Ohio Republican Party website: you're, I mean, it's a joke, right?

Have you given money to the Ohio Republican Party? Because if you have, you might want to see how they’re using your money to make jokes, bad jokes, undignified jokes and jokes that only the ones in the choir see – and if you belong to the ORP and think you promote family values, you shouldn’t be letting your kids see how adults make fun of other people, no matter how many times Ann Coulter says that schoolyard taunts are a-okay:

I would first tell them how idiotic it looks, how it makes Republicans look like immature babies (I know, that’s redundant but some people need the repetition) and I demand that they change it to something dignified and worthy of whatever they believe they are most proud of, as a member of the ORP. If they didn’t change it, I’d ask for my donations back. If they didn’t give me back my donations, I’d quit my membership, write about why I did so and send an oped and letter to the editor of every paper in Ohio – and I mean every paper in Ohio.

If I searched on the phrase in my blog, “What is wrong with these people,” I don’t know many times it would come up, but I’m going to say it again, What is wrong with these people? Do the Ohio Republicans have nothing more important going on in their party that they have time to mess around with silly pictures and telling people to give them money because of the other side, as opposed to giving them money to support their own people?

Oh, I guess that doesn’t work well when the people you have aren’t people your own party members would be likely to support.

Major hattip to Ohio 15th District, which does not have comments.

12 thoughts on “Ohio Republican Party website: you're, I mean, it's a joke, right?

  1. Now, Matt, here’s what your comment really makes me think about: attack. Why is it attack? I was taught, I’ve learned and I’ve observed that the best way to sell oneself, one’s theory, whatever it is that one supports, is on strengths. What is all this focus on attacking?I see attack as necessary only in the case of defending. But even then, and I’ve been in the position where I’ve given people the option to attack and instead they choose to go to their strengths – they refuse to attack.Why is this not the way everything is carried out? This constant primacy of pre-emptive attacks and spiraling continuations of attacks is just so destructive. I really hate it, to be totally honest.

  2. Joseph – nope. I wouldn’t recommend that – but I bet you knew I wouldn’t. Not going down to that level and not lowering the bar for the level of discourse. We deserve better from one another and I know we can give better.

  3. Joseph,You suggest that Democrats attack the REAL enemy… I agree, I’d like to see that too. The real enemy is Islamofascism and I, for one, would welcome any assisatnce Democrats would like to offer in attacking the real enemy…

  4. here’s another way of looking at it: Maybe we (i.e. Democrats) are too nice.Maybe we don’t make enough silly pictures of George Bush as a big, dumb elephant.Maybe we need to stop making youtube videos attacking each other- and start making real television ads atacking the REAL enemy.But hey- that’s just me.

  5. Thank you, Tim. I am glad to hear that. I know folks bash me on sounding righteous – I do apologize for that. But I swear, I just KNOW people are better than that frontpage and I know Republicans who have ZERO interest in that kind of stuff.

  6. Desis -Well, I wouldn’t agree with that. People can act irresponsibly with themselves and others, but they must be aware that there could be consequences – personal, legal, or other. Maybe the ORP frontpage webmaster doesn’t see his or her work as irresponsible at all but rather masterful. It is a matter of opinion.

  7. I thought the same thing, Lori. Not sure. But I was told by someone well-connected to the ORP’s presence that Hillary is particularly reviled by Republicans (not that that is news or needs confirmation). I guess Edwards is still just too pretty and maybe Republicans are sure that Obama has no chance? I don’t know.

  8. Paul, I agree with everything you said and I would add the following:The use of nasty, vapid attacks is related to the pushing of the envelope, seeing what get’s attention and so on. But it’s also a sign of laziness – it’s EASY. Anyone can do it and you don’t need much of a vocabulary to succeed at it, sadly, because so many people operate at that level, or can at least be attracted by that level of being silly (or stupid, depending on how you look at it).What this kind of attention-seeking also does, though, is try to pump up one person or group or issue, by putting another one or group or position down – with insults. Not with reason. Not with logic. Not with intelligence or debate.But with insults based on immutable facts. Anyone and everyone has been photographed poorly. It’s the Ohio Republican Party webmaster, in charge of that frontpage, who decided to use his or her editing and filtering skills and power to use those specific pictures. So for someone to say that anyone is unhappy because candidates look silly is itself inane; the ORP chose those pictures, the candidates don’t look silly in the sense that they ARE silly. The pictures stink. End of story. At least the Dem candidates have emotion and aren’t cookie-cutter false idols.I have a story to tell about why I have zero tolerance for people pumping themselves or their ideas up by putting other people down (rather than relying on their own merits, or the issues’ merits) that will explain much of my crusade on this point. I don’t know how others explain it except to say, it is wrong. Plain and simple.

  9. I suppose free should not be interpreted as freedom to behave irresponsibly with self and others. That’s exploiting democracy.

  10. I noticed that the pictures they have of Edwards and Hillary are particularly awful, but the Obama pic is really not that bad in comparison to the others. Were they too lazy to look for a really bad one of him, or is he just one of those guys who photographs well no matter what?

  11. I think there are few people I detest more and trust less than professional politicans and political hacks, and that includes both Republicans and Democrats.It is possible to have a serious and thoughtful debate while maintaining a demeanor of respect, but our politicians seems to prefer bashing each other over nonsense, and the news media loves to report it. And the public watches like it’s a big tax-funded Jerry Springer show. Maybe professional wrestling is a better analog — at least the folks on Springer are dealing with reality.Maybe this is what happens in a free culture as it evolves over time. Engineers talk about “pushing the envelope,” which means exploring what happens when a system is operated at conditions beyond what have been tested before. Test pilots are in the business of trying things with a new airplane which have never been done before and seeing what happens.Children do this instinctively — testing limits and seeing what happens. One of the most difficult tasks a parent performs is deciding when to give their child feedback that a limit has been reached, and what the consequences will be if it is exceeded. However, it seems that from generation to generation, the parents tend to relax the limits a little, and after several generations behavior which was once considered unacceptable becomes normal. Trivial example: my kids have no problem saying the word ‘fart’ in my presence, even though I never said the word in front of them. I certainly use the word, but have been conditioned to understand that there are times when it is acceptable, and when it is not. In front of my grandmother would not have been appropriate. So I have myself contributed to the loosening of this standard. I expect my grandchildren will find the word in their reading primer (“Hear Tip Fart. Fart Tip Fart!”).The same thing happens with behavior. Folks openly say things and do things today that would make us look like barbarians to 18th century Americans. Gradually the envelope of acceptible behavior widens until there is little which is off-limits. When society imposes no constraint on behavior, one could argue that there is no society. I have little trouble understanding that Islamic radicals see themselves as the people chosen to cleanse the planet of this chaos and replacing it with strict order. They aren’t the first to have this belief.PL

Comment here

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s