Centerfield

You're welcome, Max.

If any of our Republican or Independent bloggers likewise fall victim to an interloper, the Centrist Coalition will support them in their efforts to secure their good name.

Congrats, Max, and happy that the jerk gave it up. No matter whose side he was on, I found his tone and tactics disgusting. And I heartily support what Rick just said. But there's one little thing about your post that tweaked me...a bit of revisionist history.

We are the party of the Big Tent, the party that has accepted blacks when they were shunned, that gave women the right to vote when others scoffed, and now defends the rights of homosexuals when others find them indefensible.

Well, I'll give you two out of three at some point in history, while noting that it was mostly southern Democrats who kept blacks locked under the Klan for so long. But it wasn't the Democratic Party that got the 19th Amendment passed. It was the Republicans.

The Bull Moose Republicans under Teddy Roosevelt were the first party to adopt women's suffrage into their platform, in 1912. Partly due to that, Wilson beat the bleep out of Roosevelt. The Democrats led by Wilson fought suffrage, and the suffragettes in turn organized women to vote party-line against Democrats (in those states where they could) in the elections of 1914 and again in 1916--and the Democrats lost seats steadily to the Republicans. By 1918, Wilson had learned his lesson and switched to supporting the suffrage amendment, but the southern states utterly repudiated Wilson's position.

The Nineteenth passed Congress in 1919. At the time, the House was controlled by the Republicans, 240 to 192. The Republicans also now controlled the Senate, by a margin of 49 to 47. In both cases, they had just gained control from the Democrats with the most recent election in November 1918 after solid gains in 1914 and 1916 (see above). Payback time! The House vote for passage was 304 to 89. The Senate vote was 56 (R-36, D-20) to 25 (R-8, D-17). Please note that of the 15 absent Senators that day 2 out of 3 were Democrats, that the vote was almost even among the Democrats present, but overwhelmingly in favor on the Republican side. I couldn't track down the House roll call breakdown on a quick search, but suspect the divisions were much the same.

The states that ratified the Nineteenth Amendment in 1919 went overwhelmingly Republican in the 1920 Presidential election, the states that refused to ratify it went overwhelmingly Democrat. The Senators that offered the amendments to the bill trying to gut it were overwhelmingly Southern Democrats. Obviously, they failed.

Naturally, the Democratic Party immediately and since has done their best to take all the credit for passing the 19th Amendment. In fact, the Southern Democrats were the major obstacle and the major opposition, and Republicans the majority force in the vote.

This effort represents a shameful lowpoint for this website.

Max is not merely celebrating the resolution of a name conflict. He is celebrating the silencing of a fellow blogger, and eagerly throws on mean spirited insults at him in some kind of vulgar victory dance.

He wants the participants of this website to collectively take blame for this silencing of a political voice, and celebrate it. Max, is this what New Democrat means to you, celebrating the silencing websites whose opinions you don't like? What's next, a book burning party perhaps? Maybe you should think twice about the characters and behavior you have allied yourself with in this effort.

Rick Heller did not merely complain about a name conflict. He devoted two articles on this website to attacking the fellow blogger personally, even linking to allegations that the individual is a "Republican Operative" and a "fraud". Rick then removed any doubt that the motivation was a mere name conflict, by openly praising Max's site, and expressing dislike of the opinions on the rival site.

The allegations Rick lists earlier on this website are based on the notion that no conservative Democrat could possibly agree with Republicans on issues such as Kerry's Vietnam behavior, Liberal treatment of minority issues and voters, or the forceful confrontation of islamic terrorism.

Big shock, a self proclaimed "Zell Miller Democrat" runs a website objecting to Kerry's behavior in Vietnam. If only right wingers and Republicans had serious problems with Kerry's Vietnam behavior, the swiftboat ads wouldn't have been the most influential in the election.

Conservative Democrats do exist by the millions, they once ensured their party's control of congress for decades. If you have any doubt, try an opinion poll of Democrats in Tallahassee Florida sometime, they disagree with their party leadership on a number of issues. One would think centrists would understand the diversity of opinion within the party better than anyone...

Rick offers a dispassionate assessment of his fellow blogger named Ricky, saying "my guess is that Ricky is a troubled teenager who is confused about what he believes, but wants to get a lot of attention."

For his heretical views, Rick compares him to a racist. saying, "He calls himself a Zell Miller Democrat. I don't think he is anymore a Democrat, than David Duke is a Republican."

So which blog authors will you attack and psychoanalyze next for us Rick and Max? Is this the sort of disgraceful behavior you really envisioned for your website? What would you think of the integrity of a blog that did this to you? Rick and Max, instead of patting yourselves on the back, you both should hang your heads in shame.

Those are pretty serious charges, Susan.

With all due respect to all parties involved... I personally respect Rick Heller. And I'm fully prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on this matter.

I don't read this blog regularly. As my sporadic comments indicate, my presence here is sporadic. Although I have turned several others onto Centerfield and they read more regularly. So, I won't claim to be up to speed on whatever this is all about.

Sometimes you have to go on the reputation that has been earned. And whether I agree them on all the issues or not, I've come to respect Rick & crew (Matthew and Tully in particular. But, that's probably 'cause I've had more interaction with them than the others).

Anyone who regularly reads here and is familiar with my posts and Carla's posts know that Rick & Crew have disagreed with either or both of us more times than any of us care to have counted. And they sometimes disagreed quite vociferously... sometimes, I think, to the point of hurt feelings on one or more sides. Yet Rick, Tully, Matthew et al have consistently treated us with respect whether we all saw eye to eye on the issues or not.

So, my default mode here is to assume that whatever was at the root of this Vandal thing... it couldn't have been just about differing ideology as Susan's comments seem to me to indicate. If it were that simple then they'd have roasted PK long time ago, 'cause God knows Carla and I don't come over here just to ditto everything we read. LOL

FWIW...

War is hell, Susan.

I think there's a place for defense of those who wish to use the blogosphere and internet for full and vigorous defense of ideas versus those who wish to confuse perceptions, engage in dishonest debate, and so forth.

Had there been a newdemocrat and new-democrat blog with a more honest difference - even strong differences, then fine. But in this case, the party at hand had a history. Not just with that one blog, not just with this crowd. As unfortunate as it might seem, sometimes "addition by subtraction" actually applies. In this case, the blogosphere is a better place without such vandals.

Susan,

The efforts here at Centerfield weren't intended to silence a blogger; they were efforts to get that blogger to stop trading under someone else's name. The owner of the second The New Democrat blog is free and welcome to continue to blog--just not under that name.

Max,

...making The Centrist Coalition the headquarters of our Democratic offensive...

Centerfield and the Coalition are not the headquarters of a Democratic offensive. I, through my comments to Rick's posts, supported you not based on party but based on the sheer weight of civility. Taking someone else's name on purpose, or failing to surrender a name already in use by another once its prior use is made known to you, is wrong. I supported the termination of that wrong.

Where I agree with Susan is that this self-satisfied and overtly partisan reaction is shameful. I hope I don't see such a blatant attempt to align Centerfield with one major party over the other again.

To be fair to the interloper Ricky, I never intended to insinuate, as Susan reads into my comment, that he is a racist. I've seen nothing whatever which would make me think that. The meaning of my comparison is that, just as David Duke could call himself a Republican, even though he had little in common with and was rejected by most Republicans, Ricky can register as a Democrat if he wants to, but his views have little in common, and are rejected by most Democrats.

I never wanted Ricky to unplug his blog. I simply wanted him to change the name to something other than the name Max already had. I even suggested "Newer Democrat." I even offered to blogroll him if he changed the name in my initial posting on the subject, an offer he declined.

RV hasn't unplugged his blog, it's still there. And he has plenty more blogs going under different names to get his word out. I'd like to point out that it's impossible to silence a blogger on the Internet, unless you're a very determined and able electronic vandal willing to break some federal laws. By the same token, it can be pretty tough to hide your tracks if someone with any savvy at all is determined to check you out. Take what follows with whatever credibility you care to assign it.

RV is running multiple blogs under multiple identitities through a European relay. I'll leave the assignation of motivations to others--to me the turn-off factor is his lack of anything remotely resembling courtesy or ethics. The what would normally preclude my even bothering about the why. But....

I backtracked RV, using the things available to any moron with a computer and a connection (Google!) and in my mind there is no doubt at all. RV is a major blog whore, someone who will do absolutely anything to generate link traffic. I found him pimping porn links, scam counter links, etc. And those were on his better days. He's been banned from multiple public forums for spamming and link-whoring. In short, I don't have any sympathy at all for RV. I can understand why Dems don't want to claim him--and wouldn't want to if he spouted the party platform word for word. (At least, I hope not.) I know I wouldn't want him on my side. Or in my neighborhood.

And even though my political opinions are quite a ways from Max's, I'm with him here. It's not about ideology, and it's certainly not about censorship. It's about the crap-weasels that infest the internet, of which RV is undoubtedly one.

If the effort was merely about resolving a name conflict, we wouldn't have seen Rick throwing every accusation and insult he could conceive at the blogger in question. Rick called him a troubled teenager who wants a lot of attention -- what is that? Look at the earlier articles and discussion on this site to see the laundry list of attacks that had nothing to do with the name conflict. A name conflict does not justify savaging a blogger in every way possible. The effort was plainly about demonizing and yes taking down a fellow blogger. Max's victory dance here should remove any doubt.

So how could this have been handled differently? Here are some constructive suggestions:

Rick could have constrained his comments to something like, "Name conflicts are bad, until it is resolved the community should avoid linking to him." No cracks about teenagers needing attention, "republican operative" accusations, David Duke cracks, or links to rumors on other sites. Just the issue at hand. Integrity isn't hard.

Max might have said, "I'm glad the name conflict is resolved, but am saddened to see it resulted in the total closure of his site. I wish to distance myself from those who used this issue to demonize, harass, and silence the author. While I don't agree with his views, I respect the rights of others to their opinion on the blogosphere, even Zell Miller democrats."

As for Rick's David Duke crack -- it's dangerous to put the names of a person you are openly criticising, and the name of a highly detested figure like David Duke or Hitler in the same sentence. It's hard to then credibly claim you weren't trying to tar one with the other. Everyone should think twice before doing this.

Rick says, "Ricky can register as a Democrat if he wants to, but his views have little in common, and are rejected by most Democrats." I suppose the same could be said about Zell Miller, and a substantial number of like-minded southern Democrats. It is interesting to see a person running a centrist site rejecting the idea that a Democrat can disagree with their party leadership with some conservative views. Perhaps sentiments like this explain why millions of Southern Democrats have switched parties.

Centrists more than anyone should respect diversity of opinion within the parties. It is sad to see Centrists leading the charge to attack someone for views that don't adhere to the party line. I would have expected centrists to be the ones leaping to their defense. It is a strange world.

Susan,

For someone who accuses everyone who criticizes Bush's policy of being a proto-Michael Moore, I think it is rich that you accuse Rick of trying to "silence" a fellow blogger through name calling.

I wonder what MWS would think of someone making an equally dishonest comment about him.

Susan;

I understand your concerns but I don't agree with your vitriol. This (RV's)was a "dishonest" blog. If you're going to have a blog representing a conservative Dem viewpoint, then don't name in such a way that its easily confused with another blog representing a decidely different viewpoint. A free debate requires folks to be honest about who they are and what they represent.

As for Rick's words, maybe they could have been different but hey, that's part of the risk of healthy debate. I'd let it slide. His intentions were clearly honorable.

My two cents worth anyway. :-)