Errr, Thanks for the Link, I Suppose
Discoved some interesting linkage in my referring pages today, where I was getting used as a stick by two bloggers who apparently aren't familiar with my blog. I can forgive one, but the other's a little sneaky.
To start out, OzarkLad was annoyed at the angry Left's
default analysis that everything is Bush's fault, an observation that we have often turned to here at Brainster's. So far so good.
That post was picked up Sarah D. Bunting
at something called Project DU. It does not appear to be associated with the Democratic Underground; its about us section says:Project D.U. is a network of top blogs and collection of influential editors designed to inform, as well as entertain. A place where content is king. Where smart, witty, never-thought-of-that-before banter always rises to the top. It's your connection to uncommon thoughts on common subjects.
Okay, my guess is something like Blogcritics, but still not pushing much traffic it would appear, since I didn't even see them in my referring logs although the post was made a couple of days ago. Sarah writes:OzarkLad is annoyed at the tendency of the "angry left" to default to blaming Bush for everything that's going wrong in the Katrina aftermath, but Truthout.org links to a Times editorial criticizing the president's "casual" demeanor in the face of this crisis. Jay Lake wonders why it took Bush so long to react, and why that reaction is "unpreparedness." Law 'n' Order calls on readers to hold the president accountable for his "reckless negligence," while Media Needle talks about efforts on both sides of the aisle to "politicize" the disaster, and Brainster talks about "political looters" leveraging the situation to look good for their constituencies. Even Elephant In Exile thinks the feds should have shown more foresight in their handling of Katrina, before and after the storm made landfall.
Some real problems in there. First, what is the word "but" doing in that first sentence? The word "but" indicates that she's going to prove something completely different from what OzarkLad had claimed, but
instead she proves his point. Truthout.org, an angry Left site if ever there was one, "links" to a New York Times editorial (actually they swipe the whole thing) which blames Bush. Stop the presses!
The next three links are to angry left sites that are blaming President Bush. I mean, at this point OzarkLad can rest his case! Media Needle
certainly does not talk about efforts on both sides of the aisle to politicize the disaster, as this snippet reveals:So much for any shred of credibility from this administration.
I have a feeling that Mr Needle has never felt the administration had any credibility anyway, so it's not like President Bush has lost anything there.
Then comes Brainster's and what she says is literally true:Brainster talks about "political looters" leveraging the situation to look good for their constituencies.
But of course coming on top of what has gone before it sounds like I agree with the four liberal bloggers who preceded me. In fact, I was assailing exactly the sorts of folks who were sitting there in supposed judgment of the President when of course their minds were made up before they heard any evidence. Some of the political looters I cited:Political looters are popping up almost as fast as property looters. Robert Kennedy, Jr. put down the needle long enough to pen a screed about how Haley Barbour deserved the destruction that hit Mississippi. Ross Gelbspan screamed it was all global warming.
So it should be obvious that I disagreed fiercely with the other guys cited in that paragraph other than OzarkLad.Even Elephant In Exile thinks the feds should have shown more foresight in their handling of Katrina, before and after the storm made landfall.
Elephant in Exile's one of those sites that reads something like a seminar caller; perhaps we should call them seminar blogs.
He says the following about himself:I am a former Chief of Staff to a Republican Congressman and current attorney/lobbyist My ideology leans right in classic conservative sense with a libertarian twist.
Then why the in exile part? You can probably guess. I couldn't find an actual explanation, but based on what I did read, "horrified with the right-wing policies of George W. Bush" about covers it. In fairness I did read a couple posts that indicated that perhaps he's a Libertarian, not a loony bin Lefty. But he's certainly not a Bush supporter who has suddenly seen the light because of New Orleans.
So I can hardly blame OzarkLad for assuming
I was part of "Five links to angry left folks that re-inforce my point." Actually it was six links, four of which were to angry lefties, one to me that didn't prove her point, and one to an arguable anti-war libertarian who's let that color his attitudes towards Bush. His argument was born out by Sarah's post no matter how many "evens" and "buts" she puts in to divert attention.