Inside Blogotics

By Victor Morton (Contact) | Tuesday, October 14, 2008

• Print
• [-][+] Font Size
• E-Mail Alerts
• Tell a Friend
• Got a Question?
• You Report
• Click-2-Listen

Drunk-blogging

We've mentioned a couple of times in this space the blog Get Drunk and Vote for McCain. But it's not the only conservative political site that might not win the MADD seal of approval.

Stephen Green, the self-described Vodka Pundit, "liveblogged" last week's debate between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain. Only he did it with a twist (of lemon or lime?); he "drunkblogged" it at Pajamas Media.

"Take a shot every time McCain uses any variation on the word 'crony.' Pajamas Media, its affiliates, employees and advertisers cannot be held responsible for any alcohol poisoning. Closed course, professional driver," Mr. Green wrote.

At 7:56 p.m. (the post used Mountain time), he wrote, "You know how bad this debate is? I´m skipping my third martini and going straight to a double vodka rocks. Maybe a triple." But two minutes later came this sober-sounding lulu, citing an answer from Mr. Obama: "Health insurance 'is a right.' We were endowed by our Creator with a really sweet no-co-pay plan from Aetna, and maybe some free speech. At least I think that´s what Jefferson wrote."

His quick assessment: a McCain victory but "not by nearly enough to matter."

Gay overreach

Gay bloggers last week faced up to the suddenly real possibility that voters in the solidly blue state (California) would amend their constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, overturning a state Supreme Court decision.

B. Daniel Blatt of West Hollywood, who blogs under the persona "Gay Patriot West" at Gay Patriot, attributed the recent polling turnaround on Proposition 8 to an ad by the amendment's backers framing the issue as one of popular sovereignty, overreaching judges and arrogant lawmakers.

"The repetition of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom´s exclamation that gay marriage would happen 'whether you like it or not' combined with the inclusion of the line that 'four judges ignored four million voters' makes it appear that the initiative merely restrains an overzealous judiciary and restores sovereignty to the people. People don´t like courts resolving controversial social issues."

Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?