An amazing campaign ad for Brianna Wu, courtesy of her husband Frank Wu

Originally published at:


I like Trumpzilla’s tiny, tiny hands.


Isn’t she running against another Dem? I don’t get how that’ll help, but I know next to nothing else about the incumbent.

(ETA: Didn’t mean that as a reply to you, David. Just hit the wrong button. Sad!)

Well… at various points in his career, Representative Stephen Lynch has: voted for the Iraq war, voted against choice, voted against an assault weapons ban, voted against gay rights, and voted against Obamacare. About Trump, he once said, “The press has been unfair to Donald Trump”. About Donald Trump’s unhinged behavior, he once said we shouldn’t resist but rather “wait and see”. We like to think of Lynch as a Republican in a cheaper suit.


I can honestly say, with no ego whatsoever, that this is the most entertaining political ad I have ever seen.


Bravo! I too approve this message.


While I enjoyed the campaign ad, this response is deeply disappointing because it points to politics as usual. The devil is in the details, and as such this is pretty much content free.

Politicians are always basing their campaign on painting their opponents as monsters – “they voted against babies, grandmothers, and kittens!”. So I guess this is at least consistent with a long political tradition. Tell the “truth,” but say nothing.


Frank just provided some clear, specific examples of why incumbent Stephen Lynch’s policies are not those of a progressive Democrat. How is that an unfair attack?

We keep hearing that we’re supposed to get beyond blind party loyalty. Part of that means abandoning the premise “as long as someone from my party is in the job then that’s good enough.”


But that’s the point – he didn’t. Saying he “voted against choice” is not specific at all! For all I know, he may have voted against a post-birth abortion bill (yea, I know that sounds absurd, but we live in a absurd times).

Specific information would say what specifically he voted against, how that was wrong, and how Brianna supports it. We’re talking about how the candidate differs from her opponent, and the first task of a serious campaign (as I would define it) is to specifically detail that, and use those details to answer the question.

Here’s an excerpt from Lynch’s Wikipedia article. Maybe you can explain why Frank Wu is unfair in his characterization of Lynch as not supporting pro-choice policies.

On social issues, Lynch is considered a conservative to moderate Democrat.[48] He is pro-life[48] and has been attacked by pro-choice group NARAL.[49] He sided with conservatives in the 2005 Terri Schiavo case, voting for federal court intervention in the case.

I’ll add that Frank Wu has no obligation to be impartial on this since he’s supporting Lynch’s opponent. He does have a moral obligation to be truthful, but you haven’t provided any evidence that he was wrong or even misleading in any of his assertions.


Do I remember her name in connection to some gamer-gate BS?
I mean I CAN google to some extent…
…I thought this way might be funner.

1 Like

Wu is technocratic neoliberal trash, a whole new coat of paint in the same old garbage ideas about how we can code our way to a better tomorrow &c.

It was lousy the way she was (and probably still is) harrassed by gg idiots and I’d hate to see her campaign attacked by the same people (it probably already is), but that’s partly because I think she should lose on her own merits

1 Like

You’re missing the point. I didn’t say it was an unfair characterization – I’m saying that all it is is a characterization.

And I would say you’re helping me prove my point (ie, a generic Wikipedia article has more information than the campaign manager is willing to provide).

Never heard Frank Wu speak, but from what I’ve seen from him he always seemed like a somewhat peppy, cool guy. Glad to see that he comes off that way in moving pictures and audio.

If Brianna’s campaign gets rolling, I do not look forward to the muckraking and shitshow that is to follow. That would tick every box of stuff that the alt-right internet trolls hate.


Frank Wu has no obligation to do your research for you. If you think his characterizations are wrong or misleading then it’s on you to provide evidence to counter them.


I agree 100%. However, to run a good campaign he may want to consider, you know, adding some details.

if you think his characterizations are wrong…

WTF? I’m sorry if I pushed one of your buttons, but are you even reading my responses? To quote myself:

I didn’t say it was an unfair characterization…

Edit: to recapitulate, and be perfectly clear:

I’m not saying he’s lying or making untrue claims. I’m saying it’s fuckng politics as normal, and for that, see entire thread.

That’s all fine and good, but it overlooks the real issue. Mars was edited well, for once. The bit from Jupiter was a little mangled, but it was probably an afterthought.


Your point is completely empty. To paraphrase, you’re saying, “Her opponent can truthfully be characterized as more conservative than he claims to be. Her supporters are doing that.” Then you imply that that’s disingenuously vague of them to do so. Please make an actual argument.


He’s not arguing facts. He’s arguing how they were presented. How to make appeal: logos, pathos, ethos. Frank Wu made a pathos appeal. It might seem like a ethos, but without context, it’s just an appeal to your emotional response to those bullet points. And they all seemed targeted to get an emotional response. Appealing to emotion = politics as usual.

It would be nice to have context so we can clearly see these were bad ethical choices Lynch made. Or why they were bad logically. That would be an entirely different type of political discussion. i.e. Not politics as usual.


Thanks you!

I was beginning to feel like I was in some kind of bizarre-o world, were my posts were coming out in alien charaters that no one could read. Or that I inadvertently hit some kind of dog whistle that kept people from being able to actually read what I was saying.

1 Like