I also responded to that ridiculous e-mail. Here's mine:
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
I feel compelled to respond to the view-point expressed by the Lieberman supporter, and presumably shared by yourself, considering that you did not post an alternative view. The writer decrys the presence of money and support from bloggers as "playing God" with a Connecticut election, but somehow this does not apply to the millions of dollars given Lieberman by energy interests and health care corporations. The writer also thumbs his nose at the Democratic Primary and its (as yet undetermined) result. While the primary is an intra-party affair, it is still a legitimate election no matter when its held, or how many participate. Every candidate knows this, and has the option to withdraw. Lieberman was well aware of the conditions of the primary, could have withdrawn at any time and filed as an independent. Why the fuss now? Because he is terrified of losing his position.
You have spent endless space on your blog bemoaning the power grasping, rule changing, anything goes world of George W. Bush, whom you've dubbed "King George". I ask now: how are Lieberman's actions any different? "Prince Joe" simply cannot grasp how anyone would have the gaul to challenge his apparently pre-ordained hold on a US Senate seat. The voters may disagree with Lieberman on Iraq, but his problem is not his position, but his indignant attitude that anyone would dare quesion it. This above all else, is why he is set to lose the primary and is running even with Lamont in a three way general race according to the latest Rasmussen poll.
Thanks for stopping by and posting, Mr. hatchett. I'm glad Sullivan is getting well thought-out responses from our side to those kind of posts. Thanks for posting your e-mail here, too. Internal Monologue welcomes your participation!
9:38 AM, July 28, 2006
I sent a letter to Sullivan in reaction to this post (a reader annoyed that Markos is meddling in the CT senate race):
Is your reader looking at the same CT polls I am? This is the latest Rassmussen poll has Lamont and Lieberman in a dead heat in the three-way contest, with the Republican lagging far behind. Your reader seems to be referring to this Quinnipiac poll, which does have Lieberman winning a 3-way with 51% (27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for Schlesinger). The Quinnipiac poll was from July 13-18. The Rassmussen poll was July 20th. I don't know which polling firm is more reliable, or which polls have favored which candidate. But the data no longer seem to support your reader's contention that Lieberman "is crushing Lamont and the GOP candidate in a 3-way general election". Things are shifting rapidly in CT, and the momentum I've seen has all been in favor of Lamont. It's funny the double thinking about Markos and the lefty blogs: establishment Dems and conservatives used to mock him for being so ineffectual. I remember vividly all those people quoting DailyKos' losing record with glee. Now they (or your reader, at any rate) are attacking him for "trying to play God in our elections." Wow. These folks have elevated Kos from powerless loser to aspiring deity in under two years. Is this just more evidence that Liberals are more powerful than God? I find such accusations of omnipotence highly amusing. If we were that powerful, maybe we could reign in the Bush administration a bit. To be fair, I think we lefty bloggers have similar mixed feelings about being in the spotlight: on the one hand we want to celebrate and take pride in our new found "powers". On the other hand we don't want to be seen as meddlers. We want to emphasize that it's the Connecticut Democrats who will do the voting. But worrying about this seems a bit ridiculous to me: lots of local races attract outside attention from various interest groups. If the Christian Coalition or Dick Cheney support a local candidate, is that "trying to play God"? Are the out-of-state supporters of Chaffee's primary challenger playing God? Is Bill Clinton playing God, too, by campaigning for Lieberman? I didn't know it was so easy to participate in godhood! Apparently all you have to do is blog about some race in another state. And to think those poor Romans thought divinity required a vote of the Senate! Fools, immortality is for everyone: just give $10 to Lamont. I can see how Markos' support of Lieberman's opponent would annoy your reader. But to accuse Markos or anyone else outside of CT of "trying to play God" for expressing an opinion or making a contribution to a CT race is just silly. That's not how Senate races work in this country. Some Senators are national figures, so it only makes sense that they would attract national interest, both for and against. So unless your reader wants to ban both the RSCC and the DSCC, outside meddling is just something one must learn to live with.
posted by Zachary Drake at 2:51 AM on Jul 26, 2006
"An e-mail to Sullivan"
2 Comments -
I also responded to that ridiculous e-mail. Here's mine:
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
I feel compelled to respond to the view-point expressed by the Lieberman supporter, and presumably shared by yourself, considering that you did not post an alternative view. The writer decrys the presence of money and support from bloggers as "playing God" with a Connecticut election, but somehow this does not apply to the millions of dollars given Lieberman by energy interests and health care corporations. The writer also thumbs his nose at the Democratic Primary and its (as yet undetermined) result. While the primary is an intra-party affair, it is still a legitimate election no matter when its held, or how many participate. Every candidate knows this, and has the option to withdraw. Lieberman was well aware of the conditions of the primary, could have withdrawn at any time and filed as an independent. Why the fuss now? Because he is terrified of losing his position.
You have spent endless space on your blog bemoaning the power grasping, rule changing, anything goes world of George W. Bush, whom you've dubbed "King George". I ask now: how are Lieberman's actions any different? "Prince Joe" simply cannot grasp how anyone would have the gaul to challenge his apparently pre-ordained hold on a US Senate seat. The voters may disagree with Lieberman on Iraq, but his problem is not his position, but his indignant attitude that anyone would dare quesion it. This above all else, is why he is set to lose the primary and is running even with Lamont in a three way general race according to the latest Rasmussen poll.
8:54 AM, July 26, 2006
Thanks for stopping by and posting, Mr. hatchett. I'm glad Sullivan is getting well thought-out responses from our side to those kind of posts. Thanks for posting your e-mail here, too. Internal Monologue welcomes your participation!
9:38 AM, July 28, 2006