Tue 2 Oct 2007
Michelle Malkin is not a fan of Congressman Mark Udall ‘72. Is this the sort of stuff that my critics had in mind when they claimed that Udall had not demonstrated as much “distinguished achievement” as Martha Coakley ‘75 and was, therefore, not as deserving of a Bicentennial Medal? Just asking!
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:33 am
That is how you bring Mark Udall into the discussion? You couldn’t link to his senate campaign website or anything like that, instead you link to a Michelle Malkin attack post as your first way of posting about him except in passing? This is absurd.
Have you learned nothing from links with Malkin from the deltoid fiasco?
you really should know better by now.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:48 am
Whatever it is the I am doing here, bringing things “into the discussion” is not one of them. I surf the web. If I see something interesting and Eph-connected, I link to it. If I have the time and inclination, I might do more, provide background information and links. But, often I don’t.
Which is why it is so cool that EphBlog has many authors! Any author can write a nice post about Udall and his up-coming Senate campaign, providing links to websites of all sorts. If you want a post like that, then write it. Or add it as comment to this post.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:18 am
Whoosh goes the sound of my comment over your head.
This is the first time you’ve brought up Udall’s campaign for Senate. As a fellow eph, I’d hope you’d give him the benefit of the doubt and not do so by pointing to an attack from the right on Udall. It’s called editorial discretion…yes, Malkin’s post mentions Udall prominently (and could then be a portion of a post about him), but as an eph, he deserves a more…fair and balanced…introductory post to ephblog.
You aren’t “just asking”. You’re never just asking. You have a bias, and that bias leads to posts like this one…seemingly innocuous, but truly slanted.
In my view, besides, getting attacked by Malkin is a sign you’re worthy of respect and potentially a vote!
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:32 am
1) I did not mention Udall’s Senate campaign in the post.
2) This is not the “introductory post” about Udall on EphBlog. This is.
3) How is this post “slanted?” I was making a (poor?) joke about the fact that a) Malkin doesn’t like Udall and b) my critics don’t like Udall (as much as they like Coakley). Perhaps my critics will like Malkin. Just asking!
4) You write that “getting attacked Malkin is a sign you’re worthy of respect and potentially a vote!” For a Bicentennial Medal? Excellent! Please pass along your recommendation to Morty.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:53 am
David,
Next time it is a slow news day for Ephs, how about starting a thread about Mark and his run for the Senate? (That’s assuming no one else beats you to it.)
It doesn’t need to be any more than merely stating that Mark is running for the Senate and linking his campaign website. People who do not live in his region may not realize he is running. I think that the fact that an Eph is runing for a national office is always worthy of being treated as Eph news, and I would appreciate it if people would post that sort of information here.
Thank you.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:01 am
David,
1. The linked Malkin attack does. That is the first link to Udall’s senate campaign on ephblog.
2. Nice semantics. I said “bring into the discussion”. He might have been in it a long time ago, but for anyone who just started reading recently or missed that day, this is Udall’s moment. It’s not a good look.
3. That jokes was poor. And the first link in the post (and only outside of ephblog link) is to the attack. If you don’t see the slant in that…god help us. Do you ever post a left wing non-fan post of right of center ephs? No. that’s slanted. Here’s my proposal: when mentioning ephs who are running for election, always include a link to his/her own campaign materials and/or any pertinent information from the candidate’s own mouth.
4. I was talking about electoral votes. I don’t care about the bicentennial award.
(btw, looking at the limbaugh transcript, it’s pretty clear both sides are bitching about nothing. Limbaugh made a vague comment that was dumb. shocking)
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:26 am
We didn’t say udall was less deserving. We said he was not necessarily more deserving simply by virtue of being a congressperson. You are the one who insists on the artificial absolutist human value judgments. Malkin is only half a step better than anne coulter. Why give her any sort of exposure. This post in particular is laughable and bleeds of hypocrisy: it is malkin and her ilk who started this ridiculous race to the bottom by equating anyone who dared to disagree with the war with traitors or terrorists.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:35 pm
I like the idea of providing the link to an Eph candidate’s campaign website. I’ve supported some Eph candidates before and I’ll do it again — but I need to know that they are running.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Well, on those lines, Chap Petersen ‘90 is running as a Democrat in one of the most hotly contested Virginia Senate races this fall (Virginia votes in odd-numbered years). His opponent is Jeannmarie Devolites-Davis, who is the incumbent and the wife of Republican Virginia Congressman Tom Davis.
The race has generated a lot of publicity, both in the mainstream press (locally, and around the state) and the blogosphere (anyone who can turn these into true links would be very much appreciated):
http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10604
http://www.timesdispatch.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-09-30-0169.html
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070705/METRO/107050046/1004/metro
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601570.html
Chap’s campaign website is http://www.fairfaxsenator.com
and his blog (which is very entertaining) is http://www.oxroadsouth.com.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Michelle Malkin… BWAHAHAHAHA…just another chickenhawk gone crazy!