I just love it when the AP News does a reality check and basically makes the right wing noise machine look even more stupid, than they already are. Once again, the right noise machine tried to make Barack Obama look bad and failed.
It really doesn’t surprise me that the Republicans are going this route in this election. If I were scared to death that my party was going to be nuked into extinction in the 2008 election, I would be quite the testy person myself.
Edward Morrissey asks if the wheels are coming off of Obama’s Campaign. I very highly doubt that. Coming off the GOP’s wagon, quite possibly. I mean, why else would the GOP have their hit men, like Ann Coulter, make broadside smear comments about Edwards? Hey, don’t look at me like that, I’ve heard my share of Republicans say that Ann Coulter has balls.
Oh and by the way, I’m a new writer around here. If you’ve not already noticed, I’m a progressive. Hey, someone has to be the alternative voice around here opposite the likes of Ann Coulter and Michael Savage and the rest of those brain dead Republicans, right? It might as well be me. I just happen to be the cheapest and possibly the most naive person that Blogcritics could find. Nice to meet you too.
So do you want to know what I really think?
I think that before this protracted primary season is all over with, and the General election finally starts, Edwards will be labeled a closet homosexual, Hillary a lesbian, and Obama an Uncle Tom. If this article offended you, I’ve done my job. If this article made you laugh, I’ve really done my job. If it both offended you and made you laugh, you need to see a doctor.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glen Boyd
Nice article Chuck. And welcome to Blogcritics. So speaking of balls, and not Ms. Coulter's--I have to commend you on your own cajones for coming in here as a new writer and jumping right into the shark pool that is our politics section.
Hopefully, Nalle, Bambanek, Clavos and all the rest of those nasty conservatives won't chew you up too badly here. Basically they're decent guys-- for Republicans anyway. Just very sharp-tongued at times.
So watch yer step. And guys, go easy on the newbie okay...
-Glen
2 - Chuck Adkins
You're Welcome, I think. *gulp*
3 - Dave Nalle
Chuck, interesting thoughts, but on the whole it doesn't make much sense. Why would the republicans be wasting so much effort now on individual democratic candidates when they can go after the whole party on their failure to back the Iraq strategy and then focus on whoever ends up getting nominated next year?
Dave
4 - Chuck Adkins
strategy? You mean the strategy of this so called War that was based upon lies and cherry picked Intellegence? A war that was never authorized by the U.N.?
You mean that strategy?
-Chuck
5 - Glen Boyd
Let the games begin...
6 - RJ
"the right noise machine tried to make Barack Obama look bad and failed."
No, I think Barack Hussein Obama is doing a nice enough job of making himself look like a fool. He really doesn't need any help, at this point.
"Retreat from Iraq!" "Invade Pakistan!" "Give White House invites to Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Bashar al-Assad!" "Never use nukes!" "Well, maybe use nukes...I'm not tellin'!" "Our military personnel in Afghanistan are slaughtering innocent civilians!" "Afghanistan is the legitimate war!"
Well, at least he didn't invoke Genghis Khan...yet...
7 - Dave Nalle
Well Chuck, your article did a good job of creating the impression you were capable of at least trying to think about complex subjects. Comment #4 is such a knee-jerk, packaged reaction that I guess I overestimated you. Sorry to have wasted my time.
Dave
8 - Christopher Rose
Dave, now if only you were also not programmed by your own little set of knee-jerk, packaged reactions. I know you think you're not, but that's just part of your programming.
9 - bliffle
Nice debut, Chuck. You must have made a good point since you've apparently offended the fragile sensibilities of our most delicate political editor.
10 - Chuck Adkins
The problem with most right wingers, is they've got thier heads buryied so far up their asses, that they cannot see reality. I made my point and it's being exposed, But I can see that I am really not wanted here. this is why it took a whole 24 hours for my article to be approved. So, I think I'll just refrain from submitting articles on this Blog. It's been fun, it's been real, but, it ain't been real fun.
Ciao!
-Chuck
11 - Christopher Rose
Chuck, you are getting your knickers in a twist about nothing.
Firstly, all articles, even those written by the site owners, are edited by somebody. This is done simply to maintain a decent standard of writing and is one of the reasons this site has a much higher profile than many others that were spawned in the blogosphere.
All the editors are volunteers not employees, so sometimes it can take a little while to get stuff published, particularly if there are any writing-related wrinkles or queries. This is a source of frustration to everybody, both writers and editors, but it just goes with the territory.
It is completely wrong to say that you are not wanted here because Blogcritics is proud to be a broad church or big tent that does not toe any line about anything except writing standards.
On the other hand, there are people on the site who have fairly partisan views and nobody, again including the site owners, is going to get a free pass about anything.
Maybe you're simply not used to having to defend your perspective; if that is the case and you can't take the heat, then this site is certainly not your kitchen...
12 - Chuck Adkins
Chris,
It's obvious, you are a professional Liar, Just like th rest of the Republicans...
Good day!
13 - Ray Ellis
What the hell did you expect, Chuck? Did you really believe everyone was going to worship at your altar?
I've read your ~ahem~ article several times, and I still have no idea what you're trying to convey. Are you the Anti-Ann?-- spewing, but saying nothing?You defined yourself as "progressive" but you failed to define one single view you hold.
For the record, Chris is not a professional liar--he hasn't even achieved apprentice level.
You'd do well to realize that not everybody who calls you on anything is not necessarily a republican. Some of us merely have little patence for thin-skinned reactionaries.
14 - Nancy
Pity you're quitting so soon, Chuck. I enjoyed the article, & admired your guts in tossing out the glove for combat. But to be a blogger here you kind of have to have some sort of staying power & stamina instead of just taking your toys & going home the first time you think you've been snubbed.
Chris isn't a GOP, FYI. Nor is he a liar that I know of - & I've been haunting this website for 2+ years now. And you've only met Nalle, one of the most benign of our conservative commentators. Haven't even come up against Arch, BD, Lumpy, or RJ, let alone MR who's in a class by herself.
Do give it a little more time than this, Chuck.
15 - Nancy
Ray is spot-on in this: not everybody who will savage you is going to be GOP. I've been known to chew a few Lefties myself from time to time. The nice thing about BC is that most of the commentators are equal-opportunity political savagers of both sides.
16 - troll
(oh good...another pointlessly partisan player)
Chas - get your own head out of ... the sand and look around: both parties are participants in this run away federal government
do you believe that a democrat controlled executive is going to support a roll back of the patriot act or relinquish newly established executive controls over habeas corpus and posse comitatus...and spy satellites - ?
17 - Christopher Rose
Chucky, not only am I neither a professional liar nor a Republican, I'm not even an American. I can actually lie quite well when I want to but I prefer to tell the truth, it makes life more interesting and cuts out a lot of bullshit.
However, it seems you are indeed out of your depth on this site and probably should pack it in. You might be a "progressive" and even a "populist", but you're apparently too fragile a flower to flourish in the bright light of Blogcritics. What a shame.
18 - Dr Dreadful
Juts took a peek at Chuck's blog. Very eye-opening, especially his personal bio. The fact that he's an ex-fundamentalist Christian, among other things, may go some way to explaining why he's so thin-skinned.
He reckons that he may post on BC again but would disable comments... Er, correct me if I'm wrong, Chris, but that wouldn't be his decision to make, right?
19 - Nancy
Disable comments? Then why bother posting on a BLOG site, fer chrissakes? That's the whole point of blogsites, after all. Yeah, I agree, Chris ... perhaps better he stay where it's sheltered & warm & he doesn't hear things inimical to his ego. God knows he won't get that kind of consideration here from any of us, of any persuasion-!
20 - Matthew T. Sussman
Jesus, it took me longer to read the bio. Enjoy your pigeonhole, Chuck.
21 - Ray Ellis
Dr. D--I wasn't going to mention his blog, so as not to inadvertently send traffic his way. But did you notice the bit about how BC "asked" him to contribute?
22 - Nancy
Eric must be laughing his ass off.
23 - Dr Dreadful
I did see that. I'm sure Eric did ask him to contribute... after Chuck had sent him the exploratory e-mail, as specified in the guidelines post entitled "Are You a Blogcritic?"
Still waiting to hear back from E.O. re my own request for BC writerhood. Don't worry: if accepted, I will entertain all manner of interesting and colorful comments, especially from moonraven. ;-)
24 - Aaman
Authors must recognize that once their creation is let loose on the world, it is no longer their property, the feedback may be instantaneous, as on a blog, or never received, as with most books, but it exists as part of the creation, the meta-universe of the creation, as it were.
Interesting analysis, Chuck, although the knife cuts both ways.
25 - Ray Ellis
I look forward to reading your pieces, Dr. D--and perhaps occasionally sparring with you. Not to worry--I'm anything but thin skinned.