Let’s Bring Sandwiches and Make a Day of It: LOL GOP.com

I do lean left, although it’s not as hard left as people might think it is. In Europe I might be considered center, maybe center right, but not in America, where “right” has a… very different meaning.

Anyways, righties ((Thanks to Steele, I somehow feel like I’m saying “homies” when I say that…)): can you please get some party leaders with communications clue. The death of intelligent political dialogue is a very bad thing, although the Bush years did a lot to kill it in the first place; still.

But we can have a dandy picnic and watch the burning ruins!

Marc Ambinder with 10 sweet points on why GOP.com is fail, including a pithy metaphor for the future of the Republican party. And, frankly, its present.

GOP also posted their passwords and admin accounts to the website, thereby easing any cracking attempts from hackers.

Gawker says, GOP Tries to Claim the Ghost of Jackie Robinson. Hint to GOP: Jackie Robinson was an independent, and he hated your guts in the end, and that is something of an understatement.

Dancing Michael Steele dances on GOP.com! Well, not really dancing, but he does shake his booty. If you can call that shaking. Look out for the glittery animated flag at the bottom of the GOP.com front page, too!

“It’s not even really a website,” says Michael Steele, who is either very perceptive of GOP.com’s suckiness and is trying to subvert that, or just really, really clueless.

Wonkette’s GOP.com picnic!

You iz future of Republican party. Yes, you iz.

4 thoughts on “Let’s Bring Sandwiches and Make a Day of It: LOL GOP.com

  1. I am confused…

    You lament the death of intelligent political dialogue (meaningful debate?) and yet your post does nothing intelligent or meaningful beyond linking to people who have insulted the GOP and their website in one way or another. Way to contribute to the debate!

  2. Alec,

    I think you take this post way too seriously.

    Clearly I wasn’t trying to add to the debate, nor was this meant as a serious post. These days I tend to treat S∂ as my own wiki, and I like to produce linkspam from time to time. Tor.com is where the most serious stuff turns up, although S∂ has serious stuff from time to time as well.

    This wasn’t it.

    But as you bring up it up; criticism is a way of adding to the debate, and it’s valuable, even if it mocks. It’s why Stewart and Colbert are valuable to the national debate. And some of this is serious: trying to hypocritically claim Jackie Robinson as a modern GOP supporter is stupid, no matter how you cut it.

    The GOP was trying to communicate. Good. But at the same time, poor efforts at communication should be pointed out, however mean it may seem; it’s feedback the GOP needs badly, just as the Democrats need feedback on how poorly organized they are unless they think the world is ending OMG, which is not a great way of planning the future either.

    (In a way, both of these kinds of criticism—yeah, obviously I didn’t feature the latter, because I wasn’t terribly interested in fair when writing this post—are endemic to the personalities of the parties involved as they are right now. The Democrats tend to be splinters of other parties combined together after years of being beat up by the GOP, and the psychology shows; and the GOP until now haven’t had practice trying to reach out to people other than their base, and that psychology shows as well.)

    In another way way, incidents such as this also a valuable reminder to myself: communicate badly, and I will be mocked and truly deserve it. That’s one of the dark sides of humor.

  3. Sorry AJ, I guess I was up a bit too early this morning and I am trying to quit smoking… nicotine withdrawal and all.

    I am a huge fan of Stewart and Colbert and watch them both pretty much every day. With them though, you know what you are getting into – humor hides thinly veiled political attacks and vise versa. That is why I watch their respective shows. With your personal blog, I guess I just assumed I should take the posts seriously.

    Reading your post again, I was just irked by the fact that you rightly assessed the poor quality of debate in politics, but then went straight on to reproduce the same kind of ‘debate’. I know now that the post wasn’t serious, or overly serious I should say, but it just rubbed me wrong.

    Realistic criticism can contribute to debate, yes, but as the recent “death panels” criticism shows quite aptly, it can also destroy any attempt at constructive discourse. This is your space, and it is yours to do with as you wish, so I apologize if I was angry and rude in my first comment. Seriously now, knowing the internet and computers as you do, is it not reasonable to give a website a week or two to work out the kinks before jumping in and characterizing it as laughable and misguided?

  4. Hi Alec,

    No worries.

    If there’s anything that made me want to mock GOP.com, though, it really wasn’t the other stuff. It was the security gaffe, which was bad in so many ways, and is inexcusable for a website, new or old—especially these days, when a lot of website software does implement even weak forms of security.

    Where I work, we take security extremely seriously, and we would not have survived that kind of screw-up even on an initial site launch—and if we screwed up that way, we would rightly not deserve to survive! It’s a betrayal of not just customer trust—especially if GOP.com wants to start serving social media and contribution aspects that ActBlue.com does—but also shows a lack of forethought in one of the most basic aspects of a website.

    I could have torn the GOP a new one about that. Arguably, that would have been a serious contribution to the debate.

    Or I could just eat popcorn, because I have enough emotional problems these days to not go poking into hives.

Comments are closed.