Something I forgot to ask Doug

Doug got a little peeved that I "attacked" him and had the audacity to tell him his "secret inner reasoning for opposing Miers". He suggested that since I did not provide links directly referring readers to the anti-Miers hatred about which I posted I was somehow in the irresponsible wrong. My summarizing a tone is simply bad form.

I then will hold you to your own standard. Since I started reading your blog I have disagreed with many postings of your blog. However, only twice have I witnessed closed-minded and empty positions. First was regarding the MN GOP chair election and the second has been the uber-elitist rationalizations of opposition to Miers.

The standard you set for speaking on the behalf of the opposition was set a while ago when you and your team decided to ignore explicit posts and comments explaining our issues.

Not only did they ignore the advice of elected officials such as Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty, their chosen replacement for Eibensteiner seemingly disavowed Mark Kennedy, the only serious Republican candidate for Mark Dayton's soon to be vacated Senate seat...

I read many comments and posts explaining that the "advice" of Tim Pawlenty to support RonE was only advice. Did anyone opposing your guy state that they did not care what Pawlenty said? No. Some were put off by the suggestion that because TimP says to do something the GOP members ought to do something.

But y'all did not give a rat's a** about what the opposition ACTUALLY said. You did our speaking for us. You gave our thought process for us. Hey, what's good for the goose...

Something else in that particular post but also occurred often on your blog and at KvM was the attributing of a mood to the opposition without giving links or quotes.

The vitriol of the anti-Eibensteiner crowd seemingly bled over into vitriol toward the Republican governor, Senate candidate, and who knows who else?

So, if it is so egregious when I do it to the elitists of the GOP why is it not egregious for you? That is not rhetorical.

Call me rude, lacking manners, cowardly and whatever else you wish to. I do not care. But what pisses me off is that such double standards are rampant in the elite (and wannabe elite) of the GOP...and then swept under the rug instead of being corrected.

********** UPDATE **********
Doug called me a coward for ranting about his collaberative blog on our radio show this past Sunday. He only knew about it because I called his attention to it (yet he calls me a coward). The crux of his name calling: that I did not contact him PRIOR to attacking the blog.

We did invite him on this coming Sunday to defend his blog. He declined. Which is more cowardly: someone exercising their right to voice an opinion and then inviting the target on to defend themself --OR-- the target whining about not being consulted prior to the opinions being given and then declinging to actually defend himself in the same forum?

I ask that Doug hold himself to the standards that he holds those who disagree with him. Doug, do you contact the people you criticize PRIOR to criticizing them? As you claim to hold to the Golden Rule I suspect you contact people before you criticize them. Am I right?

Finally, as to your Golden Rule (the argument you are unwilling to make) would you support removing Thomas from the bench since he had essentially the same qualifications as Miers? If you have no information why not be undecided instead of simply vitriolic opposition? Do unto others...how about letting her have an up or down vote?