Thursday, March 20, 2008

Name-Calling

I'm not going to waste much time on this: anonymous Mark Udall blog operative "absurdicus" - who ironically challenges the credibility of transparent bloggers who make fact-based arguments and link to their sources - has resorted to name-calling to advance some otherwise weak arguments.

At one point Bob Schaffer was being called a name five days out of every seven. That stopped when my fellow blogger "a watcher" started writing about it. Less obvious is the fact that "a watcher" worked behind the scenes to keep Republican operatives from calling Mark Udall names. Trust me, I've seen it, and I've seen it work for the most part.

So, ironically, the Udall surrogate absurdicus comes along and decides to center his arguments around name-calling against the blogger who has worked hardest and in an evenhanded way to keep the name-calling out of the Senate race.

Does the Udall campaign want to stake its case to the voters on name-calling? Does their side want to be responsible for the kind of politics that turns off independent voters? We have no problem laying absurdicus' name-calling at Mark Udall's doorstep. If Udall thinks it's in his interest that his spokesman resorts to name-calling, absurdicus will continue. If he doesn't, absurdicus will stop. Simple as that.

While we continue to publish and post comments that provide disagreement and debate, those comments left here that resort to the juvenile and distasteful tactic of name-calling will no longer be published. Let's hope Udall and his anonymous surrogate are willing to engage in a debate free of name-calling.

3 comments:

absurdicus said...

Oh Ben, it must be so nice where you live up in the clouds. Since Mr. Thomas McDowell wants to hide behind a pseudonym, what's the problem with giving him another pseudonym. I'm still linking to him giving you guys lots of cross-link generating traffic. You should be grateful.

There's of course been no name calling of Mark Udall such as Extremist, left-wing, or liberal, or Boulder Liberal, by anyone has there?

I'm sorry if you think calling McDowell by another name immediately discounts the validity of my arguments. How sad.

Ben DeGrow said...

Let's work our way backwards:

"I'm sorry if you think calling McDowell by another name immediately discounts the validity of my arguments. How sad."

I didn't say that. The weakness of your arguments discounts their validity. The name-calling is one symptom of a weak argument, and suggests the kind of tactics that turn off a lot of independent (and other) voters.

"There's of course been no name calling of Mark Udall such as Extremist, left-wing, or liberal, or Boulder Liberal, by anyone has there?"

First, you need to separate our words from mainstream media publication quotes or left-of-center blogs & outlets.

Second, if you believe "Boulder liberal" or "left-wing" is name-calling, then you need to learn the difference between descriptors and name-calling. Reasonable readers can figure that out.

Udall and you ought not be ashamed of the designation of his political philosophy and where he comes from. He has embraced the label. And we provide evidence to support it. Besides, if "liberal" is a dirty word, that doesn't bode well for your candidate.

"Oh Ben, it must be so nice where you live up in the clouds. Since Mr. Thomas McDowell wants to hide behind a pseudonym, what's the problem with giving him another pseudonym. I'm still linking to him giving you guys lots of cross-link generating traffic. You should be grateful."

We are grateful for the links, but you don't need to engage in name-calling to provide links.

What's the problem? Think about this: Why don't we choose to address you by another pseudonym, since you have chosen to hide behind a pseudonym? Because name-calling is a distraction and unproductive.

Readers can judge for themselves whether I'm living up in the clouds, or whether you're living down in the mud. But they can see a difference between the approach of bloggers at this site and bloggers seen as surrogates of Mark Udall.

I don't think either candidate really wants to start the mud-throwing and name-calling.

Have a great day!

absurdicus said...

"I didn't say that. The weakness of your arguments discounts their validity. The name-calling is one symptom of a weak argument, and suggests the kind of tactics that turn off a lot of independent (and other) voters."

If they're so weak they should then be easy to refute.

"Second, if you believe "Boulder liberal" or "left-wing" is name-calling, then you need to learn the difference between descriptors and name-calling. Reasonable readers can figure that out."

You say Tomayto, I say Tomahto.


"Udall and you ought not be ashamed of the designation of his political philosophy and where he comes from. He has embraced the label. And we provide evidence to support it. Besides, if "liberal" is a dirty word, that doesn't bode well for your candidate."

Yeah, and your candidate's manager should be ashamed of macaca and rag-head. I can't wait for what your boss is going to come up with to put in Bob's mouth.
I never said Liberal was a bad word, but you're sure trying to push the propoganda that it is.

"Because name-calling is a distraction and unproductive."

Calling McDowell Grandpa McGrumpy is a distraction? You guys need to work on your concentration.

"I don't think either candidate really wants to start the mud-throwing and name-calling."

Right, Bob Schaffer is going to run a clean campaign above all that mud-slinging. That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. But please, keep shouting dirty campaign tactics, wolf, wolf. I really see that working out for you.