question which I will understand if you don’t answer.
But, here it goes.
Are each of you in the fortunate position of not having to worry about income? BY that I mean, do each of you fit the stereo typical wing nut fashioned by Howie Carr et al.
I ask because I noticed your occupations in the PAC info being singers and student; and Charley’s grandfather being a graduate of Harvard Business School.
If this was not a liberal political blog I would not ask.
Please share widely!
amberpaw says
You know I spend MY time in the trenches. Isn’t that good enough for you EB3???
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
even if you are a lefty nut. đŸ™‚
<
p>I just hope you aren’t a front line soldier being used by the top brass.
amberpaw says
So far, when I look at myself in the mirror and think about what I do, and what I have done, I feel good. Sometimes I just repeat Care and Protection of Vivian, Delk v. Gonzalez, Adoption of Iris, Adoption of Linus, and so forth. That will do.
<
p>Carry on.
david says
fits his own family far better than any of ours. And believe it or not, people actually pay me to sing.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
His old man worked for the rich. That means he wasn’t rich but got expensive table scraps. Like Deerfield Academy.
<
p>The professional student and well educated singing intellectual just give the impression that income is not a big issue.
<
p>However, a big complaint against many liberals is the do-I-as-I say-not-as-I-do philosophy.
<
p>School busing in Boston is a perfect example. The media and liberal slant was outrageous. The Globe and limousine liberals telling others they are racists because they don’t want to abandoned their neighborhood schools and ship their kids across town. Destroy the fabric that wove many in neighborhood together.
<
p>The people of those neighborhoods were, and still are, looked upon by well off liberals as uneducated and ignorant masses whose well being is not as important as the liberals or people who are not well-off but fit the feel good description that too many BMG types believe are worth more than average working stiffs.
<
p>So, if you get all you need from a trust fund or the government you are one of the cool people. If you have to work to get by and want to protect your job, then you are a selfish hater.
<
p>Job creation use to be a Democratic position. Now it’s more about giving away money without requiring the person to work for it.
<
p>BTW, nobody has yet to answer my question regarding the homeless guy and the rich wall street guy who get hit by the same car and receive the same injuries. Where will the homeless guy receive lousy or no care? Will the ambulance still take him to the hospital? Will he get taken care of in emergency room?
<
p>Don’t we have universal health care already in this country?
<
p>Ahh, but the working people should pay more so the heroes among us that don’t work can live happily. Like France, Italy and the rest of Europe.
<
p>Screw That!
scout says
The children on well-off suburbanites (of all political stripes) are now inhabiting many of those neighborhoods (Southie, for one), so they probably do care about them. It’s not 1973 in the city anymore, Erne! You need to update your list of stock grievances.
striker57 says
So put up or shut up fka EB3. You want full disclosure – offer it upfront for those of us who don’t know your story.
<
p>You have a lots to say about elected officials and those who have the courage to run, they expose themselves when they run . . . . so expose yourself for comment and opinion. Or shut up about the editors.
<
p>What is your job? Do you have a trust fund? Are you wealhty (let’s say over $250,00 a year)? Come on. If you can’t or won’t answer then none of the editors need answer you.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
marginalized. So I can be harassed and become the target of a smear campaign until I give up and stop speaking my mind.
<
p>You know, I never intended to be anonymous. But it seemed when I began blogging here I made some points that bothered some. It was then when Charley wanted to know who I was.
<
p>Why, I asked. What about all the others on here that blog anonymously, yet always agree with the editors? Surely the only reason to know my identity is to allow that full front attack to silence me by creating an untrue persona and yelling loud about it so it becomes fact.
<
p>BMG has become the voice of the left in this town. Its editors appear on television news shows regularly and promote their site. They seem to fit the mold of many liberal activists so I was just asking. Reasonable question I believe.
<
p>Similar to Al Gore being the person to make the most money if people by in to his global warming solutions. If he was sincere about the world coming to end he would relieve himself of all financial interests in any solution. He’s the definition of a fraud. (Don’t get me started on his tobacco stands)
<
p>Really, if global warming was about to kill us and it’s obvious to everyone, shouldn’t a more credible spokesman emerge. Al Gore was the king of phonies before global warming but he is the guy the environmentalists anointed to preach the good word.
<
p>Gore especially earns credibility when he tells us not to listen to any skeptics. Don’t read them, don’t inquire, don’t do anything. Just listen to Al Gore.
<
p>WTF?
<
p>
huh says
Most of the “attacks” on you are in direct reaction to your own words. No “creating an untrue persona” involved.
<
p>You like to slam gays and women; whining when they slam back is punk.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
I hate women and gays. I must conform.
amberpaw says
Mind you, EB3 your language is sometimes really old fashioned and you aren’t creative with some of your slams.
<
p>why not call people you disagree with, say, “sea slugs” – no sea slug lobby that I know of. Plus, its more creative.
peter-porcupine says
amberpaw says
Dunno if EB3 will choose to respond…
huh says
But I digress.
paulsimmons says
Gore was never phony; he was victimized by people supposedly on his own side. Gore is basically your typical policy wonk that’s uncomfortable in public. Unfortunately his job and aspirations always put him out front. Nothing that Gore wrote or said was phony or inaccurate, but many of the people spreading his message had (and still have) a marked tendency to condescending infantile elitism, which in turn created (and still creates) perfect storms for Republican media consultants and Right-wing pundits – the two aren’t always the same.
<
p>The damage hasn’t been limited to environmental concerns:
<
p>Case in point #1: Bringing in Naomi Wolf to advise Gore on dressing in “earth tones” turned Gore into a punch line in search of a joke.
<
p>Case in point #2: The Bob Shrum Political Emporium of 2000, when out-of-state Democratic volunteers in New Hampshire flipped the state to Bush. (Those four NH electoral votes would have given Gore the Presidency.)
<
p>Your point about tobacco would be well-taken, if Gore were an anti-tobacco activist, but I don’t remember him as being out front on that issue.
<
p>Back to climate change: Gore’s statements on the issue have, as far as I can tell, always been backed by the most recent and accurate scientific data available; the problem is the twinkie wing of the environmental movement glomming onto the message, and repelling large segments of the public.
<
p>…aided by the frozen-in-concrete (and inaccurate) image left over from the 2000 campaign.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
He tells people not to give any time to skeptics’ arguments. (That’s real bad Paul, real bad.)
<
p>He spoke at the Democratic convention (I forget which one) about his sister dying of cancer and the evil tobacco that caused it. Hypocrite
<
p>Wardrobe. C’mon paul. That’s not an issue and never was.
<
p>The man wanted to be President and the defense for his hypocricy is he is being manipulated? Not good. What about his financila windfalls if what he wants to happen happens?
<
p>I stand by my statement. The guy is/was a total fraud.
<
p>Perhaps if new hampshire didn’t do what it did Gore would be pres. But then again if tennessee did what they were suppose to he would also be president. And they know him best.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
He tells people not to give any time to skeptics’ arguments. (That’s real bad Paul, real bad.)
<
p>He spoke at the Democratic convention (I forget which one) about his sister dying of cancer and the evil tobacco that caused it. Hypocrite
<
p>Wardrobe. C’mon paul. That’s not an issue and never was.
<
p>The man wanted to be President and the defense for his hypocricy is he is being manipulated? Not good. What about his financila windfalls if what he wants to happen happens?
<
p>I stand by my statement. The guy is/was a total fraud.
<
p>Perhaps if new hampshire didn’t do what it did Gore would be pres. But then again if tennessee did what they were suppose to he would also be president. And they know him best.
paulsimmons says
Not that it wasn’t pandering, but that it was incompetent pandering. Morality aside, any competent camdidate would cross that out of a speech. I’m not saying that Gore was a saint, just that he was a lousy candidate that was easily turned into a joke by his opponents. Hence the Naomi Wolf reference, where a boneheaded move reinforced negative public opinion.
<
p>My point is that self-righteous political incompetence is not the same as fraud.
<
p>The New Hampshire reference was meant as an example to demonstrate what happens when that incompetence becomes politically institutionalized.
<
p>My concern about “global warming” as an issue is that both sides are turning what should be a serious data-driven political and public policy discussion into a kindergaren fight.
<
p>…and that on this issue in isolation, Gore has the data on his side.
christopher says
It makes the issue personal. Yes, his family had been in the tobacco business, but sometimes people get mugged by reality when a loved one gets hurt. A genuine change of heart is not the same as hypocrisy.
paulsimmons says
It was stupid to use a maudlin reference that could be easily refuted in such a way that not only Gore’s credibility was at issue, but his personal honor (using a dead sibling to score political points).
<
p>It was obviously spin, and bad spin at that.
<
p>Good spin was kissing Tipper.
<
p>By “bad”, I mean baldly counterproductive. It was another example of the Bob Schrum Syndrome mentioned in another context upthread. If you must go sentimental, use an example that is scripted both to your public personna, your audience, and your adversaries’ ability to counter-spin: simply put, don’t give ammunition to your adversaries or alienate potential supporters.
<
p>Gore might have had a genuine change of heart re: tobacco farming, and I believe his grief was genuine; nevertheless a lot of Republican media and oppo types added line-items to their vouchers because of that speech.
christopher says
Otherwise, I would suggest we don’t constantly wring our hands about what the other side might say. We do that way too often.
paulsimmons says
… for Gore to be sentimental, it seemed a badly contrived and opportunistic way of exploiting his sister’s death for personal gain.
<
p>A lot of people – and I’m talking yellow dog Democratic political professionals here – were repelled; and this was before they considered Gore’s income from tobacco farming.
<
p>I don’t worry about what Republicans can do when Democrats do their outreach and media prep for them. In fact, I applaud their ability to exploit opposition blunders: they’re doing their job.
kirth says
Wolf did not advise Gore to wear earth-toned or any other clothes.
In fact, Gore wore earth-toned clothes before he ran for President. The entire “issue,” like so much of what passed for reporting on him, was entirely made up.
paulsimmons says
huh says
Rove’s analysis showed that Gore’s credibility was one of his strongest points, so they set out to destroy it.
<
p>”Inventing the internet” is just one example. He never said it, but it’s now permanently associated with him.
paulsimmons says
…from which the modern Internet evolved, against sizable opposition in Congress back in the day, and thus could have used Rove’s attack against him.
huh says
It was a brilliant attack, precisely because there was no good response, at least from someone as intent on taking the high road as Gore.
<
p>That’s where distancing himself from Clinton and Carville hurt him badly. They knew how to play in the dirt.
farnkoff says
Because all conservatives are born poor or all are born rich?
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
What differnce does it make. I assume they are well-off people that earned it or working stiffs that understand what it takes to raise a family.
<
p>Do you know something I don’t?
huh says
Conservatives are well-off people that earned it. Liberals are trust fund loafers.
<
p>I take it back. You ARE funny. Pathetic, but still funny.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
Good job huh.
<
p>I love leaving tasty pieces of crap that I just know you will eat up.
<
p>Thanks for not disapointing me by making my art work go unnoticed.
<
p>you dah man, huh. I mean woman. I mean transgender. I mean whatever.
huh says
You post things that make you look like an idiot, just to get my goat?
<
p>Wow. You got me good!
<
p>I take it all back. You’re not just funny, you’re “Saved By The Bell” funny.
<
p>Mind if I start calling you Screech?
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
and proud of it when up against Hee-Haw comedy like you huh.
amberpaw says
Think of the possibilities.
<
p>No.
<
p>I am not kidding. See tyrannosaurs evolved into being a chicken.
<
p>Hello Kentucky fried dinosaur.
<
p>See what I mean? Great possibility for creative insults there. Not to mention LARGE fried legs, right?
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
What differnce does it make. I assume they are well-off people that earned it or working stiffs that understand what it takes to raise a family.
<
p>Do you know something I don’t?
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
can the editors help m out here and delete one?
<
p>Oh the irony
david says
amberpaw says
<
p>Seriously: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/s…