The (temporary) home of practical progressives

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Over the Top

Overzealousness is an easy thing to let happen. This strikes me as rather silly, pretty unfair and "gotcha" politics. It could easily have been a slipup, and the time to make noise is after they refuse to address it. Weren't we just chiding certain people for being a little quick on the draw to yell for the cops?

Let's not raise our hand to tell the Teacher everytime someone throws a spitwad.

What do you think? Fair or not fair?


Blogger cscs said...

Politics is a tough sport. Are you saying nothing should be said, or something should be said, but more politely?

1:35 PM

Blogger Sundog said...

I'm saying it's a little silly to call the cops because someone didn't update their metadata. We should save our outrage for more deserving targets. I have a feeling there won't be any shortage of them.

1:41 PM

Anonymous cfaller96 said...

Nobody's calling the cops yet, Sundog, least of all the Lamont campaign. Furthermore, the facts are not in dispute. But sure, okay, whatever, let's give Joe Lieberman and Dan Gerstein yet another pass on blatantly dishonest (and perhaps illegal) behavior.

"Lamont hacked my site on election day, call the FBI!"

The Lamont campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the outage, and we have yet to see any evidence that anyone hacked the site. False accusations are slanderous and illegal.

"AFL-CIO endorses me, tell Google!"

The AFL-CIO pulled its endorsement of Joe Lieberman. This "error" was pointed out on Monday, and metadata can be changed instantly. Trademark infringement is illegal.

Two days and counting, with no comment from the Lieberman campaign- at what point in time do you believe this is a deliberate deception? 3 days? 4 days? 5? How long?

Sundog, you remember the bulls--t that Dan Gerstein engaged in at the "unofficial" blog in support of Joe Lieberman. What makes you think a person that deceived then is suddenly perfectly honest now?

How many times must a person deceive before you stop believing that person has good faith?

2:13 PM

Blogger Sundog said...

It's just that, being in the business myself, it's easy for me to see how such a thing could happen by mistake. How long to give them to correct it? A judgement call, I admit.

Don't worry, I don't trust anyone.

2:23 PM

Anonymous cfaller96 said...

sundog said:
it's easy for me to see how such a thing could happen by mistake.

I think you're overlooking the difference between a mistake happening, and a mistake continuing. The first is honest, the second is not.

On Monday, when this "error" was discovered, I chalked it up to an honest mistake by the Lieberman campaign. But that was two days ago, without so much as an "oops" from the Lieberman campaign.

Changing the metadata is not much more complicated than pushing a f--king button. What's the excuse now? What will be the excuse tomorrow? When will these excuses no longer be believable?

sundog said:
How long to give them to correct it? A judgement call, I admit.

I agree, and as I've made abundantly clear, two days is about a day and a half too long for me to believe there's good faith. But enough about me- how long is too long for you?

3:17 PM

Blogger cscs said...

Well, I agree. Silly to call the cops. Especially since they're apparently technology deficient over there.

But it was right to call it out -- now it's up to Lieberman's campaign to fix the problem.

3:28 PM

Blogger Matt said...

The Lieberman campaign has been very dishonest about Lamont right from the start--alternately calling him a Republican and too liberal, then labeling him a racist.

If you were working for the Lamont campaign, and saw the media reporting Lieberman's lies as facts, wouldn't you want to push any dirt you had on Lieberman at the first opportunity.

The problem is that if Lamont were to be reasonable, he'd get walked all over. The media doesn't appreciate reasonableness. Furthermore, the Lieberman campaign, with its history of deceit, is likely to get worse.

Especially since any charges in this situation are grounded in observable fact and are at best explained as laziness by Lieberman's staffers, this is a no-brainer: of course you push it.

If Lieberman were running a cleaner campaign, I'd agree that this is a bit petty, but he's not, and there's no reason to expect he would.

6:49 PM

Blogger Gary Sartori said...

Lamont couldn't be reasonable if his life depended on it. Just ask Jane Hamsher. Colors Lieberman in blackface, and Lamont condones it. Yes, that pretty much confirms him being a racist.

6:55 PM

Blogger Matt said...


You're absolutely wrong--Lamont DID NOT condone it.

"The photo was terribly disappointing, and we asked that it be removed as soon as we heard about it. It’s worth noting, well over 500 bloggers write about the campaign almost every day, none of which are campaign staffers."


By that standard, we'd be holding Lieberman responsible for Limbaugh and Hannity's frequent racist remarks. Do you want to do that? I think not.

If you're going to disagree with me, do so honestly, please. I'm not here to play games with trolls.

10:44 PM

Blogger Sundog said...

Gary, as I've said before, I'm glad you're here. But we're going to strive here to keep the discussion on a somewhat - dare I say it - intelligent level. I'd appreciate it if, when we are having a discussion about apples, you don't try to change the subject to oranges - it's just not a debate, it's a schoolyard yelling match, and there are plenty of places for that.

7:31 AM

Anonymous Gray said...

Fair, Shmair, this practice by the Lieberman campaign is against the law. Period.

4:21 AM

Anonymous cfaller96 said...

And let's note that it's now Friday, 4 days after the error was noticed, and still has the same metadata on the site.

So here we are again. No acknowledgement of the "error," no promise to fix the "error." 4 days and counting, going into the weekend. Who wants to bet that this doesn't get changed on Saturday or Sunday?

I ask this question again: how many days have to go by before you're convinced this is a deliberate deception?

I really do want to know when this becomes "deceptive" to the rest of the community, however I get the sense that no one wants to commit to making that kind of decision. We'd all rather just sort of let it slide, because Joe didn't really mean any harm, did he? After all, he's such a good guy, he wouldn't really lie to us, right?

Assuming Joe Lieberman wouldn't really run against the Democratic nominee was a mistake. Assuming Joe Lieberman wouldn't really falsely accuse the Lamont campaign of hacking was a mistake. Assuming Dan Gerstein didn't really work for the Lieberman campaign while "independently" blogging in support of Lieberman was a mistake. Assuming Joe Lieberman isn't deliberately pretending to have the AFL-CIO's endorsement is a mistake.

No, this isn't that big a deal, which I suspect is why none of you really want to hold Lieberman accountable for this. But there is a pattern of deception here, and I wonder why that doesn't disturb more of you. Overlooking a pattern of deception with any politician is irrational and dangerous- look where it's gotten us with George W. Bush. Overlooking bad behavior enables more bad behavior.

Assuming good faith in Joe Lieberman is a mistake, and you're fooling yourself if you think this is some sort of isolated incident.

8:03 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home