Scott Pullins Is . . .

Here’s the story as I’ve told it in real life, but not yet on the blog. When I wrote a post about the head of the Ohio Taxpayer’s Association supporting the RON amendments, the first draft described him as something like “arch-conservative blogger and all-around douchebag Scott Pullins.” Then I reconsidered, thinking “I don’t really know that Pullins is a douchebag. I disagree with him on pretty much everything, but conservatism isn’t equivalent to douchebaggery.”

So I set a personal policy at that point: I won’t describe someone as being a douchebag unless I know he’s a douchebag.

Pullins actually rolled in with some enlightening comments on the RON post. He also chimed in later on a TEL post saying that OTA wouldn’t support TEL if the local restriction required a majority vote of all registered voters to override. These are the sorts of comments that make a blog good. I just set the table -- when people show up with either new information or good arguments, that's when this thing is really humming.

Generally I try to keep a high tone here. I prefer real debate to name calling. I’ve always been a “More Flies with Honey” kind of guy. Once in a while I’ll bust out with something harsh or profane or both if the situation calls for it. But I’m not going to use invective against someone just because we disagree. I'm just not that guy. Plus the blog seems to have certain credibility among readers and bloggers who aren't necessarily as liberal as I. All this backs up my policy on the "douchebag" gloss.


So I read about Pullins’ conflict with State Rep. Thomas Collier (R- Mount Vernon) along with his generally litigious nature and said hmmmmm. Well, I never said he isn’t a douchebag, just that I won’t call him one without proof.

Now, after reading about his sleazy riff on the anti-T-d S--------d whisper campaign (using logic that would also prove that Harriet Myers is a lesbian), I’m ready to make the call:

Scott Pullins is a douchebag. So is anyone else who goes there.