I had the feeling that selecting my favorite post from any single week would often be difficult, but I didn’t think it would happen so quickly. There was a lot of good work out there this week, and it was quite difficult to pick which I liked best. It’s a good problem to have, and it speaks highly of the right side of the Montana Blogosphere. Without further blathering, though, this week I’m tipping my hat to Carol
What Struck Me:
Her post highlights what appears to be the Montana version of the nationwide collaboration/conglomeration/constipation of big money do-gooders with local, motivated fellow travelers. The news here, for me at least, isn’t the money itself; if some blow hard wants to give his money away far be it from me to object. The interesting point she brings up is that this 50 state strategy is anything but a local uprising of like minded individuals. Kudos to Carol for daring to look under the blanket of “native populism”. Now if only we had more information about the mess she found under there.
Comments 11
Yeah. Good piece. Matt, V and the other hard work of the folks at Forward Montana to get young people energized ought to be subject to ridicule.
If you ask me, I would say there might be a bit of envy from a Republican activist who has never been able to raise any sort of youth movement in that area. Want to know the truth? Republican’s have lost an entire generation of young people.
Posted 28 Oct 2007 at 6:26 pm ¶I don’t view it as ridicule, I think she is raising some pertinent questions that haven’t been answered. Are the funding sources for any of those alphabet soup groups something to be ashamed of? Is it none of anyone’s business? Should one’s involvement with one group or another be included in the interest of full discloser? I believe these are legitimate questions to confront, and a good idea for a post.
As for your theory of envy, I can’t speak for her, but in my opinion that emotion has nothing to do with the questions at hand. But to address your point (it is an interesting question that could deserve it’s own headline), you may be right, the Republicans may have lost an entire generation of young people, but if they’ve lost them to bunny ears and ham sandwiches that probably says more about the state of our youth than it does about the Republicans.
Posted 28 Oct 2007 at 7:47 pm ¶Perhaps a better word than ‘ridicule’ would have been ‘reproach’.
Respectfully, this doesn’t even make any sense, and is really an indication of what I was talking about losing a whole generation. Have you forgotten that kids like quirky fun things?
Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 1:40 am ¶I would also add that the Soros fetish is a little creepy.
Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 1:41 am ¶First, I don’t think Carol meant to say that working for one’s ideals was a bad thing, and note that I didn’t either. What we are curious about is the support behind those ideals, and whether they can accurately be called grassroots. Should the funding of such groups be beyond reproach simply because the members work hard?
Second:
This is fine as far as it goes, but I prefer an informed electorate, not one whose vote will change based upon who can come up with the most popular gimmick (which can be applied to the votes of both the young and old). I think this is probably just a fundamental disagreement of principle. I’m going to put words in your mouth and guess that you believe that the more voters, the better, no matter their level of understanding of the issues. In a perfect world, fine, but we don’t live there. I’d prefer that those who don’t understand or care about the matters facing our nation stay home, or at least confine their votes to the issues they are informed about. This is not to say that there should be some ballot test, I just wish for our nation that either one informs oneself or one exercises the self discipline of voting restraint when one doesn’t know or understand the import of the matters at hand. It looks to me like FM is simply attempting to get bodies in the booth, which may be good for the Democratic party, but I’m not sure it is good for our nation.
As for your #4- I’d just add that Soros is a little creepy.
Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 8:50 am ¶Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Are you saying that in order to be informed, you have to approach and appreciate politics in the same manner as a bunch of white guys in ties? Come on. They got kids to come to a candidates forum, even if it was for hackysack and pink bunnies. In the end, those kids left a lot more informed than they came in and that is good for democracy.
I am sorry, and I say this with all due respect, but both your and Carol’s response to this comes off as much sour grapes. I would liken it to the old man standing on his stoop shaking his cane at the young whippersnappers for partaking in the culture of youth.
Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 9:04 am ¶Sour grapes? Hardly. It’s about portraying yourself as one thing when you’re really another. I think the word normally proffered is “hypocrisy.”
I thought that was a bigger sin than in-office fellatio, back during the Clinton years.
Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 9:28 am ¶No, your right Shane inasmuch as there is a fuzzy line where “informed voting” is concerned. But cane waving notwithstanding, it wasn’t too long ago that I was young, so I remember that idealism wasn’t always the motivating factor when I did something…sometimes, actually more often, it was just to impress a female of the species or to get free food, even if it meant that I had to sit through someone blathering on about this or that. I don’t begrudge any young person that experience, I’m just not sure I want kids with those motivations to be deciding the direction of our nation.
As an aside, while I appreciate it, there’s no need to apologize, we’re just having an honest discussion, one that can’t be had without candor. I actually liked the old man bit; kind of a badge of honor for my misanthropy, and funny to boot.
Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 10:08 am ¶And lest I forget, is it out of line to ask who is paying for those bunny ears and sandwiches which got those kids there to begin with? Is it wrong to ask if the source of the money is germane to the motivations and genuineness of those who are providing the handouts? Do the answer to these questions reveal anything about why these gatherings are occurring to begin with? I believe these are all valid questions, even if they are uncomfortable, or even if there are innocent explanations for them. That, for me at least, is what makes good blogging. I note that no answers have been forthcoming, which is certainly not evidence of anything. But I do think these are good questions to ask, even if the response is silence.
Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 10:54 am ¶Maybe you should put this one up next week.
Posted 30 Oct 2007 at 9:26 am ¶Well, Shane, as far as blogging goes, this whole affair has been a blowout. Who knew Writing Rightly could engage everyone so
Still and all, I’ll probably just go with the post that describes in triplicate the bowel movements of the musk ox. At least then I won’t have to keep up with the comments.
Posted 30 Oct 2007 at 12:59 pm ¶Trackbacks & Pingbacks 3
[…] there was this. Then this. Now this and this. On the […]
[…] gave some kind of response to his various critics (which includes me - but that’s no surprise) although he really evades the questions. He […]
[…] This is not a post on Forward Montana, but the conversation did start on that topic. It is not about pink bunnies either, but it does concern them. This post is not about The Montana Misanthrope, but it did start there. […]
Post a Comment