Back In The Saddle

By The Pajama Pundit | Related entries in Blogging

Hi. Remember me? Probably not, but that’s okay.

It’s been nearly 18 months since my last contribution here at The Donk. For that, I apologize to you — the reader — and even moreso to our benevolent host, Mister Gardner.

Since my last post, I have gone from being a stay-at-home-dad/pajama-clad-political-blogger to being amongst the gainfully employed. This is the primary reason for my blog-hiatus (although, admittedly I have kept my own blog relatively up-to-date).

Now that I’m 18 months into the job, I feel as though I “have gotten my sea-legs” and am ready to burst back out into The Donkle-scene — that is if you and Justin will have me. I’m ready to start posting again.

So, with all of that out of the way….

In his last post, Justin talked about the Anthony Weiner scandal and asked the question, “Why isn’t this guy stepping down?”

A great question to be sure. My response?

David Vitter.

If the junior Senator from the state of Louisiana doesn’t have to step-down after his own scandal, why should Congressman Weiner?

Don’t get me wrong, they both should step-down. But hey, these are politicians — they are above the rest of us peons.

Oh, and if you are interested, I just posted my reactions/review of the GOP debate in New Hampshire last night. Check it out.


This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 14th, 2011 and is filed under Blogging. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

12 Responses to “Back In The Saddle”

  1. gerryf Says:

    your blog

    “This blog is open to invited readers only”

  2. kranky kritter Says:

    If the junior Senator from the state of Louisiana doesn’t have to step-down after his own scandal, why should Congressman Weiner?

    Don’t get me wrong, they both should step-down. But hey… .

    I wish more people would come out against the crappy form of argument you use in the first graf. The logic behind this notion seems to be along the lines of

    As long as any other public figure did something worse and didn’t resign, X shouldn’t have to do so.

    This reminds me of the arguments I got from 7th grade students about why they shouldn’t have to behave or pay attention in class. And when both sides make such arguments to defend their own, it effectively lowers the bar for everyone. If we want better leaders. we better start having higher expectations for them than we do now.

  3. gerryf Says:

    The only thing worse than arguing, “Hey, they are doing it, too!” is the current GOP argument, “Hey, forget we did yesterday what we are screaming about today!”

  4. The Pajama Pundit Says:

    @gerryf: thanks for the note about the site — not sure why it was made private. It’s fixed now, have a look.

    @kranky: I’m 100% against that kind of argument. My point was (aside from being poorly communicated) that this is very likely the type of logic that Weiner is using to justify staying in office.

  5. kranky kritter Says:

    Gerry, that’s so typical of you. You can’t simply agree that it’s a weak argument. You have this uncontrollable compulsion to add that it’s the 2nd worst ever, and that republicans are using the worst.

    Also, I don’t see how it’s worse. I think you only said that because of your compulsion to follow any acknowledgment of democratic douchebaggery with, well, anything on any subject, whether related or not. that allows you to claim that Republicans are worse.

  6. gerryf Says:

    Also, I don’t see how it’s worse. I think you only said that because of your compulsion to follow any acknowledgment of democratic douchebaggery with, well, anything on any subject, whether related or not. that allows you to claim that Republicans are worse.

    Actually, it is my compulsion to follow any Kranky Kritter douchebaggery with, well, anything on any subject, whether related or not, that allows me to point out your hypocrisy and fake centrist credentials.

    You see, I used to try to counter your right wing rhetoric, but you and others like you would completely ignore any salient points or facts that got in the way of your world view so I’ve adopted the right wing practice of being a douchebag.

    How am I doing?

    I feel like Luke Skywalker at the end of Empire Strikes Back—yes, Kranky, you are my father.

    If the right ever decides that facts are important, science is real, and everything is not about beating opponants over the head with partisan foolishness, I will engage in serious discussions again.

    I am not holding my breath.

  7. WHQ Says:

    How am I doing?

    Quite well. The only thing you’ve done wrong is following up with douchebaggery in the absence of any initial douchebaggery (in this thread, anyway).

    It’s kind of funny, discussing “He did it first” arguments, and getting “Since I think you’re a douchebag, I’m going to be a douchebag.”

    (And I’m going meta on the meta because of it. Ah, the internet.)

  8. kranky kritter Says:

    So, my original sin in this thread was what exactly?

    Was it my failure to be silent when you decided to frame Weiner’s lying as less bad than what the Republicans have been doing lately?

  9. Gerryf Says:

    No crank, your original sin is the same as the one you are always guilty of…arrogance and condescension when you disagree with someone– and sometimes when you even agree. Pundit did nothing to warrant the 7th grade crack. He agrees Weiner should step down. He just doesn’t agree with your false equivalence arguments.

    I am tired of this constant false equivalence argument trotted out by the right and if you don’t like me pointing out that one of these things is not like the other, well, I am truly sorry.

    I don’t know if you are truly blind to the fact that the GOP really is reprehensible in so many ways or you are just running your own private PR campaign, but it is not wrong, unfair or douche baggy to point this out.

  10. kranky kritter Says:

    Gerry, there’s no need for me to apologize for expressing my views forcefully, clearly, and in detail, which you call arrogant and condescending. Your argument is pure spin.

    PP has already said that agrees with me that the form of argument described is no good. So you’re off-target there, too.

    BTW, I knew you were due to poop out your weak “false equivalence” contention again. You keep missing the same thing. Try to remember, to compare two things is not to imply equivalence. When I say that x is “like” y, I don’t mean that x is exactly the same. Good luck. I still have hope that someday you can wrap your head round this someday.

    I don’t know if you are truly blind to the fact that the GOP really is reprehensible in so many ways or you are just running your own private PR campaign . . .

    Riiiiiiight. I’m actually a paid political operative, and always speaking in bad faith. I’m either a nitwit, or I have ulterior motives. Not wrong or unfair or douchebaggy to imply that. Not at all. You’re a champ.

  11. mw Says:

    PP,
    18 Months?!? Thank you. It has only been three months for me. You make my contributions here look like a rock of consistency. Anyway, I feel a manic phase coming on… so looks like we’ll be overlapping for a while.

    Cannot exit this thread without taking note of Gerry’s use of the phrase “false equivalence.” I guess this is actually a useful concept that may even mean something when invoked in an argument with supporting facts and logic. However, the way Gerry uses the phrase it is functionally identical to “Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! You are wrong and I am right.” There is absolutely nothing in his contention to support his apparent conviction that the two examples are not comparable, or the usual drivel that Democrats are sometimes bad but Republicans are always much worse. Used in this way “fale equivalence” is not an argument or even a meaningful label. It is just another exhortation that “Your team is bad. My team is good. Because I say so.” There is no other content there.

    Regarding Weiner and Vitter, I could not care less if either of them resigned. If their constituents are stupid enough to reelect them – they get the kind of representation they deserve. Talk to happy constituents of Charlie Rangel’s district.

  12. Mark Says:

    First of all, thanks for coming back, we missed you! Second of all, looks like you already got what you wanted, he quit :)

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: