Allen Blog censors my post, I guess

By: Newport News Dem
Published On: 9/14/2006 11:17:04 AM

I visited the Allen blog (A-Team) to get their version of the body amour ad. A post in defense of Allen was....

On April 2, 2003 Iraqi soldiers were fleeing for their lives as soldiers and marines were bearing down on Baghdad. Allen, Warner, McCain, and Hagel voted to table the measure. Those Senators were certainly not against protecting our troops, but they did choose to table the measure because those funds may not be needed. After all, Baghdad was taken just seven days later.
My comment was essentially this:

So your defense for voting against the amendment is essentially Allen had drunk the neocon Kool-Aide and failed to predict the insurgency unlike the prescience of Jim Webb and the rest of the reality based community.

Your defense is basically Allen and the rest of the GOP was too stupid to provide the required armor for the National Guard.

I made this post early this morning (around 8 AM) and it was waiting administer approval. I noticed that there is a new comment at 11:30 while mine is conspicuously absent.


Comments



Right Wing Censorship (kestrel9000 - 9/14/2006 11:44:16 AM)
This letter appeared on the opinion page of the Harrisonburg Daily News-Record on September 14th.

As a politically interested student I enjoy attending events held by both Democrats and Republicans. I have my bias and it always leans conservative, but I respect both sides.

However, after attending the Webb event this past Saturday at Jess’s Lunch I was left with a sense that he is an unprepared candidate. A potential candidate should have poise, command a sense that the future is full of great prospects, and always be an enthusiastic speaker.

Webb felt nervous, he implied a bleak future even if he were elected, and the speech was less than uplifting. I was particularly displeased by his weak positions on the War on Terror.

Belief there will ever be unity in the debate on how and where to fight the War on Terror is not a plan, it is pure lunacy. Webb’s further blunder of speaking on solving social ills using government power without discussing how he could fund the programs shows me he is an unprepared candidate.

I was left thoroughly unimpressed. Sen. Allen is still my choice. His common sense Jeffersonian virtues speak well to the community values that personify Virginia for me.

Jarrett Ray
Harrisonburg

I submitted the following in response. Let’s see if it makes it through the DN/R’s Republican bias filter.

Editor:
I read with interest the letter from a George Allen supporter appearing in the DN/R on September 14th.
The DN/R chose to print this morass of subjective impressions laden with terms like, “unprepared”, “nervous”, bleak future” “weak positions on the War On Terror”, “blunder of speaking”, etc., in spite of the fact the writer offers no quotations or specific attributions of any sort to substansiate his views.
The writer states: “Belief there will ever be unity in the debate on how and where to fight the war on terror is not a plan, it is pure lunacy.” This statement was made on the heels of describing Mr. Webb’s rhetoric as “predicting a bleak future.” I would submit there is a serious pot-kettle issue in play in the writer’s thinking.
I was particularly struck by the writer’s characterization of George Allen as embodying “Jeffersonian virtues”.
Leaving aside for the moment that the writer feels that a native of Palos Verdes, California, somehow “personifies Virginia”, given Senator Allen’s recent use of racial slurs to address a campaign worker, his past association with the Council of Conservative Citizens(an organzation classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and descended from the 1970’s White Citizen’s Councils) as well as his display of a Confederate flag and a noose in his office, I presume the writer refers not to Thomas Jefferson, but rather Jefferson Davis.


Frankly (Chris from ASL - 9/15/2006 10:45:03 PM)
It won't make it.  Your letter is too reasoned and too smart.  Most of the letters and editorials in that paper are littered with poor reasoning.  These writings also jump from one issue to the other without really linking all together to create a clear picture of what is going on.  For example, I saw an editorial where the DNR board stated that they did not support some issue that is common sense (I believe campaign finance reform or something that has a lot of backing) because the people who believe in this issue also believe in homosexuality and abortion. That was it.

Frankly, I think the people who run the editorials out there should be fired...not for their views, they are entitled to those and can present them all they want. They need to be fired because they do not know how to write an editorial properly. It's just sad.



Interesting. (JPTERP - 9/14/2006 1:08:09 PM)
Yeah--cognitive dissonance for the A-Team.  I understand Shaun Kenney is supposed to be a heavy hitter, but those other guys are basically lightweights.  They had no rebuttal so they deleted the comment.  One word: Losers. 


My comment from an hour and a half ago is still "awaiting moderation". (tokatakiya - 9/14/2006 1:22:02 PM)
"Wow, you got 4 Republican Senators, including the Chair of the NRSC to oppose a Democratic candidate running for Senate?

You guys are on fire!

I love it when a plan…has no point."

Maybe this could be the place where non-we-love-The-A-Team comments can go up?



I saw that (Newport News Dem - 9/14/2006 1:43:50 PM)
and your comments would have been mine!


I'm getting deleted also (Ben - 9/14/2006 3:50:21 PM)
What an unethical way to start a blog.


Mine's up now - finally (tokatakiya - 9/14/2006 4:10:40 PM)
Maybe they read some of this.

Clearly not a good start.

Maybe the have "Howlin' Mad" Murdoch approving the comments.