|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
From: microbank
Subject: more on 'The GOP says thanks"
Bart,
The first point of my email was that we're currently
in the primary race, NOT the general election.
You chose not to respond to that point at all
so I thank you for your tacit admission (a la Colbert )
It's because I'm afraid - just kidding.
The season we're in changes nothing.
Attacking Hillary with "That
wench is evil" helps them when it counts.
As to Hillary leading in the race, it looks like
you're using a circular argument. I suggested that the basis
you offer for your support is that, according
to polls, she's 20 points ahead. That information is obtained
from a mainstream media that lives to serve the
neo-con agenda, though, so how do you know?
She's 20 points ahead in almost every national
poll.
If we take "the whore press" too far, we never
landed on the moon.
I'm saying the whore press can't be trusted -
completely.
You replied:
>I don't think she'll win because I was told
that by somebody.
>I believe in science, math and logic.
>She's ahead by 20 points "
What's your source? Are you suggesting that
when it comes to the primaries, suddenly the media (and Gallup, et al)
is honest and NOT working in the best interests
of the GOP? Are you suggesting that the GOP wouldn't try to
shape the race by influencing who gets the Dem
nomination?
I think I answered that, but you couldn't know
till now.
I think HRC is their only lose-for-sure, so why
would the MSM push her?
You wrote:
>Your position seems to be "all the polls
are lying."
>How do you defend that? "
Fortunately, I don't have to defend that position
because it's not my position.
It would be illogical to speak to "all polls"
Picky, picky, picky.
She's so far ahead, we don't even know who #2
is.
If you're point is, "Maybe she's not the front-runner,"
good luck to ya.
However, several of your readers have written
to point out that (admittedly informal) polls conducted by sites
that cater to the "lefties" (that is, not working
for the GOP) regularly show Hillary losing to other candidates.
You dismiss them outright in favor of information
obtained from some other (as yet unnamed) source.
As you said, "I'm sorry things aren't working
out more to your liking, but it's illogical to ignore the facts "
Damn, I should hire you.
Kos showed her at 1 percent because Kos runs
rigged polls.
He hides behind "I
didn't say it - they did," but
c'mon.
Our front-runner can't beat
"I don't know" at Kos?
Who buys that?
Irony: When she gets sworn in - you watch - she'll save a seat for Kos but not me.
You wrote:
>If someone wants to attack Hillary on the
facts nobody can stop that, but
>"Hilary is not even a Democrat.
>Bill Clinton's greed was classic GOP.
>First Wench"
is just horseshit - why do you fail to grasp
the difference? "
I never said any of those things. Why would
you ascribe them to me
and what makes you think I "fail to grasp the
difference?"
Because that's what you responded to.
I said, "Personal attacks against our front-runner
hurt us"
and you chimed in to tell me how wrong I was.
Again, thanks for your time
macrobank
As always, I enjoyed the tangle.
I hope I was polite in battle.
Send e-mail
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog