Notable Links



Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Knowledge Messenger

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

Penry Loves the Snarky Comeback (1st Rule of Leadership Edition)

by: Colorado Pols

Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:48:07 AM MDT


As the Grand Junction Sentinel reports:

...According to an audio recording of a portion of the hearing posted on ColoradoPols.com, [Sen. Shawn] Mitchell referred to a witness' comment that he was nervous at the beginning of this testimony but indicated that the witness didn't seem nervous.

"If any of those (witnesses) that follow are (nervous), I just want to pass on a tip that sometimes when I'm in committee and I'm nervous, I relieve that by imagining the chairwoman in her underwear," Mitchell said.

The chairwoman of the committee is Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora. The committee is charged with investigating alleged abuses by Pinnacol Assurance, the state's workers' compensation insurer.

Several people can be heard laughing at Mitchell's comment. A woman presumed to be Carroll noted that Mitchell "got a laugh out of that."

"I'll try that next time, sir," the witness said.

"I don't recommend that," Carroll replied.

In a prepared statement, former Lt. Gov. Gail Schoettler, a ProgressNow Colorado board member, chastised Mitchell for making a "sophomoric, suggestive comment" and said Penry "is either too weak or tone-deaf to get control of his caucus."

Reached late Friday afternoon, Penry called Mitchell's remark "an obviously inappropriate comment" and said Mitchell "should make it right" with Carroll.

"And since we're in the business of asking people to apologize for the actions of others, I call on Ms. Schoettler to apologize for (Gov.) Bill Ritter's massive car tax increase, his job-killing oil and gas rules, and for repealing the Senior Homestead Property Tax Exemption," Penry wrote in an e-mail.

A couple of observations:

1. As you can see, Senate Minority Leader/gubernatorial candidate Josh Penry doesn't mince as many words this time--Mitchell's comment was "obviously inappropriate." We're not quite sure what "make it right" means, presumably it means an apology. That's what it probably should mean.

Seems to us that's a very different response than Penry had to, for example, Dave Schultheis' uber-creepy "It's my hope that that person may have AIDS" remarks. As you know, Penry was roundly criticized for his inept response to extreme statements by members of his caucus during this year's session. Might almost make you think he learned his lesson, until we get to

2. Penry seems to think that former Lt. Gov. Gail Schoettler should apologize for a laundry list of Bill Ritter "misdeeds," such as the FASTER bill for transportation funding, new oil and gas drilling protections, and being forced to cut the homestead exemption like Republicans did in 2003 during a much less severe downturn. We're pretty sure you could argue those on the merits and still not approach the level of first-person disgust most people feel about sexual harrassment--but whatever.

Another more fundamental difference helps explain Penry's problem: Bill Ritter is the Governor, and we don't think there's a position of "Governor Majority Leader" above the Governor--and if there is, Gail Schoettler doesn't hold it. Josh Penry, on the other hand, is the Senate Minority Leader, meaning he's the closest thing to oversight Shawn Mitchell has got. From Jim Welker to Michael Garcia to Doug Bruce, there are examples of legislative leadership policing their own when not doing so threatens to become a political liability.

But not Penry! He's kind of annoyed he got called about this, and prefers a snarky comeback to acknowledging what most real leaders already know: in leadership, the buck stops with you.

Colorado Pols :: Penry Loves the Snarky Comeback (1st Rule of Leadership Edition)
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
It's called "deflecting"
It's a necessary skill for any politician, and Penry did a good job with it.

When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009


Appealing to his base.
Penry doesn't have to be rational; he just has to make gestures that insulate him from public outrage that could even seep into his base ("obviously inappropriate"), and then return to being the spokesman for dumb. Good for his career; bad for Colorado.

I packed a parachute this time, Pegasus!

[ Parent ]
Message control
He's running against an incumbent.  His job is to knock down the incumbent.  He deflected Schoettler's criticism and got right back on message.

I don't agree with Penry, just saying he did that very artfully.

When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009


[ Parent ]
Sure he did
If you're willing to overlook that logically, his response is evasive crapola unbefitting a official in a leadership role - which Penry allegedly is.

[ Parent ]
evasive crapola
What's evasive? He answered the question and then made another point. Whether it makes any sense to try to hold Schoettler to account for Ritter's actions -- good question. But there's nothing evasive about what Penry said.

[ Parent ]
Gotta agree with you
It was a resonable and totally fair response. If he didn't use it as a chance to ping Ritter then he would be a poor candidate.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

[ Parent ]
This is where I've always parted company with
the collective wisdom of politicos: When we turn "being a good candidate," in the sense of doing whatever best scores points in an electoral competition, into a moral virtue rather than, at best, a grudgingly tolerated necessity, we have turned an unfortunate (and increasingly Machiavelian)corner in our collective consciousness. I would argue that it is more useful to strive to render such tactics less effective by openly disdaining them: Using the acknowledgement of the transgression of a Republican state senator as a platform for criticizing, without any relevance whatsoever, the Democratic governor, may be "good politics" (by your narrow definition), but it is not good for the polity, because it deflates the acknowledgement of the transgression, and inflates (by mis-association) the criticism of the governor. It's worth striving to better align those two (good politics, and what's good for the polity). Let Penry make his criticisms as the stand-alone statements that they are, rather than as something that can disingenuously piggy-back off of his own colleague's defects.

I packed a parachute this time, Pegasus!

[ Parent ]
deflates the acknowledgement of the transgression, and inflates (by mis-association) the criticism
So it'd be OK if he made the statements in two separate e-mails?

Take a breath, Belle. It's Labor Day Weekend, not Belabored Day Weekend.


[ Parent ]
Yes, there is a difference between criticizing the Governor
independently, and implying that there's a connection or correlation between Penry's criticisms and who they were addressed to, and the completely unrelated criticisms leveled against Mitchell and himself. The first is the statement of an honest opinion, while the second is a subterfuge. Such political expedience is normal in politics, and I acknowledge the competitive pressures to engage in it, but merely disagree with the tendency here to raise it to the level of a "moral good." This is just one reasonable point of view, stated in a simple and straightforward manner. I'll leave the "clever" retorts to you.

I packed a parachute this time, Pegasus!

[ Parent ]
Yeah Steve, but you have no chance of getting elected
Because you don't understand the game.

When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009


[ Parent ]
Goal displacement.
There are several erroneous assumptions embedded in your one short sentence:

1) You assume, wrongly, that making a distinction between the strategic demands of the political process and the notion that it is a moral good to accede to those demands implies an inability to think and act strategically. One does not logically or necessarily follow from the other.

2) You assume, wrongly, that I am as one-dimensional as you are, and that, therefore, the only reason I could possibly risk compromising my chances of winning an election would be because of a personal failure on my part, rather than as an exercise in personal integrity and a multi-faceted commitment to the ends rather than a single-minded commitment to any one of the means in isolation. In other words, you assume, wrongly, that to the extent that I do "understand the game," I must necessarily be willing to contribute to the legitimization of those aspects of "the game" I consider counterproductive to human welfare in order to further (what you wrongly define to be the scope of) my own personal ambitions.

3) You assume, wrongly, that your comments (and your redundant breach of Pols etiquette), transparently inspired solely and completely by the petty rancor you harbor toward me personally (though you've never met me and don't know me), can be confused by anyone (other than those who share your petty rancor) as being anything other than the expression of that petty rancor.

I packed a parachute this time, Pegasus!


[ Parent ]
See #3 above. n/t


I packed a parachute this time, Pegasus!

[ Parent ]
I think there is value in these snarky replies
Most people are not going to pay much attention to politics. They have a lot going on in their lives and so they have to make decisions based on short amounts of information.

This makes one of the major jobs of a politician during an election to distill the differences between themselves and their opponent into short easy to understand tidbits. And comments like Penry's do exactly that.

And yes, each politician will put themselves in the best light and their opponent in the worst light - that's called differentiating.

Penry did what he's supposed to do, and he did it well. Pols fired back as we Dems are supposed to do. And in this case it ends slight advantage Penry.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!


[ Parent ]
That's a perfectly respectable opinion.
As is the opinion that one often overlooked goal of political activism is to cultivate marginal changes in human habits of both thought and action, identifying what does and does not serve human welfare, and seeking to maximize net improvements in the balance over time. "The job of a politician," narrowly defined, is one thing. The challenges facing less unimaginative people trying to improve the world, one small step at a time, is another. Some politically active people  define themselves in the former way, and some in the latter.

The phrases "did what he's supposed to do" and "know how to play the game" are particularly apt: You're talking about the status quo of the political culture, and importing the assumption that participating in status quo ways is unimpeachable. Well, it's unimpeachable unless you acknowledge that the way things are is not necessarily the way things need to be, and that change occurs through a process of identifying preferred possibilities and pursuing them.

It is important to be realistic, understanding systemic reasons why things are as they are, and identifying possibilities that are systemically plausible and attainable. Making marginal advances away from a political culture that is sound-bite driven, and more reliant on the exploitation of ignorance than on the dissemination of in-depth information, is certainly a daunting challenge. But it is also, in my opinion, by far the most important challenge we face.

I said in my very first post on this topic that some grudging tolerance of Penry's tactic is reasonable, since it is unreasonable to expect politicians to act in competitively inferior ways. The distinction I made was that it need not, therefore, be raised to the level of a moral good. This balances realism and idealism in precisely the way that I think is most functional.

Now, by all means, RedGreen and Ralphie and Gertie and whoever else feels so inclined, lambast me with your superior wisdom. I will continue to state what I believe, and to fight for what I think is in our collective interest, despite my failings.

I packed a parachute this time, Pegasus!


[ Parent ]
Now, by all means, RedGreen lambast me with your superior wisdom
You really don't get it. I thought we were talking about Penry's political rhetoric, and contrasting it, in this case, with your utter lack of a sense of humor or perspective.

My point was that Penry isn't debasing the polity, but, rather, talking the way human beings do in a way human beings understand. Getting a dig in at your opponent while admonishing one of your own -- this is hardly the mark of 2009-era decline, it has always been thus.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with the way Penry formulated his statement, though I can vehemently disagree with his conclusion. That's called debate, and what Penry said encourages it.

On the other hand, paranoid ravings that assume a personal attack when none exists -- my position is, this kind of rhetoric doesn't work very well, for the polity or otherwise.

You think it's a good idea to "openly disdain" Penry's tactics. I think it's a better idea to "openly disdain" yours. Let's keep this an argument about political rhetoric and leave the persecution complexes at the door.


[ Parent ]
What RedGreen said
Bellerophon - the human race does not operate the way you want it to. Politicians work with people they way they are. If you want to change human nature - start a religion.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

[ Parent ]
The "human nature" you are referring to,
roughly, is the pursuit of self-interest, which is responsive to incentives. Some people consider "getting a dig in at your opponent" to be the height of what we can aspire to. I respectfully disagree. We help to determine by our reactions the incentives that people face, and whether any given behavior is formally or informally rewarded or punished. I simply disagree, in a fairly nuanced way, with the matrix of assumptions and conclusions that RedGreen and David appear to consider unassailable. That need not, and should not, be cause for rancor.

As an aside, the nuance seems to have been completely missed. David thinks he is refuting me by saying that "politicans work with people the way they are," which is a notion that was completely incorporated into my own comments from start to finish. And my social analyses (including the one in this thread) all start from the working assumption that all individuals are acting in their own self-interest (a useful over-simplification), which apparently is not a cynical enough view of human nature.

As for the rest: if I linked to the very lengthy list of gratuitous, repetitive, incessant, apparently Pavlovian personal attacks made against me on this site (generally in response to very straight-forward and impersonal arguments), outing me repeatedly when I've sought the anonymity all others consider their right to enjoy, desparaging me for my supposed personal defects (which was repeated in this thread with an irrelevant reference intended solely to inflict actual personal and professional damage), no reasonable observer could suggest that my passing reference to that phenomenon (one short sentence inviting those so inclined to "lambast me with [their] superior wisdom," and no more) is an indication of a "persecution complex". In fact, the suggestion itself (in five-paragraphs of venemous response to the above-mentioned short phrase) is just more of the same, especially by the person who had preceded it by responding to my not-particularly-long and completely dispassionate initial post with: "Take a breath, Belle. It's Labor Day Weekend, not Belabored Day Weekend."

Don't get me wrong: I don't think it's particularly about me (none of those involved know me), nor do I feel unique in the honor thus bestowed upon me. Certain kinds of triggers provoke, in this virtual community (and perhaps, more broadly, in this virtual sub-culture), those kinds of tactics and behaviors. It is the "weapon of the weak," made more convenient by virtue of anonymity (there are excellent analogies to this in various other contexts, but if I were to mention any of them, people would go berserk).

RedGreen says that we should keep the discussion focused on the topic at hand: That was precisely my point, both on the primary topic of political tactics and on this secondary topic of public discourse. But RedGreen himself followed the course that was the opposite of his own advice, perhaps to better make the dubious case that it is morally virtuous to make irrelevant attacks at every opportunity against perceived opponents.

I packed a parachute this time, Pegasus!


[ Parent ]
Harvey. Just quit it.
Why are you bothering to post under a different name?

Not trying to out you, but just quit.  It's demeaning.

What, are your constituents going to be surprised that you're a leftie, verbose to a fault?

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  


[ Parent ]
I hope the irony isn't lost on you. n/t


I packed a parachute this time, Pegasus!

[ Parent ]
Your kind of irony
Is another man's tedium. Why lie?

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  

[ Parent ]
Should I name you, too, LB?
After all, why lie?

Is this site now all about trying to inflict damage on perceived enemies?

It should be obvious that I was never particularly trying to hide my identity from people who might recognize me, but relied (mistakenly) on the norm of discretion that had been so dearly held here, for reasons that I have no obligation (and should have no need) to explain. And your supposition that I need a reason not to switch back to posting under my own name (one of the few people here who ever regularly did that, I might add) is backwards: I would need a reason to switch back to the account under my real name, since that requires an action whereas posting under this one is simply the result of inaction.

The irony (aside from your using my name and saying that you're not trying to out me all in the same sentence), of course, is that not only did you volunteer to become a pristine example of exactly what I described in the post to which you responded, but you also left this site for awhile because of some low-life who started to make posts hinting at your real identity. Now you are emulating that low-life?

Even more bizarre is that you know that I know your name, and, last I heard, you very much didn't want your anonymity here compromised. You apparently have faith, correctly, that I would be loathe to stoop to your level. However, it might be wise at this point not to press your luck.

I packed a parachute this time, Pegasus!


[ Parent ]
I think you might be the one pressing your luck,
You see, you would have a point if you hadn't originally posted under your real name. I'm pretty sure "Laughing Boy" isn't LB's real name.

You posted under your real name, bored us all under your real name, and announced your candidacy under your real name.

Try outing LB (who has never revealed his real name on this blog) and see how long you are allowed to continue posting here. Just the fact that you threatened him speaks volumes about what kind of a "progressive" you really are. I pity the voters in your district. I pity them for having you as their choice on the Democratic ticket. Maybe your county chairman of the Democratic Party and some of the other folks that hold positions on your county board need to get a head's up about your behavior here. And unlike you, I'm not threatening. I am fucking well telling you flat out that if you keep this crap up, that's the next move I'm making.  

--From a "real dick."
by: JO


[ Parent ]
How does my having posted under my real name in the past
deprive me of the right to post under a pseudonym now? There is absolutely no connection between the two. Such a convenient hook you've found on which to hang and justify the vindictive expression of your baseless rancor! The simple fact is, others have outed me, while I have outed no one, and yet you are outraged by my actions, and complacent concerning theirs. Isn't it wonderful to be able to bend reality to the demands of your prejudice!

Do as you please. But you're right about one thing: I can no longer post here, not because of "political ambitions" (which I don't have in the sense that you seem to think I do), but rather because there's just no point in trying to communicate ideas in an environment of such raging and irrational antagonism, implicitly endorsed by the silent consent of the community.

Another irony to be appreciated: A microcosm of what's happening in the country happening right here on this site, but drawn along different lines for different reasons. As frustrating as it is, I still prefer to be the one shouted down by an angry and unreasoning handful of people, than to be so unfortunate as to be one of them.

I packed a parachute this time, Pegasus!


[ Parent ]
the one shouted down by an angry and unreasoning handful of people
Well don't that beat all. I'm flattered to have made your enemies' list -- for, as I recall, once saying "oh yeah, that blogger sounds familiar," and thereafter earning snarling, persecuted responses every time I disagreed with something your various personae enscribed -- but I thought you were someone else.

That alarming level of condescension and defensiveness could only have been 1) Sirota or 2) an elaborate, pitch-perfect parody. Little did I know it was the real thing.

You know, my grandpa sees wondrous colors none of the rest of us can see. He enjoys exquisite pleasures, but they won't let him drive and he can't be trusted to feed himself. I'm glad his twilight years are marvelous for him, because, so often, it can turn out otherwise.


[ Parent ]
I don't have any enemies.
I haven't been the one hurling invectives here, other than to criticize others for doing so. When I post a simple, straight-forward opinion about the topic of the thread, the response is to out me yet again, because I "don't know how to play the game." When I end another post with "lambast me with your superior wisdom" (since that is clearly how a handful of posters here automatically respond to anything I post), that is somehow "ranting paranoia." When I post to someone who outed me that it is ironic that they could do so trusting correctly that I would not stoop to the same level, that is responded to with a stream of vitriol and threats to "report my behavior."

I have no enemies, just not enough patience and "thick skin" for being the focal point of such all-too-common behavior. Clearly, I do things which make me the focal point (otherwise I wouldn't be one), starting with making long analytical posts (which automatically mean I'm an obnoxious "know-it-all"), and continuing with making cutting responses once the vitriol starts flying in response to my long analytical posts. But there is a difference between doing things which make me the focal point of all of this vitriol, and doing things which merit my being the focal point of all of this vitriol.

Your post is still, very clearly, all about trying to cut me down to size, while accusing me of all sorts of paranoia simply for recognizing that your posts are all about trying to cut me down to size. Even my simple statement about my priorities in life is somehow, in your mind, just cause for more insults. And the fact that I say that is undoubtedly just cause for more insults still! If I were to apologize for having offended you, it would almost certainly be just cause for more insults. Clearly, there is a dynamic at work here.

I know that this is an endless loop, that no matter how I respond, the response from about half a dozen posters here (who reflexively react thus when I post, no matter what I post) will always be in the same tone, with the same attitude, with the same unreflecting certainty of the reasonableness of that tone and that attitude. But despite my many real defects as a human being, I am also, honestly and sincerely, so committed to trying to find our collective way to reason and good will in all circumstances (even when I may have failed to exercise either reason or good will at some point myself), that I just keep going, enduring (and perpetuating) that loop until either reason and good will have prevailed, or there simply is no choice but to give up.

The fact is (and this is the one thing that is really worth thinking about), that this site, where people get together to discuss how we coexist and how we can better coexist, imports many of the unattractive human qualities that are precisely the greatest obstacles to our ability to peacefully and mutually supportively coexist. It is a microcosm of the world, including the comraderies and pleasant exchanges, but also including the scape-goating and intolerance of difference and group piling on for collective self-inflation and self-gratification. All of these are characteristics of this forum, as they are characteristics of the world.

It could become a lesson to us all, or could just remain more of the same.

I packed a parachute this time, Pegasus!


[ Parent ]
Dood.
Just post as yourself.  It's no big deal.

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  

[ Parent ]
Just keep in mind
That when everyone disagrees with you, generally you should consider that your opinion of what makes sense is probably wrong. Yes sometimes the lone voice in the wilderness is right - but that is very very rare.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

[ Parent ]
Stevie doesn't care
He's smarter than everyone else.  Just ask him.

The real tragedy is, he'd probably make a good legislator.  He just can't put aside his "I'm smarter than everyone else" attitude long enough to get elected.

A year from this November, he'll be another also-ran.

When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009


[ Parent ]
A year from November, Ralphie,
I'll be the same person, pursuing the same ultimate goals, embracing the same underlying values, enjoying the same exquisite pleasures, marveling at the same wondrous universe, playing with and loving my same darling little daughter. That is all that has ever mattered to me.

I packed a parachute this time, Pegasus!

[ Parent ]
Truth is not a democracy.
All else being equal, you're right: The lone voice is wrong more often than right. But that is a statistical fact, not a basis for evaluation: The basis for evaluation involves the strength of the arguments on their own merits, and nothing else.

In any case, one would hope that among reasonable people of good will I could state my honestly derived "wrong" opinions without being subjected to such rancor for doing so. And, indeed, among reasonable people of good will I will always be able to do so.

I packed a parachute this time, Pegasus!


[ Parent ]
As a newbie here
who knows neither of you, I would like to say I would be disappointed if "Bellerophon" stopped posting here. I enjoy reading his lengthy dissertations because I almost invariably find knowledge and food for thought and frequently agree with his positions. But, I equally enjoy the snarkiness of RedGreen and his/her insight on a wide variety of subjects.

I spent a lot of time hanging around the GJDS Community site (home town paper, don't you know) and I much prefer the "edginess" of this discourse to the "milquetoast" quality of that site. All you have to do to be censored by the ghosts in that machine is to have a sense of humor and a vocabulary. The place is a "snark free zone".

So, if I may be so presumptuous, I would like to ask you two to bury the hatchet for the benefit of the many?

MTCW


[ Parent ]
Thanks, Duke.
Unfortunately, I don't think I will continue posting here, nor return again after another hiatus (except perhaps one of several years, giving time for a turn-over of participants, and a growth in my own ability not to incite such vitriol), because the costs to me simply outweigh the benefits. But I will be posting my thoughts on various topics, ranging across the spectrum and of varying degrees of abstraction (I am just finishing up an essay called "the politics of consciousness," which I think you might enjoy), on www.steveharveyforcolorado.org, beginning soon (we still have to activate the blog link). Undoubtedly, on that site and others thereafter, I will continue to publish my thoughts, and make them available to those who are interested. I may occasionally post links to my writings on the open thread here.

Snark is one thing, and I am probably oversensitive to it, but there is something that goes beyond snark at play here, that I know has driven other thoughtful posters away (I have talked with a couple recently, who many of you would recognize as past favorites, who left precisely because of the degree of gratuitous rancor that has taken over here). That is as it is: The world is a messy place. Hopefully, we will all continue to strive to be reasonable people of good will, looking both inward and outward for opportunities to do better.

Cheers.

I packed a parachute this time, Pegasus!


[ Parent ]
I will make a note of the website.
Vaya con Dios.

[ Parent ]
So...
Is this all cool then? We're ready to start deleting comments if it's not, but some parts of this exchange fall a little outside our policy.

With a reminder: don't "out" people on this blog, it is never acceptable and will be dealt with severely. May not be quite what happened in this case, but please be mindful as it's one of very few rules we enforce.


[ Parent ]
Well, to the extent that driving posters off the site is cool,
everything's cool as far as I'm concerned.

We're all in this story together: Let's make sure that we write it well.
http://www.steveharveyforcolor...


[ Parent ]
My vote is delete them
Outing someone should be grounds for immediate deletion of comments.

And for the person doing so, I'd say in this case it was somewhat inadvertant as we all knew who Bellerophon had to be based on the writing, and they only used his first name. But still it should be a single warning at most and then deletion.

There is blow-back for posters if they are identified - believe me I know because I get it quite a bit.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!


[ Parent ]
Well, David
Bellerophon outed himself, too, with a link to his web site.

When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009


[ Parent ]
I'm sorry.
I really didn't mean to make a problem out of it, but I thought he kind of outed himself, and he posted under his own name here, anyway.

My bad, though.

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  


[ Parent ]
As long as we're voting, my vote is that we delete all posts,
going back weeks, that outed me in my successive attempts to post anonymously, to delete other posts that referred to those outings in ways that identified me, to delete my own posts that responded to those outings in ways that identified me, and to delete my preceding post that I posted in my own name. I'm not saying that I expect that to happen, but it's what I would vote for, and it's what would eliminate the potential harm that the outings might do to me.

Ralphie, I didn't post my website (not a link) until after you and LB had already posted my name anyway, following the example set by sxp (who was first in line, and used my first and last name, as he had previously done to Another Skeptic), Yokel, and Middle of the Road (who used my first and last name on another thread recently). You can't justify your previous action by my subsequent one.

LB, I never outed myself explicitly by name, which was the whole point, since the issue for me was searchability (and now posting under my own name here was really a bad idea on that score, in retrospect). You see, I had a reason for not wanting people to type my name into these fields, regardless of how many people knew who was posting.

I packed a parachute this time, Pegasus!


[ Parent ]
I used only your first name
And since I use my own first name as my user name, I don't really consider that "outing."

When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009


[ Parent ]
Ralphie, you're free to choose for yourself
what name you publish, but not to choose for others. You used my first name, someone else used my last a couple of posts later, but neither of you outed me, right?

I packed a parachute this time, Pegasus!

[ Parent ]
I wasn't the first person to use your first name.
Someone else already had.

When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009


[ Parent ]
Not on this thread.
First it was okay because I subsequently posted my campaign website (having already been outed anyway). Then it was okay because you only used my first name. Then it was okay because you weren't the first to use my first name (the analogies, again, are tempting, but I'll resist).

Way to man up, Ralphie. You should take a lesson from LB, below.

I packed a parachute this time, Pegasus!


[ Parent ]
Look at the time on my post
And look at the time on the one that actually outed you.

Never mind I'll do it for you.  

First one, Friday Open Thread: Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:10:55 AM MDT

Mine, this thread: Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 20:30:09 PM MDT

More than nine hours later.

Whine at the other guy.


When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009


[ Parent ]
Ok
Well, I'm sorry. I mean it.  

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  

[ Parent ]
apology accepted n/t


I packed a parachute this time, Pegasus!

[ Parent ]
I don't know exactly what you're referring to
I remember doing this:
http://coloradopols.com/showCo...
which used your first name. I immediately regretted doing it, and you might have noticed that at no point did I ever mention anything about it again, but one can't delete one's own comments here. I'm sorry for doing it.

But I don't know what you're talking about as far as Another Skeptic goes. I haven't the slightest idea who he is.

"You need to move past Fourier transforms and start thinking quantum mechanics!" --The Transformers


[ Parent ]
I'm glad to hear that was an accident.
That was my initial assumption, but then, remembering some other interactions, I began to have doubts.

I might have been wrong about who outed AS: It happened just as I was coming back on to the blog after a year or more of not posting, some time ago. If so, I apologize.

We're all in this story together: Let's make sure that we write it well.
http://www.steveharveyforcolor...


[ Parent ]
No, I wasn't wrong about you outing AS.
http://coloradopols.com/showCo...

We're all in this story together: Let's make sure that we write it well.
http://www.steveharveyforcolor...


[ Parent ]
Huh
I was really just making that up. The debate he was having had nothing to do with evolution, but Skeptic was asking things that reminded me a lot of a hilarious evolution debate I'd read on Conservapedia. I thought it would be cute if "AS = AS," but I never had any reason aside from cuteness to think it was correct. If you think it was, I'll email Pols and ask them to remove my comment.

"You need to move past Fourier transforms and start thinking quantum mechanics!" --The Transformers

[ Parent ]
Perhaps I just misunderstood. n/t


We're all in this story together: Let's make sure that we write it well.
http://www.steveharveyforcolor...


[ Parent ]
Posters shouldn't use people's names, or imagined names
first or last.  It's up to the individuals how they want to ID themselves. Right? Everyone agree?

But overall, the thread is a bit silly...

"Yes Twitty, I'm an idiot." Ben Stein's $$


[ Parent ]
Penry
is nothing more or less than a drive by talk radio show pundit/politician. No substance. Just snark.

Word of advice Josh. Grow up.  

"Suddenly, it may be cool to be American again" - William J. Kole


Penry's base will get a big kick out of his wit and charm.
His detractors will view his statement as proof that he doesn't have the maturity to hold the office of governor.

Question for Josh Penry
(Gov.) Bill Ritter's massive car tax increase, his job-killing oil and gas rules, and for repealing the Senior Homestead Property Tax Exemption,"

Ok, fair enough. A clear specific policy stand. So please tell us the other half - where do you fund these? Is it a tax increase you are proposing? Or if it's different cuts, can you give us the specific cuts?

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!


I recommend not holding your breath while waiting for a reply.


[ Parent ]
May vs. Penry
Kudos to Pols for mentioning Douglas Bruce in their list of properly-policed rogue legislators. While I'd expect little less from any competent leader, I was grateful for Leader May's genuine and well-executed efforts to distance his caucus from Bruce - both his wacky outbursts and his bogus policy positions.

Of course, shortly after Bruce's appointment, it became clear that he would be nothing more than a source of embarrassment to the Republican legislative caucuses. Unfortunately, Senator Penry didn't seem to view the comments made by Schultheis or Renfroe as potentially embarrassing. Instead, he seemed more concerned with policing the "embarrassing" actions of Senator White and Representative Marostica, when those two dared to lift a toe out of line.

"Oh Lord, are there really people starving still?"


not only that, but IIRC, May went out and actively recruited Bruce's primary opponent


[ Parent ]
that he did
Good point.

"Oh Lord, are there really people starving still?"

[ Parent ]
Snarky is vintage Wadhams
Penry is good with the :30 sec. sound bite but not the snarky comebacks.  Wadhams has his man as campaign manager and you can bet Wadhams is helping develop all messages including this one.

Dismiss Penry's ability to speak well and at length
at your peril. Read the lengthy interview with Penry in this week's Statesman, and then compare it with the defensiveness verging on incoherence we get from McInnis and the mild-mannered, "let's not offend anyone" nice guy approach of Bill Ritter. I think it's really a mistake to miss how good Penry has gotten at articulating his message (whether you agree with it or not).

[ Parent ]
His message?
He's very good (as all good politicians are) at going on at length without any substance at all. I've heard him speak on a number of occasions.

Penry rails about the legislature ``not making the hard choices.'' He neglects to mentioned what choices he'd make.

He rails about oil & gas regs costing jobs, and conveniently avoids the nosediving price of natural gas.

He says taxes are too high, but says nothing about how state government should be run without revenue.

He doesn't like paroling people early. Fine. Where's the money to keep them locked up? Same with the Regional Center in Grand Junction. To keep what open, what would you cut elsewhere?

Saying you'd take a hard look at all areas of the budget, starting withe the governor's office, is a good notion. Hardly new. You've been in the legislature for five years, Josh. Why haven't you looked at this before and proposed concrete cuts?

When he gets some kind of coherent message and not just rhetoric, I'll be waiting to hear it.

But snark? He's very good. Shows promise, that boy.


[ Parent ]
Watching Penry's desultory and captious song and dance
is like watching a Lloyd and Croft sitcom.  It is so dumb, you just have to laugh.

"Duh," said Penry, who is the minority leader for the GOP in the state Senate"  -Charles Ashby


[ Parent ]
Blow Penry off at your peril
The price of gas is complicated.

The rules are simple.

Which argument do you feel is going to be grasped by the people?

When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009


[ Parent ]
The ``peepul'' will grasp the rules crap
You're right on that. But the few oil and gas counties in the state, with the exception of Las Animas, are Republican voters anyway.

Plus, the price of gas isn't that complicated if Ritter can figure out how to communicate it.

Boom: $13+ (free market)
Bust: $2.50 (free market)

I'm not blowing Penry off. He's fearless, filled with bullshit, glib and confident past the point of arrogance. Just the thing the faithful want.

We will see. It'll be fun to watch.


[ Parent ]
Aye, gertie
He's fearless, filled with bullshit, glib and confident past the point of arrogance.

And those characteristics, I believe, will be his downfall. Those of us who live in Penryville (even though our Prince has left us to usurp the throne) know him very well. He has bought the Rove/Wadhams philosophy that the electorate is a brainless block of clay for them to mold. That hyper-arrogance will not serve them much longer.  


[ Parent ]
Of course he thinks the electorate is a brainless block of clay.
He's from Mesa County, the prime example of an electorate that votes again and again against its own self-interest.

What he'll find out, though, is that most of the rest of the state (alas, not all) doesn't think that way.


[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?





Advertise Here!
ads@coloradopols.com


Active Users
Currently 10 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search


Colorado Pols Network




















Stay home if you have flu symptoms. Visit www.cdc.gov/h1n1 for more information.


RSS 2.0



Pols Gets Mobile: ColoradoPols.com/mobile/

Colorado Pols is on Twitter: twitter.com/coloradopols

Email Pols


How to Write a Diary That Will Make the Front Page



Relevant Links

Back Roads to the White House

The Big Media Blog

Blog It Right

Blog For Growth

Blogometer

Colorado Capitol Journal

Colorado Center on Law and Policy

Colorado Democratic Party

Colorado Ethics Watch

Colorado Independent

Colorado Veterans for America

Colorado Legislature

Colorado Lib

Colorado Libertarian Blog

Colorado Media Matters

Colorado Progressive Coalition

Colorado Republican Party

Colorado Secretary of State

Colorado Senate

Colorado Young Democrats

Commentary Today

Coyote Gulch

CU Democrats

Curious Stranger

Daily Kos

Dan Willis-Rumors

Dem Notes

Democracy for Colorado

Denver Politics

Denver Post

East Boulder County Politics

Ed Stein Ink

Election Neutrality Now

George in Denver

Great Education Colorado

Head First Colorado

The Hotline Political Network

Left in the West

Liberal and Loving It

Maintain Educational Standards in Colorado

Mount Virtus

MyDD

National Journal

On Call

Peak Dems

Political Gravy

Politics West

Political State Report

Progress Now

Prometheus

Project Vote Smart

Radio Free Denver

Rocky Mountain News

Senate Guru

Slapstick Politics

State 38

Steam Powered Opinions

Square State

Stygius

TalkLeft

The Thicket

The Bell Policy Center

The Hypothetical Wren

ThomasMC.com

Toilet Paper Online

Ultimate Politics

View From a Height

Walter in Denver

Wash Park Prophet

Washington and the West

Western Democrat



Colorado Pols is wholly owned by www.ColoradoPols.com, LLC
webmaster-at-coloradopols.com
Powered by: SoapBlox