Yes, but na didn't go to their websites and demand answers. He came to mine.
Ya' see, na posts from a Seattle U address, and I can only assume that he thinks all people who post from .edu addresses are students, with copious amounts of time to bicker back and forth on the intarwebs. Uhmm, no. Some of us actually work for a living, and though I reply to comments as I'm able (being notified of them by my email), I do not post from work.
Guess what little camper, I have a job that is far more important to me (and the students at one of Montana's fine Universities) than snapping to attention everytime a commenter throws a rattle across the room and demands that I retrieve it. I am not other Montana bloggers, and the beauty of blogging is that I don't have to compete with them for your attention. Isn't that neat? And here's something personal about me ... I don't like being told what to do by people who are anonymous and meaningless in my life. If you want to disagree with me, that's fine. When I read your comments this morning, na, I was more than happy to let them stand unanswered, if for no other reason than to foster discussion. But no, you had to have a temper tantrum, and act like a WATB* because I didn't change focus immediately, and cast the spotlight on your desires. Well here's the spotlight, cupcake. I hope you enjoy it.
Na's dirty diaper that needs such urgent attention is this:
Folks like Wulfgar don't understand how to win elections. I've found that over the last few years reading blogs like this and Matt's.
That's kinda humorous. In the last few years, there's been all of *one* national election. It's remotely possible that na extrapolates knowledge about my understanding from that; but given that the WATB doesn't clarify jack-shit about what he understands that I don't, that's not a real strong claim. See, there's the pesky little problem that I've supported Max Baucus since the late 1970's, and even worked (volunteer) for his campaign in the '90's. Yeah, that's a record of failure ...
The problem is that they cling to these unrealistic ideals, which is why so many of the candidates they support rarely win--they choose fellow idealist candidates that also cling to idealistic campaign strategies. Bad in though(t), and even worse in practice.
??? That's a mouthful of claims, don't you think? If I were the idealist that na claims, I would be supporting John Richards. But no, I don't, because he's too idealistic and unrealistic for me to support. I've boldly written as much. Notice that na spouts this line of crap as if it applies to my support for Tester, but never clarifies exactly how. Evil, thy name is innuendo.
Here's the thing: I've heard time and again, as I imagine that Matt has as well, that we don't understand what it takes for someone to "get elected". It is the same droll, specious, stupid and offensive "electability" argument, simply repackaged as if by FOX news. What na is implying, lacking any of the courage to say, is that we are supporting an un-electable candidate. The reason that na doesn't have the balls to say that directly, though, is that there is no reason that Jon Tester is unelectable. None.
Keep in mind, that the contrasting view is that John Morrison *is* somehow electable, when Jon Tester isn't. Since I clearly don't understand what makes one electable, and na is too much of a WATB to explain it, I'm left wondering what it is that gives a person that magical quality of electability? The argument heard most often is : money. Yes, John Morrison has garnered more money than Jon Tester. And Conrad Burns has garnered 7 times as much money as the two of them put together. So, according to the toddlers who follow the shiny nickle, Conrad Burns is a shoe-in for re-election.
But wait! That's certainly not what na was arguing! After all, John Morrison is electable. If it isn't money, then what is it? Is it issues? John Morrison has taken one stance, that small business owners should be assisted in providing health coverage to employees. Of course, disregard that Conman Burns has introduced this on the federal stage. Why, If you paid attention to that ... then John Morrison isn't so electable against Burns, now is he? Furthermore, John Morrison seems incapable of taking any other stance. John Richards has, and Jon Tester has, as has Conrad Burns. Those three guys seem to understand that what it takes to get elected to the US Senate is a stand on many issues. Suddenly, John Morrison doesn't seem so electable at all, does he? Now na has proclaimed that I don't have a clue how to win an election, so obviously, we need to look beyond issues because that's a fucking loser for John Morrison.
Perhaps it's values. Na, do really want me to go here? Do you really want me to point out how John Morrison may have affected Montana governance because he fucked someone out of wedlock? Seriously, I'm asking. Do you want me to attempt to describe how electable John Morrison is because he defends the sanctity of marriage while foisting his wife's forgiveness as a banner of nobility? Do you want me to remind you that he holds dear to the holy sacred sacrament of the union between a man and a woman and another woman? Must I clarify that John Morrison has told those faggoty gay faggots that they are not allowed to legally love and share with each other under the protection of law, and yet he's allowed to give money to his mistress? Seriously, na, is this what you find "electable" about John Morrison? His "values"?
You're right, na. I may not understand what it takes to win an election, but I will tell you this. I understand clearly how to lose one. If John Morrison goes up against Conrad Burns, he will lose faster than the Arizona Cardinals on the frozen tundra of Lambeau field.
Every minute Tester spends on his farm is another vote for Morrison.
Prove it, cupcake. Though he plants his crops, the Tester campaign moves forward. I am not a part of his official apparatus, but I am a part of his campaign. I wouldn't be spanking you so hard if I wasn't. Tester supporters believe in the guy. I believe in the guy. And, while he's not there to shake hands, I am there for him.
Every bail (sic) of hay he collects is a greater chance that he will be doing it for another 6 years.
Oh, you brave little soldier. Guess what? He addresses that at every event in which he speaks. Jon Tester thinks he has the best life in Montana, and I think he's got a point. If he loses this race, he will go back to farming and be perfectly happy doing it. He has the land, and he has the freedom to be a Montanan. I'm sure that in your view, that must totally suck. But wait; what is this? He wants to serve his fellow Montanans by representing them in the US Congress? Why, that's unheard of! Service? The Horror of it all!
Here's the thing, cupcake. If Jon Tester loses the primary, he goes back to farming and has a great life. If John Morrison wins the primary and loses the general (which he will), he goes back to being State Auditor with the sure and crushing knowledge that he will be reviled and demeaned in the vote come 2008. Trust me, all your silly appeal to the future convinces me of is that I will have to suffer 6 more years of Burns.
And Wulfar(sic), while your little pizza analogy is cute, it lacked one crucial fact: How can Tester be coming to my door to talk about wheat and pizza if he is farming?
You really don't understand metaphor or parable, do you, na? That wasn't meant to be literal, you moron. It was meant to say something that is well beyond what you can grasp. You have proven, time and again in your comments, that you think voters should favor the guy they think will win. I favor the guy who should win. If we're going to argue, cupcake, lets at least have the same damned argument. You appear to favor the guy who let's you pat yourself on the back because you supported a "winner", even though he will lose .. SO BIG. I support the guy who will best represent my desires in the Congress of the US of A. When you lose, you will have nothing but broken dreams of a shattered candidate and whining. When and if I lose, I will have the knowledge that I backed the right horse for me. I will have voted for the guy who would best have represented me in the federal government. Now, tell me again, na, which of us doesn't understand the electoral process?
*Whiny Ass Titty Baby