras an sayin "Fuck you, religious minorities! America is Jesusland!" but she obviously chose to close more subtlely and let Laura Bush take the glory.
[/quote]
Posted by: julee at September 2, 2004 01:08 PM
Bad argument, Steve. The Democrats and Republicans have nearly identical financial backers too. I don't care where the money comes from. A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush -- they would have done the exact same things (only differently, somehow, which nobody has bothered to explain).
So ... yeah.
Plus, you forgot to add in the "Kevin gets to make Dan Friedman upset by voting for Ralph" factor. Bottom line: I get more utils out of a Nader vote.
Posted by: Kevin at September 2, 2004 02:00 PM
If you can handle the truth, read this.
Posted by: Kevin at September 2, 2004 02:10 PM
Actually, Kev, if you take a look at the numbers at opensecrets.org, there's a big difference in financial backing. However, I can guarantee the extreme right-wing organization that was paying for Nader's petition drive in Oregon hasn't given any money to support Kerry. If Nader is such the pillar of integrity that he tries to make himself out to be, he wouldn't be taking that money since they stand for everything he's against.
Anyway, there's a big, big difference between Kerry and Bush just like there was a big difference between Gore and Bush four years ago. You can go ahead and keep spouting the "there's no difference between the parties" line if it'll make you feel better. If you're going to vote 3rd party at least vote for a legitimate one like the Libertarians. Badnarik might be a nut, but at least he's a sincere nut.
Posted by: Steve at September 2, 2004 02:17 PM
There are quite a few factual errors in your little zmag article. I'll fisk it by email since there's quite a bit of it to do and I don't want to keep typing in these little boxes.
Posted by: Steve at September 2, 2004 02:21 PM
Seriously, man. The difference in major financial backers is really just a difference in percentages -- and not a great difference at that. Of the top 100 donors, only five gave exclusively to one party (Communications Workers of America, Emily's List, United Steelworkers, Amway Corp., and the National Committed for an Effective Congress). Of the remaining 96 top donors, 47 gave significant amounts to both parties (i.e. no greater difference than 67% and 33% split). Yes, certain groups donate to one and not the other, but not where it really matters.
I would vote for the Libs, but they've become too goofy. I'd give 'em a shot if they nominated James Bovard.
You keep tellin' yourself that Kerry is different than Bush, and maybe that will comfort you when Kerry wages the next unjust and illegal war whilst stomping willy nilly over your civil liberties ... Just like Clinton.
Posted by: Kevin at September 2, 2004 05:03 PM
Kevin. I understand the rhetorical attractiveness of what you are saying, but after law school, you must know it isn't true. More kids will have access to health care under President John Kerry. There is a better policy of energy independence (making unjust Middle East wars slightly less likely in the long term). Our society is structured in a way that gives preference to the rich and the elite. That doesn't make your vote for Nader a vote for change. It may very well mean real, negative consequences for some of the poorest and most vulnerable among us. Maybe working for only those that can pay is making you forget about people who can't afford to hire a lawyer.
Posted by: Eric H at September 2, 2004 07:46 PM