Yesterday, after GOP blogger and consultant for Massachusetts Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown razzed me for having contributed to Brown's Democratic opponent Martha Coakley, I replied with a simple proposal:

Interested in a friendly wager? I eat a little crow on [The Next Right] if Brown wins, you do it on MyDD if Coakley wins?

Shortly thereafter I asked Ruffini, "Or would you expect a point spread in a friendly wager over the outcome of the Brown/Coakley race?" Ruffini's response a few hours later:

If I come on MyDD, I'll be happy to repost this: http://is.gd/6ameZ [a link to a post on how Paul Hackett's loss in the 2005 Ohio special congressional election was a win for the Democrats -- clearly not a crow-eating post]

I took this as a rejection of my friendly wager, replying to Ruffini, "If you were confident in a Brown win, why wouldn't you agree to a wager that could have me eating crow on your site?" Matt Ortega similarly asked, "Brown consultant @PatrickRuffini refuses to wager Brown would win?"

Ruffini tried to flip things around, stating that the fact that I was assigning even odds to the race -- which I wasn't, as evidenced by my tweet asking if Ruffini expected a point-spread in such a wager -- was the story. "[A] Brown win would be a real miracle," tweeted Ruffini.

I don't know what the outcome of Tuesday's election in Massachusetts is going to be. Nobody does. But I was willing to put myself on the line under the belief that Coakley, the Democratic nominee, would pull out a victory. Ruffini, a leading GOP blogger, wasn't willing to do the same for the candidate he supports (and indeed is doing work for). And I think that speaks volumes.

Marc Laitin follows up on the post on the GOP.com's ridiculous blog:

On top of this Matt, I'm not sure if you checked out their list of tags, one of which is Good News from Iraq.... The idea that they would call a tag good news is the very signal that they are cherry picking. I mean, if they used their brains they'd call it "news from iraq" and then cherry pick the good news. In that circumstance at least a non-attuned reader could potentially say "wow, all this news out of Iraq is good." Where of course now all I can think of is, where the F is the "bad news out of iraq" tag. Patrick, when are we gonna see that?"

There's more...

Everyone knows there is a brewing Civil War in Iraq.  Yesterday, the GOP.com blog wrote about the good news in Iraq, focusing on how mail carriers are carrying one third the amount of mail they did before the invasion instead of one fith.  I could focus on the absurdity of the blog post, the fact that in that same article on mail carriers there's a discussion of how they are routinely shot at.  Nothing needs to be said about that except that the GOP blogger didn't even link to the article she cited, since that would make it easier for her own GOP loyalist readership to realize she is cherry-picking information.  That's how bad it's gotten.

Now, one thing to note about how these organizations work is that the internet department usually has to fight with the communications department to put out anything that deviates from press release speak.  'Why should I let the blogger write anything' is the question for the Comm Director, and usually when there's no fire drill and a clear sense of how to operate, the middle managers let the bloggers write a little something here or there.  That's how GOP.com seems to work, though I imagine the internet department at the DNC has more clout within the building for a variety of reasons.

Having been in a blogger capacity in a few organizations where the communications department ran the show, I can tell you a few things happen during a panic situation.  In organizations like the RNC where the internet department has little clout, the blog gets silent.  The message hasn't been built yet, and it's very clear that the stakes are too high for some random junior staffer to say a little something like they usually do.  That's what it looks like is happening right now at GOP.com.  They don't know how to respond to the port fiasco and the brewing Civil War in Iraq.  And they are not even allowed to change the subject, probably because the Communications shop is too busy to even approve any new post even though it's been a day since they put anything up.  That must mean things are really bad in there.

Get ready for some new talking points.

There's more...