« Granny As Adviser | Main | Eric Plays The Victim »

June 16, 2006



On the subject of the dem ad on Taylor:

1)an audit found he had made a mistake, assessed the amount of money to be refunded the government, and Taylor refunded it. I think it's a bit strong for you, or the Democrats, to call him a crook.

2) The video they showed with the ad had NOTHING to do with paperwork and accounting errors at his so-called cosmetology school, nor even with criminal misconduct, if you buy the Dem's version. Nothing. Not a damn thing.

3) Ergo, there must have been some other reason why the Democrats chose that particular video to run while talking about unrelated financial mistakes and/or crime, depending on which view you buy.

4) No one can prove the reasons except for the people who chose the video but we can say this much: It was not the Republicans who started the "boogie nights ad" nickname.

But transitioning to the subject of Eric and his supposed bigorty:

Like it or not, whether they are right or not, many Montanans are strongly opposed to the increasingly mainstream nature of homosexuality in this country. I make no argument now as to the moral rightness or wrongness of that view. I simply observe that it exists.

I further observe that many political professionals consider that number of Montanans to be a majority, and a large one.

Therefore, it is not a dificult deduction to make that revealing a candidate's association -- even his alleged association -- with people who are gay, and the movement for their political power, will degrade that candidate's electoral chances. In Montana, one can do the same thing with Californians, lawyers, Gays, gun control advocates, and many other unpopular groups. Gays are simply the easiest.

That's why the Dems ran their footage to defeat Taylor, and that's why Eric helps point out Tester's endorsement by this gay group. Pointing out that your opponent has associations the majority won't like isn't bigotry.

It's politics.

I'm sorry, I know it's an unpleasant process. That's why I no longer practice it actively. But you will be better served by acknowledging that this is simply the way the system works. And, if you do consider it bigotry to point out a candidate's unpopular stands, you must surely acknowledge that Eric is not the first to do it, nor will he be the last. Even the Dems in '02 were not the first.


1) Taylor got caught so he repaid. Boo Hoo. It remains undetermined to this day if he compensated all that he falaciously took.

2) Taylor did the video, willingly. So what? People weren't supposed to see it? It promoted his business when it suited him, but otherwise it was taboo? Bullshit.

3) Only you think that the video was unrelated to Taylor's business, undertaken while defrauding the government. To me, it was quite effective in pointing the truth out.

4) Wrong. It was the Republicants who started the cry of "gay-bashing". My personal belief is that that was the response suggested by the RNC head, Marc Rashincrotch, but I have no proof of that. So I'll just point out the obvious: The Republicants pointed to the evil of "the gay", not the Democrats. The Democrats just pointed out that Taylor was a crook.

As to the rest of your post, NeoMadison, the truth is this: Eric claims that he is a speaker of truth, when in fact he is a supporter or innuendo and lies. I stand by what I've written here. Eric is a shitheel, and I no longer consider him worthy of any respect.


Seriously... video of Mike Taylor applying makeup to another man's face is somehow supposed to illustrate whether or not he took too much in federal student loan funds? Come on Wulf, good political debate begins with being able to admit when your own side was wrong, as well as the other other side.

As to proof about whether Racicot suggested the strategy... well... I choose to remain anonymous here (no doubt at detriment to my credibility) and even if I did talk about that, it's doubtful you'd believe me.

Gee Guy

Wulfgar, I have a question. If Eric, or anyone for that matter, has a deeply and sincerely held religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, how do they reconcile that with your opinion? In other words, does not religious freedom include the right to hold beliefs that others think are wrong? Or are you so certain of the rectitude of your position on certain issues that you will brook no dissent?

Doesn't true tolerance necessarily involve an opposing point of view? To be truly tolerant, don't you also have to accept (or at least tolerate) the intolerant's positions?

Personally, I think the whole gay issue is overblown. When China is an economic weakling, and gas is $1.00 a gallon again, then we can expect our elected representatives to worry about gay marriage.

But your treating of an alternative point of view as anathema is really beneath you. Are you suggesting that there is no viewpoint opposed to gay marriage that is worthy of any consideration?

Wacko Lib

Neomadison...how can you defend this obscene post by the scared little man Eric Coobs? This kind of post stirs up hatred and irrational fear. What if one of the trolls over there leaves his trailer tonight, goes out drinking, and beats a gay man to death? Do you think this is far out? Should gay people be forced to wear a pink triangle so that people like Coobs can avoid them, or point them out? Should there be an amendment to the constitution that specifically denies a group of people happiness? What in thee hell is going on with your party? Are you not the least bit ashamed?
Where do you draw the line? I saw a comment by one of your trolls over on Freeper that mentioned Jews in a less than flattering way...any idea who this cowardly commenter might be associated with?

That's right. The Republican party!

Wacko Lib

...and how do your little scumbags over there know where I work, and feel the need to publish it?

Am I supposed to be scared?

It ain't workin.

Gee Guy

Wacko Lib: Apt moniker.


Well, Wacko, you have a point. No one recognizes more than me that we get some commenters over at WRIM who I wish would not associate themselves with us. On the other hand, I still think Eric has made the right decision to keep comments unmoderated, and let them post. Better to expose them for what they are than to leave that kind of thing in shadows.

Personally, my views on gay marriage and such are somewhat different than the majority of my party (or my state). But then, my views on the subject are also probably different from yours. I like staking out positions that don't agree with anyone.

That does not change the right of those who disagree to hold that belief. Although I'm not a Catholic, I went to college among some very committed ones, and I know many people who oppose gay marriage and such like for very sincere, positive reasons. I do not consider them bigots for that, nor do I consider them hateful. They read their bible differently than I do, that's all.

I have two points on which I disagree with Wulf tonight. 1, he's trying to claim the Dem 2002 ad had no intention of taking advantage of the majority bias against homosexual-appearing conduct. That is utter and complete hogwash. 2, he seems to deny the possibility of disagreeing with him on this point and also being a decent human being. I, on the other hand, think such disagreements are the very definition of enlightenment.

There was a time, in politics, when people could disagree without being disagreeable. I believe the current tendency -- represented on the right by Anne Coulter and her claims that anyone who disagrees commits treason, and on the left by those who claim that anyone who disagrees is a hatemonger, bigot, etc -- is deeply harmful to American politics. I can do little to fight it except to address all arguments, from all sides, with calm reason and a fundamental respect for the arguer.



Did someone post your address somewhere on WRIM? I tried reading the first few threads, but no way can I be arsed to read all the comments on that Tax and Spend Tester thread. Anyway, I haven't found that yet, but if someone did, that's generally not something I endorse. Being in a glass house on the subject myself, I'm especially keen on the subject.

Wacko Lib

No address posting. Just a reference to my place of employment.

The only thing that gets me is: how do they know? It's a bit creepy.

No worries.

Mark T

The video of Taylor with his bling fawning over a man in a chair gave me the creeps, more so than Max gave me the creeps. That was the point - it was cheap politics promoting one creep over another. I remember not voting in that election, proudly.


Lets get extremely clear about a few things here. I do not/did not endorse or appreciate the Democratic commercial that Mike Taylor says made him "look gay". To that degree, it was cheap politics, but keep in mind that Taylor made the goddamned thing. If he "looked gay", then I have little sympathy for his plight. The whole point of bringing it up was not to condemn anything about it, but to show clearly Eric's hypocrisy on the issue ... something that neither of you defenders have been even close to addressing.

Second, Eric's post had nothing to do with Gay marraige. The logic of it was simple: Jon Tester is bad because he is endorsed by bad people. Spin it how you want, but that was blatent bigotry, pure and simple. If he'd have made the same post, showing an endorsement for Jon from the NAACP, I'd like to think that no one would be even close to defending him for it. But because it's gay people, it's okay.

Attacking Jon Tester on issues ... no problem, bring it on. Attacking him by associating him with a group we're supposed to find icky ... the KKK would be so proud of Eric for that. That's their strategy, and one I reject and revile whole-heartedly.

Keep this clearly in mind, while trying to spin Eric's bigotry into something less like bullshit: Even if someone holds a belief that homosexuality is a sin, Eric didn't attack the sin, he put up those people's existence as a offense, and attempted to smear an opponent with that, not issues, not policies, but that they even are among us. If that isn't the textbook definition of bigotry, then tell what the hell it is?

Eric Coobs

Look at what I actually SAID.

I pointed out an endorsement, and said congratulations, and the bomb dropped.

You know, and I know, that Testers values of more taxes, pro-abortion, and gay rights are not typical Montana values, they are liberal values.

I am going to do anything fair to ensure his defeat.

Pointing out his voting record is fair.

Pointing out that he was in Helena celebrating the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade is fair.

Pointing out that he is rated A+ by a gay rights website (very pro gay) is fair.

I get called a nazi when I say enforce the borders, I get called ignorant when I discuss abortion, and I get called a bigot when I point out Testers rating.

You also know, and I also know, that the anonymous trolls who enraged you all are probably other Democrats, just wanting to make me look bad.

It won't work.

I'm staying put.

The next topic I'm going to look at is whether-or-not Jon Testers campaign broke the law with illegal campaign calls.

Then, I'm going to take a line out of Senator Burns speech, where he said that he brought the money to Montana, and Tester got the checks, and research how much federal money is in Testers pocket this very day, thanks to the efforts of Senators Burns & Baucus.

I'm making up a comparison chart with these issues on them, showing why we should vote for Senator Burns when he's held up beside Jon Tester.

So, now you can NOT respect me for that. I couldn't care less if you respect me, or not. I consider the source.

You know, and I know, that Testers(sic) values of more taxes (you couldn't even prove that on your own damned website. Quit claiming it here.), pro-abortion (that's just a fucking lie, now isn't it? Tester is not pro-abortion, he just isn't into women's slavery the way you are), and gay rights are not typical Montana values, they are liberal values.

Oh yes, Eric, you bigot. I'm absolutely certain that Montanan's think that gay people shouldn't have rights. Isn't that what you just said that the fine people of Montana believe? Why, of course it is.

And when you do your chart up, Eric, don't forget to point out how Conrad Burns, for a paltry sum, changed his vote such that 14 year olds could be sold into sexual slavery, and then forced to have abortions such that they could keep making money for their task-masters. Do put that in, won't you?


Hey...Eric...research guy...care to turn your HIGH POWERED research skills on Senator Burns? I hear he might be tied up with some dirty money-for-vote payments...


Excuse me. I hesitate to insert an opinion here because I've already been labeled a "troll" by the host in the past. But I'm going to go ahead and do it anyway.

As a self proclaimed Montana liberal (albeit temporarily relocated) I have a hard time being at all alarmed at Mr. Coobs' post. We all know what Republicans think about gays and lesbians, and probably shouldn't be alarmed when they express that opinion on a republican blog. As a consequence, having a republican blogger establish a connection between Tester and the defense of civil rights anger you (Wulfgar) in such a way is a mystery to me. Am I missing something? Shouldn't we be proud to support a candidate with a record like that? This is when we smile and say "sure, our candidate supports civil rights and your candidate has a legacy of using racial slurs."
Also, this isn't like the Mike Taylor commercial because these blogs (and I know you might find this hard to believe) are not reaching the public at large. The people looking at these, both Wulfgar's and Eric's, are mostly all already supporting who they are going to support in this election.


Jesse, I do appreciate this comment, but you are missing the point. I do admire the fact that Jon Tester has a A+ rating from the GLBT community. That was never an issue. But this isn't, nor was it ever, about Jon Tester. This was about Eric's gay-baiting tactics.

Have you read what they lead to at his website? Gay bashing, anti-semitism, and even digs at all them screwed up black people from New Orleans. Eric wishes to excuse himself by claiming that my anger is misplaced. Not at all. Eric did this. Eric caused this. Eric is culpable for his actions in whatever blogging community we have here.

Eric claims that most of the foul comments probably came from liberals attempting to discredit him. I would ask that he prove it ... very difficult to do, considering his own actions remove any credibility from the equation. The second he chose gay-baiting over debate, he lost all credibility with me, hence this very post.

And finally, your writing at a website whose proprietor has no illusions about the length of my reach. Some will see it, most won't. But anybody who reads the crap from WRiM will see that Eric's BS hasn't gone unchallenged. They will have a choice; side with the bigots, or side with those who will call them out. Even if that's only 5 people, then the effort was worth it to me.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Read This!

Friends like Family

Blog powered by Typepad