This week is the finish line in the Virginia gubernatorial election, a test of whether a Democrat can keep Virginia’s governorship blue in a state that went overwhelmingly for Bush. Yet another poll has Tim Kaine pushing ahead, a pretty clear sign that while the race will come down to the wire, Jerry Kilgore’s smear ads did not have the desired effect and the strong response from the Kaine campaign worked (those of you inside the Beltway, please take note). I bet Kilgore is also regretting spending so much face-time with the scandalous and unpopular President Bush.
If Kaine wins, Mark Warner gets pushed to the near top or top of the pile for 2008 Democrats as well.
Sunday Reading - October 30th
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…
But, Oliver, Steve Gilliard thinks that Tim Kaine is a coward for pulling ads from his blog. Is that stupid or wrong?
Who owns the voting machines in virginia?
Wrong again, Tuco.
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?
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:
Gilliard is quite the victim.
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?
Actually, I think Gilliard’s response to the Kaine campaign pulling the ads was foolish; Gilliard’s parody of Steele was meaningless and altogether accurate.
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.
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?
But not wrong, eh, Jadegold? Welcome to the Oliver Willis school of hatred.
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?
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.
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 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?