How to undermine your credibility as a blogger/online commentator

I generally don't counter-post here.  If I've got something to say about another's blog post, I just comment on the post. 

However, some things just beg for a counter-post.

Plus you can't add a pic/screenshot to a comment, and I want to do that for this.  :)


Earlier today, someone over at Sonoran Alliance put up something, complaining that State Sen. David Schapira (D-LD17) is exploring a run for Congress but has failed to file the appropriate paperwork with the FEC.  The post included a link to the FEC page covering exploring or "testing the waters". 

The problem?

The linked page actually refuted, not supported, their argument about Schapira.

To quote (emphasis added) -

Before deciding to campaign for federal office, an individual may want to "test the waters"—in other words, explore the feasibility of becoming a candidate. An individual who merely test the waters, but does not campaign for office, does not have to register or report as a candidate even if the individual raises more than $5,000—the dollar threshold that would normally trigger registration. Nevertheless, funds raised to test the waters are subject to the Federal Election Campaign Act’s (the Act) contribution limitations and prohibitions. See Advisory Opinion 1998-18 [PDF].

It's a really good idea to *read* the sources one cites in support of an argument before, you know, citing it.

When is age a factor in a candidate's viability? If you ask Republicans, only when the candidate is a Democrat

Has Greg Patterson of Espresso Pundit started working directly for the Schweikert campaign (if he has, it's not obvious from the campaign's most recent filings with the FEC)?  Or has he chosen to turn his blog into a Schweikert campaign press release outlet? 

I, and most Democratic bloggers, for that matter, happily republish campaign press releases, but when I do so, I always clearly identify them as such.

Patterson never publishes such a disclaimer.

Earlier this week, he published a post declaring the race over in CD5 based on the results of what was essentially a third party-funded internal poll.  This suspect poll declared Schweikert ahead in the race by 5 percentage points.  Patterson focused only on the percentages, not the questionable methodology of the company that conducted the poll.

He also rather blithely ignored the fact that in late October 2006, a SurveyUSA poll showed then-Congressman JD Hayworth ahead of Mitchell by three percentage points.

Mitchell ended up winning the race by slighly more than 8000 votes.

He backed that one up with a post published on Sunday.  Perhaps he was simply regurgitating Schweikert campaign's wishful thinking, or perhaps he is doing his part to add a little reality to some of the lies that the Rs spewed about health care reform last year, but he took the initiative to become a self-designated "death panel."

He placed a "Do Not Resuscitate" directive on Harry Mitchell and his political career.

His primary concern was Harry's age, 70.

Perhaps Patterson *is* correct in his insinuation, and Mitchell is too old for public service, but then that would then bring up another point -

Harry Mitchell, date of birth: July 18, 1940

John McCain, date of birth: August 29, 1936

Guess which one is running for a six-year term, and which one is running for a two-year term?

Here's the response, DSW...

...and for the record, you served up a BP fastball...

I normally don't counter-post, but since DSW at Sonoran Alliance has misrepresented what I said in an earlier post, a counter-post is an appropriate response.

Especially since DSW himself (or herself; it's an anonymous blog) chose to go the counter-post (both to me and to David Safier at Blog for Arizona) route instead of simply commenting on my original post.

The post in question criticized Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Gilbert) for rationalizing his anti-education funding vote by saying that ' "Education does not create jobs," he [Biggs] said. "Entrepreneurs and businesses create jobs." '

My response was thus - "Apparently he believes that entrepeneurs and businessmen don't need educations, nor do they need a workforce knowledgeable enough to adequately staff their businesses."

DSW's response to my criticism?

"Maybe this is a good time to chime in and remind our liberal bloggers that there are many highly educated Ph.D’s employed by our fine university system who could only find jobs within the university system. They have created no jobs. Simply put, having an excellent education does not guarantee you a job."

On a couple of points he is correct - having an excellent education does not guarantee one a job, nor, generally speaking, do teachers create jobs.

They just give people the tools (knowledge, ability to think critically and learn more) to create jobs or to fill those jobs adequately. In other words, they give people the tools they need to succeed in our society.

And a commenter (John) on DSW's post does bring up the success of college dropout Bill Gates and uses it as a bulwark to the argument that education isn't necessary for success.

That commenter might have had a point, except for a few things - Gates is highly intelligent, had access to oodles of investment capital via family connections (hat tip to commenter Ron on DSW's post for reminding everyone of that fact) and Gates had access to highly educated people to write Microsoft's software and do its accounting and legal work, and so forth.

Now, I'm not disparaging John's point completely - people without much formal education *can* succeed greatly if they have enough drive and intelligence (Gates is a case in point) and people with a lot of formal education and not much active intelligence can fail spectacularly (to whit: George W. Bush of the two Ivy League degrees and the lowest Presidential job approval ratings ever. To be fair to the Ivy League schools though, legacy admissions and "gentlemen's Cs don't motivate people to learn, especially when the Friends of Dad and Granddad are around to smooth the way.)

BTW - DSW should update his post - Tedski at R-Cubed is on the Biggs quote, too. :)