Dependable Erection

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Throw the bums out

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl

--AZ-01: Rick Renzi

--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth

--CA-04: John Doolittle

--CA-11: Richard Pombo

--CA-50: Brian Bilbray

--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave

--CO-05: Doug Lamborn

--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell

--CT-04: Christopher Shays

--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan

--FL-16: Joe Negron

--FL-22: Clay Shaw

--ID-01: Bill Sali

--IL-06: Peter Roskam

--IL-10: Mark Kirk

--IL-14: Dennis Hastert

--IN-02: Chris Chocola

--IN-08: John Hostettler

--IA-01: Mike Whalen

--KS-02: Jim Ryun

--KY-03: Anne Northup

--KY-04: Geoff Davis

--MD-Sen: Michael Steele

--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht

--MN-06: Michele Bachmann

--MO-Sen: Jim Talent

--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns

--NV-03: Jon Porter

--NH-02: Charlie Bass

--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson

--NM-01: Heather Wilson

--NY-03: Peter King

--NY-20: John Sweeney

--NY-26: Tom Reynolds

--NY-29: Randy Kuhl

--NC-08: Robin Hayes

--NC-11: Charles Taylor

--OH-01: Steve Chabot

--OH-02: Jean Schmidt

--OH-15: Deborah Pryce

--OH-18: Joy Padgett

--PA-04: Melissa Hart

--PA-07: Curt Weldon

--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick

--PA-10: Don Sherwood

--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee

--TN-Sen: Bob Corker

--VA-Sen: George Allen

--VA-10: Frank Wolf

--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick

--WA-08: Dave Reichert



Via MyDD

5 Comments:

  • Kee-rist. Do you really think this is a good thing to do? It seems less "helpful" than going to someone's meeting and screaming to drown out what they want to say; it's probably even less useful.

    By Blogger Joe, at 11:06 PM  

  • I don't know. bowers has been right about things more often than not. He's done a good job getting safe Democrats to cough up some of the $30 million in cash that they've been sitting on to help Dems in competitive races.

    Besides, going to other people's meetings and disrupting them always works for the Spartacist League.

    By Blogger Barry Ragin, at 5:16 AM  

  • I don't know who Bowers is. I was just speaking to the general idea of disruptive speech being (in my mind) not generally helpful. Generally, I think that people have the right to get together and say what they want, but saying what you want just to disrupt someone else is not something I favor. If you believe in the golden rule, it falls out of that: I know I don't want people coming into my venue and disrupting what I want to say. So maybe I shouldn't be commenting like this here. :)

    By Blogger Joe, at 1:47 PM  

  • Google bombing is a time honored internet tradition that dates back to at least 2005, if not all the way to 2003.

    In this case, having a lot of people link to unflattering or worse articles about republican incumbents and candidates is an attempt to get those articles to appear at the top of the list whenever someone does a search for, say, Robin Hayes.

    Maybe it will swing a few votes Larry Kissell's way, maybe it won't. But you can be sure that Republcian and right wing blogs are already doing the same thing to Democrats.

    Bowers is one of the new wave of pro-Democratic bloggers and consultants who are trying to break the stranglehold of inside the beltway consultants on the Democratic party that has resulted in such a mealy-mouth message coming from Democratic candidates that George Bush has twice been elected president. His call last year for the Democrats to field candidates in each of the 435 House races, and to seriously challenge Republican incumbents in as many as 80 of those races was widely ridiculed by the DC crowd. Yet, many of those races have become competitive this year.

    He's earned his credibility.

    By Blogger Barry Ragin, at 2:00 PM  

  • I think this kind of thing is occasionally funny, like the Rick Santorum one a few years ago was (read down a bit). This kind of thing has been around longer than web search engines have: e-mail and USENET have provided similar opportunities. (Search for Serdar Argic/Ahmet Cosar sometime. I was involved in fighting that one, as one of the people being e-mail bombed was at Duke, and the bombing fucked up part of our mail system. The bomber was also the main reason USENET's soc.history group was moderated.) Anyway, that's when I formed the idea that people have the right to get together and talk about whatever they want without interruption by another. It's similar to what I've heard about as the 30-second version of Robert's Rules of Order: the minority can't prevent the majority from voting, and the majority can't prevent the minority from trying to become a majority.

    But clearly this is your blog, and you can arguably say and "Google bomb" whatever you like. So I'd fall back on the golden rule: would I want someone doing this to me? The answer is no, I wouldn't. But again, it's your blog and your decision. Then I'd fall back on "Is this useful" or "Does it actually get you what you want?" That depends on what you want. And I'm not going to answer that. In fact, I should have shut up a long time ago, based on my first point. But you're answering, and you can always nuke my comments as spam, and you're a friend of mine anyway, so perhaps you don't mind. ;)

    By Blogger Joe, at 3:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home