John Aravosis has nothing to declare - except his own genius.

I used to read AMERICAblog every day until the author, John Aravosis, started to bash several democratic senators. At first I thought it was funny, but the tenor of the vitriolic seemed to increase with every post. His comments often had little to with any of the political subjects of the day.

He would talk about a candidates lack of hair, their physique, or their use of the English language in a particular phrase. He would do this to build up the person in congress that he liked that day, or in some cases he just seemed to like to hear himself talk. I began to find it annoying. If he is so smart (and he does tell you point blank his opinion of himself), why was he bothering to discuss such trivial and pointless issues? (And why does he sound like such a dick on television?)

In the comments section of the blog Aravosis' words and agenda would be echoed with little room for a dissenting voice. The form of Aravosis' message and the ensuing echoes would go something like this, "Such-and-such a democratic congressperson is a (insert insult here), pass it on!"

I finally took his link off of my main blog roll, and placed him in the Attack of the Crab People section. (That's right above the Lektroids from planet 10 section.) His blog may have improved in tone since the moment in time I describe... I don't really know, I don't read it anymore. I enjoy reading opinions that differ from mine, but I don't enjoy reading vitriolic and useless information.

In a recent comment I left on a blog about the recent decision by Democratic Congressional leadership to fund the Iraq war because they are unable to override Bush's veto, I got merely this link from AMERICAblog as a response. Any personal message or illumination that the author of the comment might of made was turned over entirely to the opinion and agenda of John Aravosis. And what did Aravosis say?

Aravosis: But the point is that Bush's veto threat has nothing to do with who has the power to stop this war. The power is in the hands of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The public handed it to them last November. The only question, the only issue, is whether the public, and the Democrats, are ready and willing to have this war come to a close. AMERICAblog

So, we can infer in this paragraph that the only thing that must be done is not fund the war. There is no mention whatsoever of an adverse effects this may have, either to the troops or the party. He quotes Harry Reid saying, "We don't have a veto-proof Congress." Aravosis' response?

Aravosis: It's just not relevant.

The problem that I have with that answer is that he has gone straight from a weighty and important issue to "just cut the funding," without any of the logical conclusions that are supposed to go in between the two points. It would appear that he feels I don't need to think about this, because he has stated that it is "not relevant."

Why is his answer correct? What about the ramification of the doing things the Aravosis way? On what logical basis does he draw these conclusions? Sure, he is delivering a message, but he is not even trying to convince me why he is right. He just goes straight to his idea that Reid and Pelosi are wrong, pretty much only because he says so.

Aravosis talks about merely sending the legislation back repeatedly to the president, "again and again and again." You see, according to Aravosis, it is merely a game of chicken. I remain unconvinced that it is only that simple. Would this gain public support? Maybe, maybe not. You do have to ask yourself, are more members of congress going to sign on, or drop off? That plan could get ugly pretty fast, but most importantly he does not address the many questions involved in such an undertaking.

His third argument is that they should only partially fund the surge now, and then revisit the issue in July. Bush has already said he would veto idea as well, as Aravosis states. But that won't be a problem, according to Aravosis, because he is willing to bet that "the public would have been on our side." OK, this means what exactly? That Bush would have responded to what the public felt about this issue? I think that would actually be a first in his entire presidency. That postulate by Aravosis does not answer at all what he states.

So I remain unconvinced by all three arguments, and find them unsophisticated in their logic. Aravosis has made this entire argument at the expense of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and offers as an explanation little more than his word on it. I am disappointed in this recent turn of events as well, I just don't feel that it serves any logical purpose to make rash accusations and baseless insults, especially if the issue is not being discussed fully and rationally.