"Lets win one. But more importantly, lets win this one right."
Jay Tea, Editor of Wizbang on 8/24/2008

Interesting statement from an avowed "independent" who gets all twisted up when he's called on that particular claim.

I expect this will be scrubbed as similar statements have in the past. No surprise since the "editor" refuses to own what he is - a conservative right winger.

Don't feel too bad about childish taunts from the resident lefty trolls, Jay.

It's the dreaded Weekend Their Candidate Lost The Election and they're lashing out.

Now that's an out-and-out lie, JFO. I DO NOT DELETE COMMENTS OR ARTICLES. I say that with very, very few exceptions -- I've deleted duplicate articles and comments, but as far as my own articles and comments, I've NEVER gone back and deleted a single one. I will correct them or apologize for them if I think it appropriate, but I NEVER just make embarrassing statements "disappear."

You have three choices at this point, JFO: prove your allegations, back away from them (even silently), or continue your utterly unfounded bullshit.

The first two options will preserve your commenting career here. The third will bring it to a sudden and violent demise.

I've already splatted one troll this weekend, JFO, and I haven't gotten around to putting Olaf The Troll God's Hammer back on the hooks on the wall...

J.

Happy to oblige you Jay Tea. I see you blew your cork, once again assuming something which is not what I said at all. I didn't say you scrubbed comments from me, only that here have been comments scrubbed.

The proof? The August 21 blog by Priestap about the women's beach volleyballers. Read the comments and you can see references to mine and mine is gone. It happened to be the 1st or 2nd, I don't remember.

This has been done several times and not just to me.

There's the proof. As as aside you really ought to check those assumptions of yours. That's the 2nd big one you've made it a week and you were dead wrong about both.

How is that relevant to this blog post?

Off-topic rants are boring.

Even before Biden showed up, Obama provides what what we rednecks call a target rich environment. There is no need to to go near conspiracies when the truth works just fine.

I expect this will be scrubbed as similar statements have in the past. No surprise since the "editor" refuses to own what he is - a conservative right winger.

By placing this comment in one of MY personally-authored pieces, predicting what I would do, JFO, you implied that I had done this in the past. That, as I said, is something I DO NOT DO.

Further, you also stated that MY words would be "scrubbed," then cited an example where YOUR words were removed by editorial fiat as your "proof." There's a hell of a difference between removing an off-topic or offensive or just plain stupid comments and saying an author's article would be substantially changed or removed when it proves embarrassing.

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right, and can be revoked at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. We are extremely tolerant of dissenting voices; it takes a hell of a lot to trigger banning -- but we reserve the right to do it whenever, in our judgment, we believe it is appropriate. "Getting Jay Tea to pop his cork for the sheer entertainment value," as you seem to want to call it, can qualify.

I don't know what the comment you made that triggered a response by either Kim, Maggie, or Kevin, but I will defer to their judgment in this matter. Knowing both them and you, I suspect it was well justified.

The Hammer remains at hand. The ice beneath your feet is very, very thin. The thread from which your commenting presence is suspended is fraying.

Stripped of metaphorical language, I'll be watching you very carefully for a little while and will NOT hesitate to ban you should I choose to.

One good idea would be to address the actual substance of my article, and not get incredibly anal and obsessive about whether or not I fit into your political definition of "independent." I belong to no party, subscribe to no overarching ideology, cast my votes bases on individuals and issues, and in 2004 split the top of my ballot between two Democrats and two Republicans.

Most often I end up choosing to vote for the "least worst" candidate. It's hardly my fault if, as a general rule, the Democrats end up proving themselves unable to meet that low standard.

Enough off-topic twaddle. Address the issues, or find somewhere else to comment. It's your choice -- for now.

J>

This stuff, though, is -- quite frankly -- bullshit. That last one, in particular, smacks of the tactics Obama used to get into the Illinois State Senate, when his people went through and managed to disqualify every single one of his opponents for the Democratic nomination.

I still don't understand this line of attack. The other people running in that race had filed petitions improperly. The petitions required that people sign their names, rather than print them. The rule is there for good reason, and it speaks to the oft-repeated snark about "Chicago politics." The rule requiring that people put their signature on the petition is meant to avoid forgery, as any staffer can just print a bunch of names on a sheet, but signatures are unique. Obama's methods in that first election may seem nefarious to some, but if his opponents had followed the rules, they would have stayed in the race. It's not like he had connections he used to eliminate them. They simply didn't follow the rules.

It is amusing to me how much the right has grasped on to this one. It's as if playing by the rules isn't very important to them when there's an opportunity to falsely attack someone. Hmmm.

The rest of them are reminiscent of his US Senate race, when compliant cronies in the press got divorce and child-custody records of his rivals unsealed and embarrassed them into withdrawing from the race.

Those "compliant cronies" in the press were all big Blair Hull fans until they got ahold of his divorce papers. Were they just faking it and really all secretly behind Obama, waiting to checkmate Hull? Is your tin-foil hat a bit too snug?

Guess what? Here in Chicago the press always goes after candidates divorce papers (and most other places, I would assume, but definitely here). To assume they were doing so on behalf of Obama in the cases of Hull and Ryan ignores all the other races where they've done the same thing (you know, in races Obama wasn't running in). But hey, what good is reality if you've got bullshit to peddle, eh Jay?

JFO's comments always consist of random personal attacks or broad-brushing. As a matter of fact, his attacks are so pervasive, I honestly can't remember the last time he actually addressed the issue.

"To assume they were doing so on behalf of Obama in the cases of Hull and Ryan ignores all the other races where they've done the same thing (you know, in races Obama wasn't running in)."

You know, Mantis, that is a good point. But it illustrates something far different from "change". It's just hard to get behind someone who touts "change" as part of his platform, yet, has a history of benefiting from the same-ol' same-ol'. Blair Hull's divorce records were released not only by pressure from the media. It was also pressure from his political opponents. One of those opponents was Obama and pressure came from his campaign too. The Trib admits as much.

Ok, but there's a big difference between a campaign trying to get the media to look into something and having them as "cronies." And the idea that the Tribune and WLS were "pressured" into going after a story by a Democratic candidate running third place in the primary to Hull and Hynes, who were extremely wealthy and popular, and had the backing of the Chicago machine, respectively, is pretty silly. What would the almost unknown State Senator do to the Trib and ABC if they hadn't filed suit? Nothing. Truth is, they were tipped that the divorce papers were juicy, probably from both Obama and Hyne's campaigns, and they went after the story because that's what they do. The idea that he somehow had the media in his pocket is just laughable.

It's just hard to get behind someone who touts "change" as part of his platform, yet, has a history of benefiting from the same-ol' same-ol'.

Ok, but you weren't going to get behind Obama no matter what, were you? I doubt you think I'm some starry-eyed dope taken in by promises of hope and change. He's a politician, and all politicians, by definition, are full of shit. All voting decisions I make take that as a given.

I'll also note that the Obama-as-Messiah-who-does-no-wrong image is largely, though not entirely, a strawman erected by the right.