NOTE: WE'LL BE DOWN FOR MAINTENANCE FOR ABOUT AN HOUR STARTING AT 10:40 PT. WE ARE UPGRADING OUR SERVERS TO GET THEM READY FOR ELECTION NIGHT. THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
Happy Halloween, Firepups! You know, there are a great number of things in the world to fear. Angry stingrays, for instance. Not to mention Diebold voting machines, air traffic controllers on medication, and a new Guns and Roses album. (Brrrrrrrr!! That last one's the kicker.) All of these things pale, however, compared to the horror perpetrated upon the world every time DANGERSTEIN sits down at the keyboard to unleash another howling, spitting rant upon us all.
Despite his having been pulled back from his initial role as campaign spokesperson (he was frightening the children), Gerstein has taken it upon himself to respond to the New York Times's endorsement of Ned Lamont for US Senate over his boss, Holy Joe Lieberman (R-Pfizer). The endorsement editorial that ran Sunday, October 29th, was an economical 11 paragraphs long, weighing in with a word-count of approximately 940 lean, well-chosen words. Gerstein's response on the other hand is a whopping 30-plus paragraphs long with a word count of approximately 2180.
Dan. Dan, Dan, Dan…what do they do, pump you up full of Red Bull, crystal meth, and ketamine and tell you to go write a post? Hasn't anyone ever told you that brevity is the soul of wit?
Clearly not. Or if they have, you decided that you were immune to such a petty stylistic concern. Why use five words when 500 would do? You are so enamored of the sound of your own whining that you think ten times as many words in a post must be ten times as good, is that it?. There can never be too much, can there? You're one of those writers (and I use the term vurrrrry loosely here) who believes that he should only stop writing once every single point has been labored and re-labored to near annihilation and every drop of wrath has been squeezed from your straining, overheated brain.
You poor man.
But let's look at your latest screed. Maybe there's something in here we can salvage for your mom's refrigerator door.
Our response to the New York Times endorsement
We fully expected that the New York Times, given its strong anti-war stance and clear partisan agenda, would repeat their misguided primary endorsement of Ned Lamont for the general election. But we never imagined the Times of all papers would produce such an intellectually dishonest and shoddy editorial as they published Sunday.
To correct the worst mischaracterizations and false claims in the Times endorsement, and show the editors how badly they missed mark, we sent the Times the following response this morning:
Um, excuse me, Mr. "BIG BLACK DOGS HACKED MY WEBSITE ON PRIMARY DAY!!"? Yes, you, Danny. "Intellectually dishonest"? Um…has your campaign looked at itself in the mirror, lately? You're the folks who are trying to repaint the Democratic party's most stalwart Pro-Iraq-War toady as a Fierce Anti-War Critic. But that shouldn't surprise me, I know. Why on earth should the campaign for Ann Coulter's Favorite Democrat ever bother with self-examination? We have always been at war with Eastasia! Blather! Rinse! Repeat!
Don't you know that if the Times had endorsed RG Joe, the very space that contains DANGERSTEIN's execrable rant would be trumpeting the paper's Great Journalistic Tradition, its Fair and Penetrating Discernment, and its Clear-Headed Acumen at Chosing Candidates in These Difficult Times. But, since the editorial board swung the other way, it's time to trot out all the same smears Sean Hannity uses against the NYT and pretend to be shocked and disgusted that they Would Sink So Low.
But hey, you'll show them the err of their ways. And it'll only take you another 2000 words to do it!
Had the New York Times taken an honest measure of the two U.S. Senate candidates in Connecticut, there is no question it would have followed the lead of the Hartford Courant and the New Haven Register in endorsing Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont.
Lieberman’s record of accomplishment, his unfailing leadership on many of the very issues the Times promotes, his personal integrity and even the way he has conducted himself since the August primary – which the Times purportedly weighed in making its endorsement – should have made him the hands-down choice.
"Hands-down" Bush's pants, maybe, but I wouldn't go any further than that, Dan. Joe's "record of accomplishment"? You mean, other than squealing, "YESSIR, THANK YOU SIR!" every time Preznint Fuckwit says, "Blow me" for the last six years? What exactly are those accomplishments, Dan? The Bankruptcy Bill? Making Connecticut 49th in the US for distribution of federal funds? Or do you just mean the Iraq War? I mean, yes, rah-rah-ing for a geopolitical cock-up of apocalyptic proportions is a sort of accomplishment, sure, but by that rubric, so is soiling yourself in public.
Instead, the Times’ ill-informed and tendentious endorsement of Ned Lamont reads as if the editors had outsourced the editorial writing to the same crew of blindingly angry bloggers who have teamed with the Lamont Campaign to twist Joe Lieberman’s record beyond all recognition.
Heeee, heeeee, heeee. That paragraph makes me chuckle each time I read it. "ILL-INFORMED AND TENDENTIOUS"!!! Ooooh. Such big words for such a wee, angry man. What are you, Dan, 5'3"? 5'4"? It shows in your writing, dude. My absolute FAVORITE phrase in the whole post is here, though, "BLINDINGLY ANGRY BLOGGERS"!! That's pretty freaking rich coming from a guy who's currently spraying his monitor with snot and spit as he types faster and faster and faster, and who is starting to make a faint, high-pitched whistling sound through his nose as the rage mounts with each passing paragraph.
Gawd, he just goes on and on! I wish I could take you kids through every twist and turn of his wild-eyed howl of a post, but I just don't have the strength. (Plus, I left my hip-waders at home.)
Let's point out one more gem of a paragraph before we put this post to bed.
That is probably because you long ago convicted him of not being ideologically pure enough and of not being reflexively hostile enough to his Republican colleagues. You clearly wanted another finger-pointer in the Senate, and Ned Lamont wins that contest hands down.
Ah, no, Little DANGERSTEIN. If you read the Times editorial, it clearly states that Joe Lieberman is not their choice because he's a failure. As my dad says, he's a man who "stands for nothing and will fall for anything". His slavish dry-humping of Bush's leg has made him electoral poison in an election season where it appears that voters might have finally wised up to the GOP's ongoing attempts to hijack this country and fly it into a building.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Another brain hits the big bug-zapper, eh? I still maintain that when we make the movie of all this, Chris Kattan should play the role of DANGERSTEIN, but only if he delivers all his lines in the voice of "Mango".
Happy Halloween, y'all! Wish me luck on my trip to CT, tomorrow!