Conservative Blogs More Effective Than Liberal Blogs
by RonChusidEditor and Publisher looks at an upcoming article in the New York Times Magazine which finds conservative blogs to be more effective than liberal blogs in political influence:
In fact, Crowley admits that his argument for conservative blog supremacy may seem “counterintuitive,” noting the Howard Dean phenomenon in early 2004 and heavy Web traffic numbers for liberal blogs such as DailyKos. (He does not mention that studies of online traffic show that, overall, there are more highly-popular liberal blogs than conservative ones.) But he explains that “Democrats say there’s a key difference between liberals and conservatives online. Liberals use the Web to air ideas and vent grievances with one another, often ripping into Democratic leaders….Conservatives, by contrast, skillfully use the Web to provide maximum benefit for their issues and candidates.”
We would never want liberal blogs to repeat their party’s talking points without thought or fact-checking as regularly occurs in the conservative blogs. On the other hand, what we do see in the liberal blogosphere is often no better. Instead of repeating the party line without thought, we have certain liberal blogs, such as Daily Kos, which regularly post irrational attacks on the party’s last nominee without thought or fact checking. The ditto heads at these sites are every bit as bad as the Limbaugh ditto heads in repeating their false claims such as that Kerry supported the war or repeating their totally irrational mantras that Kerry conceded before all the votes were counted.
Attacking the party leadership when wrong is one thing. Repeating the campaign slogans of a primary opponent long after the primary is over, especially those which were blatantly untrue, is totally counterproductive.
Filed under: John Kerry | Get Permalink or trackback |
Thanks for continuing to find critical support for our idea that liberal blogs need some behavior modification, but by whom?
As always the voice of calm, non-judgmental and fair, love your increased use of ditto-heads in talking about these blogs. Very satisfying.
Marjorie,
I guess any “behavior modification” will ultimatley have to come from other bloggers. I don’t think that any “orders” from a political party will make a difference as with conservative blogs (which may be a good thing).
All we can do is try to spread some sense, and hopefully more people who frequent these blogs will stop acting like ditto heads. Maybe sometime in the future when someone like Kos misquotes Kerry to attack him,as he so frequently does, more people will check the facts and call Kos on his Rove-style distortions rather than joining in.
Ron:
I have been hearing this same tired double-talk from you for going on two years now—Kerry didn’t vote for the war, he voted to give Bush complete authority to do whatever he wanted, but only as a bargaining chip, BLAH BLAH. As an active Kerry supporter who knows this argument inside out let me tell it to you straight: this is frankly a lot of bull! Every well informed person knew the neo-cons wanted to attack Iraq—Rummy was muttering about it in the Pentagon on 9/11 for crying out loud! It is simply absurd to say there was no difference in the position of those who voted AGAINST the Iraq resolution and those who voted FOR it. What the American people needed in the run up to this war was leadership and strategic perspective. Specifcally, that this war would help Iran and hurt all of our allies in the region, including Israel. We got this leadership from Sens. Graham, Feingold, Boxer, Levin etc—but not from Sens. Kerry/Edwards, or Sen. Clinton for that matter. Fortunately, we are getting it from Sen. Kerry (but not Sen. Clinton) now.
But please give this rant up, and admit, as both Sens. Kerry and Edwards have, that their vote was a mistake. Ron, please give it up, clinging to this hurts rather than helps Sen. Kerry!
FP
FP,
Read Kerry’s Senate floor statement, his op-ed in the New York Times (or Foreign Affairs), his Georgetown speech, or anything he said and wrote before the war.
Kerry made his opposition to going to war quite clear in all these and other statements, leading up to his call for regime change in the United States in protest at the onset of the war.
Kerry voted for authorization to use force as a last resort in order to give Bush the leverage to force the inspectors back into Iraq. He listed numerous things Bush should not do, including going into Iraq unilaterally, going into Iraq for nation building, going into Iraq for any other reason than to disarm Saddam, or going into Iraq without evidence that we were actually threatened by WMD.
Kerry quoted Bush as saying that the vote did not mean war was inevitable. Bush misused this authority which is why Kerry admitted that the vote was a mistake. I’ve always argued that Kerry’s vote was a mistake–but that is not the same as saying he ever supported the war.
Bush and Cheney are now making false claims that people like Kerry supported going to war. Supporting their argument helps those who support the war along with hurting those who opposed the war from the beginning, including John Kerry.
Uhm… Kerry, as well as a bunch of other Democrats, DID and still DO support the war in Iraq. Call me a leftist dittohead for making this claim, but their the ones who voted for it, and I have yet to see a consensus among Washington Democrats to pull out. Sure there’s Howard Dean, and we can’t forget Murtha… Though it’s worth noting that Murtha’s plan wasn’t a complete and total removal of troops. But one of the planks of Kerry’s election platform is that we need to expand the military by 40,000 troops. Additionally, he didn’t have a plan to get out of Iraq.
I understand that the Democrats didn’t plan this war, but many of them supported it back in 2002 and 2003 — back when it really mattered.
Additionally recent Democrat goofups: voting for the PATRIOT Act again, and allowing the bankruptcy bill to pass.
So, like I said, call me a leftist version of a dittohead who doesn’t check his facts, but those are the facts as I see them.
Tas aka Leftist Ditto head
You refer here to recent Senate bills that passed and perhaps insinuate that Kerry supported them – please do your homework, because he did not.
Kerry does not now and has NEVER supported this war. However as one who has served in the military he understands the need to pull of out successfully – rather than on the run leaving a mess behind like the fall of Saigon.
Murtha’s plan is take troops out and leave them on the outskirts so they can go back in if need be. Guess what – pulling out as Murths suggests actually leaves us vunerable to HAVE to go back in.
Kerry’s plan it take steps for a withdrawal over time and not have us sitting there on the borders ready to move in if neccessary.
Some ditto heads misinterpret Murtha’s plan as out now. That IS NOT at all what he is suggesting.
FP
Likewise – been hearing the same tired rant from you for 2 years. Where you get a rant from Ron on the war vote out of one sentance is beyond me.
Seems like the only person here wanting to continue to rant about this is you. Ron made a short and simple statement – you made and HUGE issue out of it.
Thanks for sharing. Yes, Kerry has said his vote was a mistake. I’d be happy to find the link to that here as well as the link to Edwards OP/ED or any other links to clarify things that Kerry has said or is doing, that you are twisting here.
tas,
“Sure there’s Howard Dean.”
Kerry and Dean had virtually the identical position before the war (as discussed here), so it makes no sense to support one and not the other.
Kerry’s proposal for increased troops was not for use in Iraq. While true he has not suppored an immediate pull out, he has been supporting leaving.
Ron
Thanks for posting this.
And thank you also to FP and Tas for proving Ron’s point.
Pamela,
Note FP and Tas don’t agree on whether Kerry supports the war now.
FP is incorrect in equating the IWR to support for the war and is wrong in saying Kerry supported the war in the past but at least is correct in crediting Kerry for opposing the war now.
In contrast Tas still believes Kerry currently supports the war.
It is hard to wage an effective anti-war campaign against those who really support the war when opponents of the war spend so much time spreading such claims that other opponents of the war are supporters of it.
As you said, this proves my point about the lack of effectiveness of liberal blogs. I can’t imagine the conservative blogs dividing themselves over such disputes.
Beyond belief we’re still here. So wanting to disrespect Kerry, that they’d rather hang on to old misinformation or opinion, without changing.
If the administration were going in anyway, asstated above, what would be gained by going along with the authorization. Well, for one thing, they all thought something would be found, and politically, as well as for real security, a cautious, pro-security leverage was preferred.
There was also a real sense that getting in the inspectors was essential past Cheney’s objections. It got in the inspectors, there for months, and the adminstration went against past their promises.
Kerry proclaimed loudly, do not rush to war, and many articles applauded his stance, until the simplistic slogans of primaries carried the day and the media continued to lazily misinform (although they knew full well the facts they had written just months before).
Bottom line, the country did not want an anti-war candidate, so if he did not shout it from the roof tops daily, the idea was to get elected.
FP and Tas, aka copycat ditto-heads,
Same old incorrect debating points.
Funny thing about Dean–he’s now the Cemocratic leader yet he still can’t create a concensous.
Lumping Murtha as anti-war when he voted for the IWR is like calling yourself a car just because you stood in a garage.
Murtha and Kerry are actually looking at the current situation instead of being whiners about what happened in 02 and are pushing this country into getting out of Iraq. Both are to be applauded.
But looking at the IWR vote and saying they’re “pro-war” based on the vote is also ridiculous. Hey..if the same car analogy works, you may as well use it. Yes, the IWR was a vote–just like if you stand in the garage you’re standing where a car usually is, but there is no more resemblance than that.
And after 2 years, Ron’s point about this sad state of progressive blogs is proven to be right.
Marjorie,
Back in the early days of Dean’s blog there was a consensus that, after winning the nomination (if things went as hoped there) the next step would inevitalby be to move towards the center for the general election campaign. Many even cited Dean’s moderate record in Vermont as being helpful in such a move.
Such thoughts about the neccessity to attract the center appear to have been forgotten, as was the result of the Nixon vs. McGovern race.
Kerry never hid from his ant-war position, as is very clear in multiple interviews. He also did not “shout it from the roof tops daily” knowing that moderating his views was necessary.
Many liberal bloggers claim Kerry lost because he was too moderate, ignoring the fact that the attacks from the Bush campaign were universally for being too liberal. At least on this point the Republicans were more realistic, knowing that there are not enough votes on the far left to win a national election.
Interesting this conversation today. This morning in the Stat Counter I found links here from conservative underground, the conservative equivelant of democratic underground.
The link led to a post on CU that showed the discussion on DU of Kerry’s NPR piece yesterday. The point of the post on CU was to poke fun at Dems attacking their own. They pointed to a conversation on DU of someone attacking JK in the thread.
Any liberal who blogs who does not get that we are being read by conservative bloggers and they enjoy watching us tear each other apart, is not facing reality. If liberals bloggers want to make a difference in politics, they have got to get on message and support our Dem leaders, not bash them.
Pamela,
If they want to amuse themselves by looking for Kerry bashing at DU they could find plenty of examples. On the one hand, there’s plenty of senseless Kerry bashing there. On the other hand, the Kerry supporters group at DU is by far the largest of any group there.
I’m not as opposed to bashing leaders as you are, but people at least need to get their facts right and decide if the bashing makes sense. while I disagreed with Kerry on the IWR vote, this has no bearing on my support for him. As we’ve discussed in the past, the IWR vote was a Rove trap. There were down sides to voting either way, and Kerry tried to get around it by fully explaining his position both in publications and on the Senate floor. What really mattered was his opposition to the war, not this one vote.
While there is far more unity on conservative blogs, this is not necessarily good. There is only one way to support the current government, but there are many different opinions in opposing it. It makes sense for liberal blogs to reflect a variety of opinions. What doesn’t make sense is to attack people like JK for reasons which make no sense when all the facts are examined.
Ron
I have my moments of disagreeing with Dem leaders, but I always try to explain factually why. Randi Rhodes was discussing Leiberman the other day and she explained neatly the proper way to disagree with our own is to do so factually.
My objection to the bashing is that it’s usually petty, snide, senseless attacks. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone when you have a leg to stand on.
Pamela,
Right–doing so factually makes all the difference.
It is amazing how virtually all attacks on Kerry, whether from the left or right, are based upon distorting his positions and record. It is very rare that I see disagreements with Kerry over actual positions he holds. I’m not sure Bush ever attacked Kerry for an actual position he held during the entire campaign.
Ron
Have you checked the other conversations on this through the Memeorandum link –
http://www.memeorandum.com
Yes.
For the most part, liberals deny that the conservative blogs are more influential, and the conservatives are celebrating this “victory.” Of course there are other views also.
I’m not very interested in the question of whether liberal or conservative blogs are more influential, especially before the entire article is published. Much comes down to how you measure influence and how you define influence.
I’m more interested in the differences between the two blogospheres (maybe Bush is right–there are at least two “internets” out there). Regardless of which is more influential, there are practices on liberal blogs which I’m concerned about which unnecessarily reduce their ability to be influential.
All this proves is that Republicans are what they are in valuing the individual and Democrats are manifest to their belief in the individual. We Democrats are free thinking, open minded Jeffersonian and independent ( all I consider core American values) On the other hand Republicans are rather narrow minded, controlling and manipulative in their form and nature, which I consider rather autocratic and very dogmatic… certainly not core in traditional American values. So if one thinks giving up one’s soul for “effectiveness” is a good idea, well all they need do is join the Republicans, they are already there waiting.
I think your description of Daily Kos mischaractertizes the reality. Sure, there’s a lot of shooting from the hip, but it’s hardly a broadside against Democratic politicians. If anything, the big pressure is to go along with the leaders vetted by a few, and if you step too far out of that line, you get flamed or banned. But then, Daily Kos is rather insular. While the rest of the blogosphere is constantly cross-linking and commenting on each other’s blogs, the Daily Kos discussion rarely leaves the site. Personally, I think that tendency limits the site’s effectiveness, but maybe I’m wrong and their chosen direction is best.
But I think more pernicious than that is the apparent premise of this blog post — that voters are supposed to modify their interests and values to get in line behind the politicians, when I would say it’s the politicians who should be listening to the voters. People smell bullshit, and there’s been a lot coming from the Dems, especially in rationalizations over things like the bankruptcy bill or pandering to the religious right.
Of course, as an independent I’m also naturally suspicious of any message that says “party first, morality when convenient.”
But really, what is “more effective” anyway? Maybe the right wing is better at being a conduit to the mainstream media. But I seriously wonder if the Democrats would be doing as pathetically “well” as they are without the “liberal” blogosphere really pushing on issues and hashing out ideas and pushing on values. Which is “more effective”? (I get the sense that “more effective” in this context is measured by rallying starry-eyed followers to support political leaders. And I’m sorry, without a rousing visionary with more personality than John Kerry [which is my biggest issue with him], that ain’t gonna happen with the Democrats.)
But then, who can believe what’s posted on most of the conservative sites?
At this point, I think anyone who declares conclusively that “conservative” or “liberal” blogs are “more effective” is indulging in an exercise of wishful thinking. It’s almost impossible to measure, and even the upcoming election season won’t be much indication. After all, most people who go online haven’t even heard of “blogs” — let alone visit them, let alone read them, let alone believe what they read there.
/rambling rant
media girl,
“If anything, the big pressure is to go along with the leaders vetted by a few, and if you step too far out of that line, you get flamed or banned.”
Actually I think we are both characterizing Daily Kos pretty similarly here.
I also agree pretty much agree about the question of which is more effective not being very meaningful–see my 2:20 comment on this. Conservative and liberal blogs act very differently and serve different purposes, making it difficult to determine which is really more effective (if we could even agree on what more effective even means here).
Even though it is difficult to say which blogs are really more effective, there are still observations regarding the liberal blogs which reduce their effectiveness–such as the tendencies seen at Kos.
As for John Kerry, those of us who have met him or seen him in small groups have no complains about either his vision or personality. The voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, who get a closer look at the candidates than most, also saw this.
Sure, there are candidates who do better in the mass media and appear more charismatic on television, but that’s a superficial way to chose political leaders.
Addendum: I missed a key point in my initial response as Media Girl totally misunderstood the key point of the post. See response added Saturday morning.
Media Girl
I’ll have to agree with Ron – I’ve met Kerry quite a few times and perpetuating the notion that he’s not personable is ridiculous.
It’s one thing to disagree with a politician with in the democratic party, it’s another thing all together to distort their positions just because a blogger may not like that politician.
Republicans totally get the value of staying on message. To compete with that type of solidarity, we have to have solidarity – or at least in the public view.
No voter will ever find the perfect representative.
Besides, even if it was true thatJK didn’t have enough “personality” Teresa has enough personality for any couple.
Pamela Leavey Says:
December 9th, 2005 at 6:18 pm
“No voter will ever find the perfect representative.”
The Draft Al Gore movement at DU would beg to differ.
Anonomymous was me. (cookies were reset).
I don’t know who has more effective blogs, but I think hte underlying point is inescapable: conservatives are better at speaking with one voice than liberals are. In some instances this is to be applauded as it shows liberals willingness to “thin outside the box” and not just endlessly accept the party line-no matter how stupid that line maybe. The fact that so many Republicans (even a number of supposed “moderates”) would even think about swalloiwng the bullshit Zell Miller dished out at the GOP Convention still astounds me (maybe I’m too naive).
Still, there is something to be said for repeating someone else’s line that you only agree 80% with. Among both conservative and more liberal Dems the one commonality seems to be the tendency to emphasize the 10% where they disagree with a fellow Democrat vs. the 90% where they agree with that fellow Democrat.
Differences of opinion within the party are fine, but if most of the emphasis Dems make in public is of their differences-then we can’t really blame folks for thinking that the Democratic firing squads are in circular forms while GOP firing squads are in straight lines.
It’s not “totally irrational” nor even a “mantra” to say that Kerry failed to lead on the War in the past–he is now, and that’s what’s important.
Very interesting that neither Ron nor Pam address my point–that some of us still believe that this war, the dumbest one in 2000 years according to a leading Israeli military scholar, was inevitable so long as people like Biden and Kerry supported the IWR. But, basta–stop raising this issue!! It is intentionally divisive and it alienates people like me who are otherwise sympathetic to JK.
Ron’s point is not proven–this post doesn’t contribute to healing, just to renewing old arguments that you, unlike Sen Kerry, refuse to admit you were on the wrong side of…
FP
FP
We not fixated on the IWR, but many on the blogs refuse to get past it, or use it to disqualify leaders not on the issues. The vote was always impefect and a gotcha either way, never intended as a vote for war.
This thread was about self-destructive bashing without the facts, and just a small phrase about how Kerry was never for the war, despite the IWR.
We will find corroboration for however we believe, you with the Israeli military man. Many people with historical knowledge of Iraq thought there was something that needed dealing with, as well as trying to stop this through the UN. Like Dean, Clark, Joe Wilson, and many others. Hindsight is great, and aren’t we are superior that our hunches were right. Now what?
I agree that what we do now is all important. We support those people regardless of the past, however you view how we got here. Again, an anti-war candidate, all the time anti-war, was not getting elected. That still seems important to me.
Ron
Of course I admit to being partial, but I think JK was quite personable on Imus today.
Whenever someone gives me (in person) the Kerry isn’t personable line, I pull out my “the first time I met John Kerry” story and that usually garners a “wow what a great story, I guess he really isn’t like what people say” response.
Add Teresa to the mix and those two are quite a dynamic couple.
FP
I don’t believe in holding peole accountable, I consider myself to be an accepting person who looks at the bigger picture.
We can’t change the past but we can make a difference in the future. Throughout the entire election cycle I looked at the bigger picture, all the issues and no matter how I wrapped it, Kerry was the entire package.
So my opinion is rather than allowing this to be a divsive issue, people need to rise above the personal feelings and work together to do what we can now.
When Tom Hayden came out and said he could get behind Kerry’s plan in late October, I felt that was a huge moment towards the goal of acceptance.
FP,
What was I ever on the wrong side of? I opposed the war and the IWR. Except unlike you, I am not trying to weaken the anti-war cause by falsely claiming that early opponents of the war supported the war by rewriting history on the meaning of the IWR.
You have a strange way of arguing–trying to attribute views to people which they never held and then arguing against those points rather than actually arguing your position. Nothing you have said has backed up any of your assertions here. These are all points we have dealt with many times in the past here.
You have the situation totally backwards. It is the claim that Kerry supported the war which is alienating people, not defending Kerry for his long standing opposition to the war.
You couldn’t be more wrong about the IWR. You totally missed what was going on politically at the time.
The IWR had very little to do with whether we went to war. Bush would have gone to war regardless of how people like Kerry voted. It was a typical Rove trap which you totally fail to understand.
One of Rove’s frequent tactics is to give opponents choices where there is no good choice, and ones which divide them. At the time of the IWR, Bush was speaking about how this was not a vote to go to war, but a vote that America stands together.
We saw how they responded when running against a nominee who voted yes. They contradicted what they said earlier and claimed that the opponent had voted to support the war so they could play the flip flop game.
If the nominee had voted no, they would have replayed all the statements as to how the vote was not a vote to go to war. They would have claimed that the Democrats were not willing to support military force even as a last resort if we were threatened by WMD.
Kerry deserves credit for realizing it was a trap and trying to find a way around it. He stated how there was no correct yes or no vote, and gave a detailed explanation of his position. It would have worked if Dean hadn’t needed a way to differentiate himself from the other northeastern liberal in the race, and hadn’t successfully redefined the IWR as a vote to go to war (supported by bloggers he paid to spread his message, such as Kos).
Kerry was one of the first Democrats to criticize Bush on his foreign policy when most were afraid to do so in the post 9/11 atmosphere and was one of the strongest opponents of the war prior to its start, so yes, you are wrong when you repeat the claims that Kerry failed to lead on the issue.
Nick,
That is very true that conservatives stick to areas where they agree and liberals often spend too much time on areas of minor disagreement.
For example, look at civil unions versus gay marriage. Civil unions give almost everything that liberals advocate (especially with Kerry’s insistance that civil union laws be written to guarantee all the legal rights privided by marriage).
In many states a majority support civil unions but oppose gay marriage. If liberal would unite behind civil unions I bet they would be legal in much of the country. However many at Kos regularly attack Kerry for his support for civil unions but opposition to same sex marriage.
We have two examples on this thread of areas where I disagree with Kerry in the details (his vote on the IWR and opposition to gay marriage) but still have no trouble supporting Kerry do to overall support on the important issues (opposition to the war and support for gay rights/civil unions).
Pamela,
Obviously I agree with you in the end result (supporting Kerry) but I don’t see it as a case of not holding people accountable.
I see it as looking at the whole picture (as you are also doing) and not falsely considering the IWR vote to be a litmus test on the war. After reading Kerry’s explanation for his vote, and seeing his opposition to the war (which always was the key issue here) I had no problem defending Kerry’s position despite disagreeing on the one vote. I also give Kerry credit for seeing through the political trap.
If Democrats had stuck together on this they might have avoided this trap (discussed in more detail in my last response to FP). Ultimately the IWR vote turned into an excellent example of how segments of the liberal blogosphere acted to weaken, rather than to strengthen liberal causes (such as opposition to the war).
I find it ironic that Wesley Clark is now a big hero at Kos. Recall that back when he first entered the race for the 2004 nomination, Clark first answered, when asked by reporters, that he would have voted yes on the IWR, then said he would have voted no, and finally said the right thing–that the IWR vote was a poor litmus test on the war.
Of course this isn’t entirely unexpected considering their support for Dean, who openly supported the Biden Lugar resolution (which Kerry also preferred to the final resolution) and who most likely would have voted for the IWR if in the Senate at the time.
Marjorie,
“The vote was always impefect and a gotcha either way, never intended as a vote for war.”
Right on both being a gotcha (or a Rove trap as I described it above) and not being intended as a vote for war.
“Many people with historical knowledge of Iraq thought there was something that needed dealing with, as well as trying to stop this through the UN.”
More important points here. There is no doubt that ultimately something had to be done in Iraq, which is why Kerry felt the President should have the authority to go to war as leverage to force a diplomatic solution. Kerry spoke at length about seeking a diplomatic solution before the war. After the war he spoke about how he would have used the authority differently than Bush did.
While further action had to be taken eventually in Iraq, Saddam was contained and al Qaeda was the more important target post 9/11. This led to Kerry’s often repeated statement about Iraq being the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.
Ron
I think a lot of liberals like to banter around the “hold them/him accountable” line. I don’t see the point. Disagree with them – yes, absolutely when neccessary – state your case of why and then move on.
I spent months trying to explain to the people I spent every Friday night with demonstrating against the war, why I was supporting JK even though I disagreeed with his vote. In a nutshell I felt he was the only candidate qualified to clean up the mess in Iraq. I looked at the bigger picture and took into account every thing that JK said leading up to the war.
Marjorie is right it was a “gotcha” either way.
Pamela,
I just don’t want to take the general position that people shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions/votes.
In Kerry’s case this doesn’t really apply. It’s not that I’m not holding Kerry accountable for his IWR vote. It’s that I don’t agree with them that the IWR vote meant he supported the war. Even though I disagreed with the vote, I understood why he voted the way he did despite his opposition to going to war.
Ron
I hear you… when I hear people saying hold them accountable or litmus test it all sort of runs together for me. Oh, that we could have perfect politicians and perfect people in this world so we all agreed with everything.
Great discussion.
Interesting thought occurred to me reading one response.
Some people mistake Kerry’s moderation in speaking – eg not ranting and using nasty language- for being moderate in his positions. How many times has someone berated him for not going after the Swift Boat Liars or Bush or, whatever with enough venom?
Kinda sad that an intelligent speaker is mistaken for having little passion because they don’t curse or yell enough. I suppose having a dad who could turn you to jelly without raising his voice made a difference in how I listen to people. Empty ranting I just pass over, especially when the comments show an obvious ignorance of readily available facts.
And really sad when the people who can’t find a verbal argument turn to violence. The truth hurts and if it scares you enough, attack the truth teller.
Blogs are evolving, maybe by ’08 more will “grow up” and start using new rules of discussion.
Ginny,
Agree about Kerry’s moderation in speaking.
Also compare Kerry to European politicians. Most of them would be considered boring here. Unfortunately too many Americans, including liberal bloggers, want someone entertaining rather than someone who can seriously discuss the issues.
We already made that mistake with Ronald Reagan.
Ron
I just noticed that Peter reposted the link to “The Triangle” over the link to this on the Daou.
Ginny
Yes the lack of ranting really does seem to bother some. {{{ roll eyes }}}
Intelligent thought is so much better.
What a breath of fresh air.
There is much I agree (call me a ditto-head) with here, but these two paragraphs, written by Ron, especially struck home:
“What was I ever on the wrong side of? I opposed the war and the IWR. Except unlike you, I am not trying to weaken the anti-war cause by falsely claiming that early opponents of the war supported the war by rewriting history on the meaning of the IWR.”
“We have two examples on this thread of areas where I disagree with Kerry in the details (his vote on the IWR and opposition to gay marriage) but still have no trouble supporting Kerry do to overall support on the important issues (opposition to the war and support for gay rights/civil unions).”
Media Girl,
Found your blog post an interesting read as well. By nature, I’m not a blind follower of anyone or anything. In fact, those who know me well understand that I’m apt to punch a hole in the prettiest balloon around– if I think it was blown up with hot air. I also find insular environments, left or right, particularly frightening places to be. So, it seems you and I have much in common.
I agree with your thought on blogs that cross-link and comment on each other’s thoughts vs. discussions that rarely leave their own site. For one, link clickers and lurkers like myself are exposed to the uniqueness of each site… how one or two people can take the seed of thought from one site and expand the thought into something else… in other words, ideas are shapes that continue to grow and change.
Where we disagree, however, is I don’t think the premise of this blog post is “that voters are supposed to modify their interests and values to get in line behind the politicians, when I would say it’s the politicians who should be listening to the voters” however.
In my experience, in any relationship, there will be disagreement. For me, if it is a relationship I value, I weight the disagreement with the agreement, and see where the scale falls. (That idea has been well expressed on this blog by others.) If the disagreement outweighs the agreement, and if there is a fundamental issue of integrity involved, then I’ll bow out of the relationship.
Same with politicans I support. I understand that they have their own sense of integrity to live with, and as long as they stay in tune with it, they have my respect, whether I agree with them or not. Case in point, John McCain and Colin Powell. I think they both compromised their integrity, and they’re both toast in my book. (as if they care)
No one on this blog, and I think I know the people here pretty well by now, advocates “starry-eyed” anything. While it is true, a majority of us are long-time strong Kerry supporters, that is simply the uniqueness of this site… not the end all be all of why many of us find ourselves here.
Disagreement is civil on this blog… individual thoughts are expressed and valued… a feast for different tastes… as to how effective a small blog that advocates civil discussion can be… well, every ripple goes somewhere.
I also agree with you that there are many, many, MANY people out there who have no idea what a blog is, nor do they care. My stragegy is to hone some of the ideas I find on-line and bring them out into the ‘real world’ via everyday conversation. Not extremely efficient… but again, every ripple goes somewhere.
My god, forgive this long post. Talk about a ramble!!!
Not done yet (usually three posts (sometimes four) in succession is the limit though, LOL)
What is that old saying about holding two opposing thoughts in mind at the same time? In my opinion, right wingers (and their blogs) find that an impossibility… hence, the linear (horse with blinders on) talking points. Effective? Of course, for a time. Over the long-term, and I’m talking generations, not so much.
I love order, but I love chaos more. (And the universe knows that, d*mn it! LOL)
“You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.”
~~~Friedrich Nietzsche
Ginny in CO Says:
December 10th, 2005 at 1:32 am
“Empty ranting I just pass over…”
Hey!
Media Girl,
You had so many points which I commented on that I somehow missed an important line until KJ commented on it:
“But I think more pernicious than that is the apparent premise of this blog post — that voters are supposed to modify their interests and values to get in line behind the politicians, when I would say it’s the politicians who should be listening to the voters.”
As KJ said, this is not the premise of this post at all. I specifically stated, “We would never want liberal blogs to repeat their party’s talking points without thought or fact-checking as regularly occurs in the conservative blogs.” Instead I was commenting on attacks based upon false claims.
I was referring to attacks not based upon areas of disagreement but on areas where they actually agree. This includes Kos attacking Kerry on the war by falsely claiming Kerry supported the war, when Kos attacked Kerry for his statements against the Republican leadership in Congress (by falsely claiming that Kerry is calling himself an outsider and attacking him on that) and other similar episodes we have covered here.
KJ,
I’m glad you liked those paragraphs. I could easily come up with longer lists of things I disagree with Kerry about, and the same is true with every other politician (except other lists might be longer).
One point is that in fully understanding the differences they do not always seem as great as others might make them. It is also impossible to find someone we would agree with on everything.
Dave from Princeton
Your rants are never empty… They are usually overflowing.
I hate the IWR vote. I hate what it has done to the party. I wish it never existed in the first place.
Ron,
“One point is that in fully understanding the differences they do not always seem as great as others might make them. It is also impossible to find someone we would agree with on everything.”
Exactly, on both points. Differences are great when the divide is deeply entrenched and there are no bridges to common ground, not so great a difference (or distance) when COMMUNICATION about the difference finds other areas of agreement that might possibly be more important than the original area of disagreement.
Was thinking earlier, there are several cut-and-dried linear horse-with-blinders-on issues most people, let alone Democrats, agree with: torture isn’t a good thing to engage in, protecting criminals under the guise of “protecting a source” doesn’t exactly conform to the spirit of the law, killing innocents and civilians in war isn’t tolerable, etc. etc. etc. At least, those are areas that no one yet has provided me compelling evidence to the contrary. @;-)
In my mind, politicans are responsible for representing the will and views of the people, who are responsible for becoming informed about the issues at hand. Pols are always going to represent their own personal views as well, and we as voters are responsible for unearthing past votes and declaration in the lives of the pols for indications as to where they *might* come down on issues in the future.
Also in agreement: Dave from Princeton’s rants aren’t empty. LOL
Indie, I wasn’t too happy with it either, then or now. But if individuals in the party want to (yes, I’m going to say it) “get over” the fact that the vote is long over, and accept that we are where we are, enough people have said “It was a mistake” “I accept my responsibility” “I wouldn’t vote for it given what I know now” etc. etc. etc. and deal with the reality of now, and not what happened two years ago, we’d be a lot further down the river than we are.
Just my opinion. @;-)
ps. And Indie, I hope that didn’t sound harsh to you personally, because that certainly wasn’t my intent. You and I are in agreement about that vote… we were at the time, although we didn’t know each other then, and we are now.
You’re fine KJ. It’s just unfortunate that Bush and Doughboy have used this to divide us and the Anti-War crowd.
Ion’t like war either and I disagree with Kerry’s vote (why an intelligent man would trust Bush?) but you get sick of hearing about _______ voted to give Bush a blank check to go to war, and now has to live with their vote because they have “caused” lots of troops deaths, while the ones that voted against it are lauded as heroes cause they knew Bush lied and didn’t trust him from the start.
It would be nice if the dems and the Anti-war crowd would stop buying into the spin that the IWR is/was a vote for war and come together and come with a unifed message that will get our soldiers home safetly.
Indie,
That was exactly the intent. The purpose of the IWR was not to determine whether we went to war. Bush had already he decided he wanted to go to war. The purpose of the vote was to divide the opposition.
Vote yes, and they could claim that the Democrats supported them, and are flip floppers if they complain about the war.
Vote no, and they would repeat Bush’s speeches saying that the vote was not a vote to go to war, but to show that America stands together. They would then say that the Democrats are unwilling to use force to defend America even if faced by WMD.
KJ,
For the most part, it would work out fine if people would go from where we are now and get over the vote, accepting the statements from people like Kerry and Edwards that the vote was a mistake.
Unfortunatley this won’t get over all the problems, such as is seen with FP’s comments above. He accepts Kerry now for stating the vote was a mistake, but continues to claim Kerry supported the war.
It would be ideal if people would realize what was really going on with the IWR vote rather than using this to falsely differentiate those who supported or opposed the war. I would prefer to support someone who opposed the war rather than someone who initially supported it–except I recognize Kerry as an early opponent. Therefore I prefer Kerry over Edwards on Iraq.
Kerry and Edwards saying the vote was a mistake means different things. In Edwards case, it is an admission that the entire support for the war was wrong. In Kerry’s case, his position on the war is unchanged, but it is an admission that he responded to a parliamentary move incorrectly. Kerry’s error is far less serious than Edwards’ error.
KJ,
“there are several cut-and-dried linear horse-with-blinders-on issues most people, let alone Democrats, agree with: torture isn’t a good thing to engage in”
I’m not certain that most people object to torture. Most Democrats do. Most Republicans who were actually in war do. I’m not sure nation wide how much agreement there is.
Actually this is the topic of another post I have half written, and is off topic for here, so I’ll wait until later to get into this further.
KJ,
On communication, there is the question of to what degree people want to communicate.
Many people repeat the typical Kerry bashing out of ignorance/lack of communication, but there are definately people who know better and are spreading falsehoods intentionally. Considering how often Kos has misquoted Kerry to attack him, when he undoubtably had Kerry’s actual statements, it is hard to believe his interest isn’t in twisting things to attack him and that he has no interest in communication to find out the truth.
Ron, et al:
The way to get people to agree on a united message going forward is not to re-open old wounds from the past and say, “If only everyone would just agree with me, we could be as united as the Right.” (Another point: the right lately is not always all that united. Ask Harriet M.)
Leadership requires taking risks, it also requires the ability to see through BS, such as that Bush was spinning to sell the war. You will NEVER convince me, nor millions of others (Kerry’s sister, for example!) that that vote was not a mistake—egads, that’s what Kerry himself now says!–but instead of accepting this and moving forward, you just trot out the same elaborate and ultimately hollow arguments saying it wasn’t a mistake after all. Why? To me, the only answer is that you are too personally invested on this point–I have no idea why…
If I am hearing you correctly, what you are saying is that it is too easy to equate voting for the IWR with a vote for the war. Well, sure there’s a distinction, but that resolution was largely a blank check to people who were obviously intent on going to war with Iraq after 9/11. It was like giving a loaded gun to someone intent on shooting someone else and then quibbling that you had nothing to do with the shooting! Sure you can make that argument, but it gets you 3 points out of 10 in debate. It’s a losing argument. It’s far better to just accept responsibility for this error of judgement, and focus on the way forward.
The way forward is not to call those on your left ditto heads or other names, it’s to articulate a common agenda. Author George Packer has done this as well as anyone I’ve seen–we need to Nationalize the 2006 Congressional elections and run on the corrupt and out of touch Republican leadership. Their historically unprecedented failure to properly oversee and to demand accountability on the war and a reasonable way to pay for it can be a big part of that, our real common agenda!
FP
FP,
Again you are missing the point–mistating my position here just as you have misstated Kerry’s position. I’ve argued all along that Kerry’s vote was a mistake–but was not a sign that he supported the war. I supported Kerry despite his vote because of his anti-war position. Even though I disagreed with him, I made the effort to understand why he voted as he did. As Kerry has said, the vote was not as clear cut as you make it–it was always a matter of yes, but or no, but. Despite wishing he had voted “no, but” instead of “yes, but” I can support his overall position on the war.
Kerry’s statement that he was wrong on his vote does not show that I was wrong about anything here. If anything it demonstrates that I was right all along. I was right in opposing the war, I was right in opposing the IWR, and I was right in supporting John Kerry.
It is people like you who are keeping old wounds going by continuing to attack Kerry for the vote by claiming it meant he supported the war, or that his vote contributed to us going to war.
I’ve explained this many times, including in this thread and elsewhere on this blog. It is you who appear too personally invested in the issue to consider the facts which show you are wrong. As you say, you will NEVER be convinced. It is a shame that you are so closed minded that you will not look at the facts when you have been so mistaken.
It is not me calling people ditto heads which is the problem. They have been making their same senseless attacks rather than articulating a common agenda. It is time that people call them on their devisive and counterproductive actions.
I agree that Democrats should unite on many issues and demand accountability for the war. It doesn’t help us do this when people like Kos attack Kerry every time Kerry speaks out against the war or against the Republicans in control of Washington.
FP
I think Ron’s point was there are some bloggers who still insist on bringing up the subject, as well as other subjects and doing so is not beneficial to anyone.
Because both Ron & I regularly blog Kerry news I think we have a good pulse on the reactions to Kerry news in the blogosphere. Frequently we hear, “but Kerry did this and Kerry did that” instead of reactions to what Kerry is doing NOW.
And then there is the famous “he needs to go away” line which is ludicrous. He’s not going away, he’s a seated Senator in the midst of his term and he’s doing so much to help the party and the public.
It would be great if liberal bloggers could articulate a common agenda, but in my opinion that common agenda means acknowledging the work of ALL of Democratic Leaders who are furthering the agenda, not calling for some to “go away.”
We’re a diverse party and we need to work together. Yes, the vote was wrongminded. Yes, we should not be there. Now more Americans realize this. Now our Democratic Leaders have a consensus on this — where as during the election cycle we did not. It’s a damn shame we did not, but as others have said here, the anti-war platform was not going to win over enough votes to change the outcome of the election.
Since Kerry’s georgetown speech more and more Dems are calling for a plan to get us out. Last week Barbara Boxer who voted against the war, discussed Kerry’s plan – yet most bloggers will not even acknowledge that he has one. How helpful is that to our cause? Not very. Tom Hayden, one of the great anti-war activists of our lifetime has spoken in support of Kerry’s plan. Liberal bloggers ignored that.
We can’t come together if liberal bloggers either ignore our leaders accomplishments or utter “go way” when they do something worthy. Most of the bashing against Kerry is not factually based but emotionally based.
The fact is that conservatives were batter organized last year and their bloggers were totally cued in to staying on message while liberal bloggers bickered over semantics. Sometimes, we all need to bite our tongue and work towards the common good. If we don’t we’ll never get anywhere.
And FYI, both Ron and have posted about Kerry’s statements about taking responsibility for his vote. We applauded him for doing so. We recognize that he is doing a lot to help our country and we see the importance of not clinging to one issue or the past but moving forward and doing what we can to change the NOW and the future. That is exactly what John Kerry is doing.
Pamela,
“I think Ron’s point was there are some bloggers who still insist on bringing up the subject, as well as other subjects and doing so is not beneficial to anyone.”
Yes, but it also goes beyond that. In the case of the IWR there is also the degree to which Kerry’s error is exaggerated. While I disagreed with his vote, and am happy to see that he acknowleges his mistake, the original meaning of his vote should not be distorted.
The decision on the IWR was a primarily a matter of parliamentary maneuvering to decide how to handle a Rove trap, not a decision as to whether or not he supported the war.
Kerry deserves credit for at least realizing it was a trap and trying to find a way around it with his public statements and articles at the time.
More importantly, Kerry deserves credit for being one of the first Democrats to stand up to Bush on foreign policy in the post 9/11 era, when most Democrats were afraid to. All of Kerry’s sound criticism of Bush’s policies, and all of Kerry’s warnings against going to war, should not be forgotten due to his vote.
In looking at the whole picture, I find Kerry’s mistake on the vote to be trivial compared to all the sound statements he made prior to (and during) the war. Unfortunately those who attack Kerry on the war dwell on the vote alone, and never acknowledge any of Kerry’s anti-war statements and other sound foreign policy advice at the time.
Ron, the plain fact of the matter is… as a editor (and writer) of poems (poems = concise beings), I admire your ability to put “the best words in the best order” to make your points. Your writing is consistent and quite simply a joy for me to read.
You know, I’m as guilty as the next person when it comes to saying, “oh hell, get over it.” But the thing is FT, speaking as someone who fought that IRW vote with every fiber of my being, I’m just not all that sympathic to people who want Kerry or Carnahan or anyone else to keep jumping through hoops over it. It’s done, over, finis. Whether it gets three points or nine in a debate matters little to me.
I live in rural red. I’ve felt the wrath of those who now regret the war, regret voting for Bush, but don’t have the cojones to say so outright. Speaking truth to power (in this part of the country) has cost my family personally. Even so, what’s happened to us is minor in comparision to the families of/and the troops in Iraq.
We’re there. If we want to get out, let’s band together on a plan of action and work the plan. One body, many hands. Sorta squid-like. (Eww, bad image.)
Please, go back and read Ron’s initial use of “ditto head” in this blog. I think he was extremely clear in his usage.
I agree with you that the way forward to is articulate a common agenda… and whenever anyone does that, they have my attention. What I don’t want to have to do is sweep up the popcorn when the person articulating the message is John Kerry. Make sense?
Guess I should have said, “What I don’t want to have to do is sweep up the rotten tomatoes when the person articulating the message is John Kerry.”
There ARE those in the blogosphere who make it their business to diss John Kerry at every turn. That’s a fact. And some of us are tired of dealing with their baseless talking points. Tired I tell ya, tired.
Let’s move on down the river!
Yet another demonstration of robotlike behavior, top-down organization. They’re good fascists. It’s not possible to sell me that what they do is superior.
Ron says
“Also compare Kerry to European politicians. Most of them would be considered boring here. Unfortunately too many Americans, including liberal bloggers, want someone entertaining rather than someone who can seriously discuss the issues.
We already made that mistake with Ronald Reagan.”
100% right man. I think you just read my mind.
Well, just because maybe Nick is still around.
Ron’s observation is very true. I remember seeing a show on the EU campaigns and was amazed at how intelligent and
complicated the discussions were. And there were plenty of voters showing up for them.
And don’t get me started on the “Acting President”
122 death row inmates are now free nationwide and the crisis is still growing this is a must see for everyone, this shows even if you are found out to be free and set free it stays on your decord