Sure, and you always believe everything that Gilliard says, right?

I thought we were discussing what Gilliard wrote, not your special insight into his true motives.

Let’s recap:

Tuco on 10/30 at 3:52–“Steve Gilliard thinks that Tim Kaine is a coward for pulling ads from his blog.”

Quaker on 10/30 at 4:55–“Gilliard wrote that Kaine s campaign was cowardly for not speaking to him directly about the ad pull.”

Tuco, 10/31 at 1:15–“There was no need to parse it all for the folks because it really doesn t make a difference either way, he criticized Kaine for pulling the ads, and he would have done so, as pointed out above, even if it had been  discussed with him.”

Quaker, 10/31 at 2:12–“I ll bring the relevant quote right to you:
I am not mad they pulled the ad.”

Tuco, 10/31 at 6:41–“and you always believe everything that Gilliard says, right?”

Can you just try, just once, to make some sense? Are we talking about what Gilliard wrote, or not?

Do you agree with Gilliard that anyone who thinks Gilliard s behavior was racist has a secret longing to call Michael Steele the n-word?

Irrelevant.

I’m discussing the claim youi made that Gilliard was irate over the ad pull. You seem to think that just because you disagree with someone about one subject, you can defenisbly accuse him of any and every possible bad deed.

Put more simply: MSU.

I am not mad they pulled the ad.

Sure, and you always believe everything that Gilliard says, right?

Do you believe that every single person who read Andrew Sullivan’s blog and had the temerity to accuse Gilliard of racist behavior can be absurdly and outrageously categorized as Gilliard did?

I know you don’t like black people to begin with, much less want to hear their opinions. Your mock outrage is amusing, following the lead of Andrew Sullivan. If he told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? You would probably call Steele a nigger under your breath if you could. Don’t act like you care, because you don’t. You know you aren’t going to vote for him, the fate of all black Republican candidates. So save the outrage. I don’t really care.

If you valued black people as humans, you would hardly read his site.

Do you agree with Gilliard that anyone who thinks Gilliard’s behavior was racist has a secret longing to call Michael Steele the n-word?

I mean, I don’t think even you would stoop that low.

Actually, I think Gilliard s response to the Kaine campaign pulling the ads was foolish….

But not wrong, eh, Jadegold? Welcome to the Oliver Willis school of hatred.

Gilliard s parody of Steele was meaningless and altogether accurate.

Go ahead, defend why it’s acceptable to portray an African-American politician using racist imagery when (he’s a writer after all) a reasonable argument could have sufficed.

Gilliard wrote that Kaine s campaign was cowardly for not speaking to him directly about the ad pull.

Uh, Quaker, I knew his whole story. There was no need to parse it all for the folks because it really doesn’t make a difference either way, he criticized Kaine for pulling the ads, and he would have done so, as pointed out above, even if it had been “discussed” with him.

The man’s certifiable, he has a million rationalizations to spew when he gets called on his shit, and you dutifully lap up each and every one of them.

Why do you continue to defend such a mendacious loser?

Look, if you’re the customer, you really owe a seller of goods or services nothing so long as you meet your obligations (prompt payment, etc). Really, Kaine owes Gilliard no explanation. And truth be told, the Kaine campaign should have done better research into where they place their ad buys; Gilliard’s site is a ‘take no prisoners, acll ‘em as he sees ‘em’-kind of site. Kaine’s campaign should have known Gilliard isn’t above dropping the “F-bomb” every other sentence or using humor that is intended for mature audiences.

So when advertisers purchase space on PajamaMedia (or whatever it’s going to be called), they shouldn’t be shocked to learn they’re supporting some racists and bigots.

He concedes that the campaign was well within its prerogative to remove the ads.

Where does he do this? He doesn’t seem to argue this point at all (probably because it’s obvious).

He does make these points:

Coward. Black people should shut their mouths

Now, of course, they are in the embarassing position of pulling an ad from an African-American who expressed his opinion, because of the complaints of a known racist.

So now the Kaine campaign is in the silly position of responding to a racist while withdrawing support from an African-American.

Gilliard is quite the victim.

If they had asked, they could have found out why I made such a brutal commentary on Steele’s character and why I will do so again.

Yeah, that would’ve convinced them that there was no need to “jump and run.” Do you really think Gilliard wouldn’t have still seen them as “cowards” if they pulled the ad after talking with him and finding out his views?

Gilliard wrote that Kaine’s campaign was cowardly for not speaking to him directly about the ad pull.

He concedes that the campaign was well within its prerogative to remove the ads.

Do you ever get simple facts right?

I haven’t done this in a while. Time to get back to touring a bit to see what is going on in the Blogsphere. Chad at In the Bullpen, does a Round the Reader edition. Remember Round the Reader? It…