Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Blogs on the left and right fill different roles
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, February 09, 2006

Interesting article by Jim Geraghty in the Washington Times today. He entitles it, "The Growing Role of Bloggers", but it might also have been entitled, "The Differing Role of Bloggers on the Right and Left".

He uses two example to support his "growing role" thesis. The Meirs nomination and the reaction of the right side of the blogosphere and the Alito nomination and the reaction of the left side of the blogosphere.

In reference to Miers:

Show/Hide

I remember that as a significant event in the evolution of blogs as opinion shapers. But, as noted by Geraghty, a number of prominent opinion shapers like Will, Krauthammer and Bork also were speaking out about the nomination. It was the sum of the whole and the ability of the blogosphere to keep their opposition to the nomination front and center for the time necessary to make their reasons known for opposing Miers that may have swung the tide. Reason prevailed, Miers withdrew her name and Alito was nominated. And it is the Alito nomination which brings us to the left side of the blogosphere and it's reaction:

Show/Hide

His points are well taken and his description of Kossak's willingness to go down with the ship for "principles" (I'm not sure I agree that it is principles over which they're fighting) over reality, reminds me of the LP in many ways, but with a lot of anger. He also points to the tendency of the Democrat leadership to use blogs in a way completely different than the right. The participation of key Democrats on the blogs, such as Kos, identify them with that element of the party better than any claim of extremism coming from political opponents. All you have to do to back that claim now is point to the blogs in which they participate.

Geraghty sums his observations up by saying:
In the Miers case, it could be argued that bloggers on the right saved the president from making a critical mistake, and nudged him onto the path that ultimately led to a enormously significant part of his presidential legacy. But bloggers on the left are pushing their party into a difficult wilderness. The angry "net-roots" denounce any Democrat for deviating from their agenda, without a moment's thought of trying to run for re-election with a liberal record in West Virginia, North Dakota or Nebraska.

Republicans can find strength and success by listening to their like-minded bloggers; Democrats can find strength and success by ignoring theirs.
I'm not sure I can agree that it was bloggers, per se, who "saved the president from making a critical mistake", but they may have been the element which tipped the scales in that direction. But I have to agree with his assessment of bloggers on the left and their effect on the Democratic party. Participation by key Democratic leaders on these blogs helps create the preception of agreement with the basic themes the blogs push. And that does indeed, for the most part, seem to be a push to the left extreme of the party.

So for the moment, anyway, I agree with his conclusion. Blogs on the right seem to be more of an asset, if considered as another important voice among many and nothing more. Whereas blogs on the left are much more of a liability, since they're rooted in activism and anger. The activism is focused in the extremes and the anger doesn't translate well to most of the voting population, left or right.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Whereas blogs on the left are much more of a liability, since they’re rooted in activism and anger. The activism is focused in the extremes and the anger doesn’t translate well to most of the voting population, left or right.
They say the best way the learn a foreign language is full immersion. Apparently there is a similar dynamic working on the leftist blogs.

Posters there talk a lot about how they can’t get along with their families because of their political leanings. They often say they’ve ended friendships because of politics. And I’ve seen a number of posts on places such as DU with the general theme of "If I didn’t have the folks on this forum to talk to, I don’t know what I’d do."

Many of those posters have gone from the heterogenous real world into practically living in the the homogenous leftist universe of those blogs and forums. (At least their intellectual life is lived there.) Much less dissent is tolerated on such sites, even than at very conservative sites such as Free Republic (FR features long-term raging debates on subjects such as evolution and the drug war).

The self-segration focuses their dissent into rage. They begin to see themselves as a persecuted minority, pressed down by "the man", which for them consists of corporate power and lackies of the corporations in politics. They even feel the mainstream media is against them and in favor of the corporate state, which alone tells you a lot about the depths of their delusions.

They are so emotionally convinced of their rightness that they become similarly convinced that a majority of people would agree with them, if "the man" didn’t work so hard to delude the common person. Then, with every election providing objective evidence that the common person does not, in fact, agree with them, they withdraw even further from reality and start to even feel anger at the common voter for being so "stupid".

Most people are not put together to experience anger constantly and continuously. So those who are not so disposed to anger are more likely to drift away, leaving a core of folks for whom anger is their defining characteristic.

We all know about decisions made in anger. They are seldom good ones. Imagine being part of a group in which every decision is made in anger.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
The angry "net-roots" denounce any Democrat for deviating from their agenda, without a moment’s thought of trying to run for re-election with a liberal record in West Virginia, North Dakota or Nebraska.
Much the same as some on the right denounce any Republican for deviating from their agenda, without a moment’s thought of trying to run for re-election with a seriously conservative record anywhere in the northeast, or in California.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Much the same as some on the right denounce any Republican for deviating from their agenda, without a moment’s thought of trying to run for re-election with a seriously conservative record anywhere in the northeast, or in California.
Sorry, Bit, I think this is a false equivalence. The original post was how blogs on the right interact with the political sphere fairly constructively, while those on the left interact with virtually no concern for political realities.

To put it crudely and perhaps a bit simplistically, I see a dramatic difference between trying to steer the boat vs. standing in the boat p*ssing into the wind.

Certainly there are some right-leaning blogs that are not constructive, and a few left-leaning blogs that are, but the overall composition is what matters.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
It does seem apparent that anger is driving left leaning blogs. I wonder how the things might look if Congress and the White house were both Democrat majorities instead of Republican majorities at the time of the emergence of the blogosphere. Isn’t it easy to see how likely it would be that the "Angry" label would be reversed? It’s certainly not a purely deductive argument that it would be, but I’m curious.
 
Written By: Alex
URL: http://
Alex, that’s an excellent question. Of course, the GOP spent some periods totally out of power (1961-1968, 1977-1980, 1993-1994), but these were in a different period. Without the focusing power of the Internet, it would have been logistically difficult to bring together enough angry GOP partisans in past time, even if they existed.

But I don’t think such GOP partisans exist, not at the level of pure anger of the Democratic leftists. I’ve talked to many of these angry leftists in person, and they are just a different breed from anything I see on the right. I talked to one who loudly insisted at a party that (and I quote precisely) "Anyone who votes for George Bush is retarded!" I’ve never seen the most fundamentalist conservatives state that all their political opponents are retarded.

This guy is a successful software developer, not someone I would have called a kook on other issues. But when it comes to politics, he’s unhinged.

Would the Internet drive some conservatives to the same level if Democrats again came to power? I doubt it. Even the shenanigans of Bill Clinton (which had a lot more objective evidence behind them) did not fire the right to irrational hatred of everything liberal. They focused their rage on Clinton for the most part.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Billy -

I tend to agree, but I remember some pretty frothy anger aimed at Clinton without the introduction of blogs. I definitely agree that many normally rational people have become unhinged because of their hatred for President Bush, but in the ’90’s I saw a normal, educated trader on the Chicago Stock Exchange declare that anyone who voted for Clinton was immoral and unethical. Maybe not retarded, but still a blanket statement revealing a similar unhinging. I used to think that conservatives never protested en-masse (picture nightly news footage of massive organized rallies with placards demanding free trade or school vouchers) like you often see the organized left doing because conservatives all have jobs. But this whole blogosphere thing might even that playing field. You already see plenty of fairly virulent right-wing-blogs today, the difference is that they don’t seem to have republican pols supplicating themselves before them.
 
Written By: Alex
URL: http://
But if they were the minority party in Congress and Hilary was in office, don’t you think it’s possible that they might?
 
Written By: Alex
URL: http://
Hmm... A tough question to answer, though I think the probability is vanishingly small. The GOP would have to have some sort of scandal or bungling of galactic proportions to enable such an outcome.

But Hillary certainly has more potential than any other current Democrat to fire the kind of hatred the left feels for George Bush. She embodies exactly the worst characteristic of liberal politicians in the eyes of conservatives - that smug arrogance that she knows what’s best for everybody. In other words, she’s easy to hate.

But that very characteristic makes it highly improbable that she can be elected president.

If it all came to pass (Hillary plus Democratic dominance of Congress), then you would see anger, but I think it would be a more constructive anger. More debate on alternatives to regain power, for example. More soul-searching by some parties on why the loss happened.

I don’t see those things on the left right now, and I think that the root cause is that the left in general is motivated far more by emotions and feelings than by logic. This is certainly not an original observation, but I think it has a lot of evidence behind it.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Again, I agree that "more soul searching" would probably be the prevailing attitude. I think you already see it in the more intellectual right of center blogs (like this one) today. Those sites have no problem searching for the soul of the Republican party when it introduces such increases in federal largesse as the prescription drug benefit.

Ultimately, I couldn’t see a John McCain, for example, kowtowing to a right-wing Dailykos (a decidedly less intellectual, more emotional partisan site) to "secure his base."

Just curious.
 
Written By: Alex
URL: http://
Sorry, Bit, I think this is a false equivalence.
Perhaps. But, I’m thinking of all the times we’ve seen calls to elect a Democrat because the Republican in a given district isn’t being frugal enough... when the fact is that someone with a clearly conservative record would never get elected, much less re-elected in that district.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
There are fanatics on both sides, but there is far more immaturity on the left - esp. the extreme left - and I think that explains quite a bit of the behaviorial difference.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Blogs on the left challenge the leadership of the Dem party (Daily Kos being one good example.) Blogs on the right act as lapdogs/cheerleaders/synchophants for the leadership of the GOP (Hugh Hewitt, Powerline being two good examples).

Here is what Powerline had to say about Bush back in July:
It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.
Approaching to genius?

Anyway, this post to me crystalized right-wing blogs and the difference between left and right in the blogosphere. They really do believe - by and large - that Bush is a genius. Not just smart, or visionary, but a genius. And they don’t say it merely to p*ss liberals off. It is an article of faith that he is a genius.

I can’t imagine for one moment that a leading lefty blog would praise a Dem politician in anything remotely approaching this level of adoration. And remember, Powerline was blog of the year.

The other interesting difference between right and left blogs is that many leading right-wing blogs don’t have a comments section. This is not surprising, as most right-wing bloggers allow no dissent. Bush doesn’t, so why should they.
We all know about decisions made in anger. They are seldom good ones. Imagine being part of a group in which every decision is made in anger.
Mental illness, Hillary angry, Bush haters, counterproductive, blah, blah blah. Hey, did you hear Hillary is really angry? That’s what I heard. I think she is a little mentally unstable too. (Is that what Mehlman wanted me to say? Did I get it right?)

The interesting thing about blogs is not the level of anger directed toward Bush on the left wing blogs. That is understandable. After all, if blogs had been around during Clinton’s administration, it is safe to say those on the right would have acted the same.

The interesting thing about blogs is the level of devotion toward Bush on the right wing blogs. One can safely say that if blogs had been around during the Clinton era, one would never have heard Kos or Atrios or whoever say that Clinton was approaching genius and that he was unveiling masterpieces. But that kind of talk about Bush is everywhere on the right wing blogs. It’s an interesting psychological phenomenon. It’s almost as if blogs have brought out this cult-like devotion in Bush’s supporters. It would be neat to commission a study to see why this has happened.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
The interesting thing about blogs is the level of devotion toward Bush on the right wing blogs.
Right. Cause we know those brilliant leftists would never show that level of devotion to Bill Clinton, eh? I mean, we would never see feminist leaders going against decades of their own strident positioning to excuse sexual harassment, would we?

In all seriousness, you can go on thinking the lefty blogs have got it all figured out and the righty ones are just lost. That doesn’t exactly explain when Kos is zero for thirteen on political races he’s gotten involved in. Or why Democratic Underground spend six months furiously pushing tinfoil hat conspiracy theories about Ohio.

And so several law professors who also run blogs have decided they don’t have the time or inclination to monitor comments, and you puff that up to how the right stifles comment? When Little Green Footballs, Captains Quarters, Polipundit, Redstate, etc. all allow them? That’s pitiful reasoning, even by your lame standards.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Right. Cause we know those brilliant leftists would never show that level of devotion to Bill Clinton, eh? I mean, we would never see feminist leaders going against decades of their own strident positioning to excuse sexual harassment, would we?
If you do not understand the difference between tolerance and devotion, there is nothing to discuss. Again, name one - one - commentator on the left, or politican, or whoever, who said that Clinton was a genius unveiling one masterpiece after another, or something equivalent.
In all seriousness, you can go on thinking the lefty blogs have got it all figured out and the righty ones are just lost. That doesn’t exactly explain when Kos is zero for thirteen on political races he’s gotten involved in. Or why Democratic Underground spend six months furiously pushing tinfoil hat conspiracy theories about Ohio.
Of course, since what I said did not have anything remotely to do with this little diatribe, it is hard for me to respond. I didn’t say the lefty blogs had it all figured out. All I said was that blogs tend to breed cult-like devotion among Bush followers. And you have yet to say one thing that contradicts that assertion.
And so several law professors who also run blogs have decided they don’t have the time or inclination to monitor comments, and you puff that up to how the right stifles comment? When Little Green Footballs, Captains Quarters, Polipundit, Redstate, etc. all allow them? That’s pitiful reasoning, even by your lame standards.
Reynolds, Malkin, Hewitt, Powerline - perhaps the top four right-wing bloggers - none allows comments. Moreover, many of your top left wing blogs - Kos, MyDD, TPM, etc - are full fledged community sites. Readers can not only comment, but they can post diaries, polls, etc.

Why the difference? Message discipline. Right wing sites are not for debate - they are for spreading the message to the party faithful, top down style. Indeed, this one-way street approach may be a reason for my earlier point - that the blogosphere tends to inspire cult-like devotion among Bush’s followers. Or at least it acts as a conduit for such devotion - which, in turn, is self-reinforcing.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
mkultra

that post is a perfect example of my question. You call the supporters of Bush lapdogs basically because they agree with him and characterize those sites that oppose Bush as "challenging the Democratic leadership," presumably because they don’t agree with what the democratic leadership is doing. Wouldn’t the supporters of a Clinton presidency, by definition, support their leader? Wouldn’t you see Hugh Hewitt call those supporters lapdogs? What does that accusation mean then?

The difference is that kos and co. are challenging the democrat leadership to act more stridently, and apparently pushing them further left. I’m sure the kos site feels that they were responsible to some degree for John Kerry’s failed filibuster.

What I want to know is if Hugh Hewitt (or whoever) would be having the same impact on republicans if the roles were reversed.
 
Written By: Alex
URL: http://
Again, name one - one - commentator on the left, or politican, or whoever, who said that Clinton was a genius unveiling one masterpiece after another, or something equivalent.
Oh, you walked into that one.
"I would be happy to give him [Clinton] a bl0w job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs." (Nina Totenberg, NPR)
I’ll put that up against your Powerline quote for sheer slavishness any day of the week. And we’re not talking about a mere blogger here, but a supposedly objective commentator from the MSM (NPR, in this case).
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
What I want to know is if Hugh Hewitt (or whoever) would be having the same impact on republicans if the roles were reversed.
Two words: Harriet Miers. HH was all for her, campaigned ceaselessly for her and in the end failed to convince anyone he was right and the nomination should proceede.

I’d also point you to the use of conference calls with bloggers and political participation in blogs as being different with the right and left. The right of the blogosphere, on the whole, seems to keep itself a little more removed from the politicians than does the left. The lefty blogs want to be a part of the process, not just influence it as it appears is the aim of the right.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Billy, I think you’ll find that was Nina Burleigh, not Nina Totenberg.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Oh, you walked into that one.
"I would be happy to give him [Clinton] a bl0w job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs." (Nina Totenberg, NPR)
I’ll put that up against your Powerline quote for sheer slavishness any day of the week. And we’re not talking about a mere blogger here, but a supposedly objective commentator from the MSM (NPR, in this case).
Oh Billy - and you didn’t think I would click on your link. When I did, here is what I found:
Taking Turns Playing Monica, 1998: "I would be happy to give him [Clinton] a blow job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs." — Time contributor and former reporter Nina Burleigh recalling what she told the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz about her feeling toward Bill Clinton, as recounted by Burleigh in the July 20 New York Observer.
Now, I forgive you for the misrepresentation - after all, I wouldn’t expect anymore. It sure didn’t sound like the Nina Totenberg I know. Now, if you want to tell me who Burleigh is, I would happy to hear about her. But my guess is that Time magazine did not call her blog of the year, whoever she is.

You want to try again?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Whoops, you’re right - wrong Nina. In this case it’s
Nina Burleigh has written for the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and New York magazine.
So says Alternet, which puts her at least on the level of the typical blogger, don’t you think?

Yep, I made a mental error in remembering the exact person. And you would rather crow over that than face the fact that you just got your argument completely demolished.

That’s one of the reasons people on this blog see fit to insult you gratuitously. You are not a serious debater. You are merely someone who plays at debate with rhetorical tricks and nitpicks.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Yep, I made a mental error in remembering the exact person. And you would rather crow over that than face the fact that you just got your argument completely demolished.

That’s one of the reasons people on this blog see fit to insult you gratuitously. You are not a serious debater. You are merely someone who plays at debate with rhetorical tricks and nitpicks.
Right Billy - my argument was completely demolished.

The argument was that many right-wing bloggers and those who read right wing blogs tend to display a level of cult-like devotion to Bush, and that the blogoshphere itself tends to breed and reinforce this kind of devotion, particularly given the nature and structure of right-wing blogdam.

You respond by attributing a quote from on non-blogger to another non-blogger, and then get a bit snippy when I point that fact out.
that post is a perfect example of my question. You call the supporters of Bush lapdogs basically because they agree with him and characterize those sites that oppose Bush as "challenging the Democratic leadership," presumably because they don’t agree with what the democratic leadership is doing. Wouldn’t the supporters of a Clinton presidency, by definition, support their leader? Wouldn’t you see Hugh Hewitt call those supporters lapdogs? What does that accusation mean then?
Did you read the powerline post I excerpted? The Blog of the Year did not merely "agree" with Bush, or "support" him. The blog of the Year said Bush was approaching "genius," and that he was unveiling one "masterpiece" after another. He is "ahead of his time," a man of "extraordinary vision and brilliance."

That’s exactly what the accusation means - to answer your question. And if that isn’t being a lapdog, what is?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Didnt the blog of the year disagree with Bush over Harriet Miers? And really, Powerline is only blog of the year because of their work in Rathergate. I would offer them as one of the big blogs that is very in line with the party and bush, but they’re hardly all that there is. Blogs like JustOneMinute, Protein Wisdom, RedState, Tim Blair, Balloon Juice, are all representative of the Right, more so than just Powerline.
 
Written By: Chris
URL: http://
You respond by attributing a quote from on non-blogger to another non-blogger, and then get a bit snippy when I point that fact out.
Being disingenuous yet again, I see. From the earlier comment:

Again, name one - one - commentator on the left, or politican, or whoever, who said that Clinton was a genius unveiling one masterpiece after another, or something equivalent.
That’s what you asked for, and that’s what I supplied, and anything else you blather on about is nitpicking to avoid facing up to it.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
That’s what you asked for, and that’s what I supplied, and anything else you blather on about is nitpicking to avoid facing up to it.
Right - a freelance journalist who no one has ever heard of with an occasional aritcle or two is an equivalent "commentator" to the powerline boys, or any talking head or pundit read by thousands on a daily basis. Nice try.

****

Interesting article that I excerpted below that proves my point about right wing blogs and those right wingers who post on them. The article kind of ties this all together.

As I indicated on function of right wing blogs is message discipline. Those at the top tell those below what to say - give them their talking points/marching orders - that they then dutifully carry out and transmit to others. Thus creating an echo machine - the message gets said again and again and again. The theory being, of course, that the more something is said, the more people are likely to believe it.

The latest message from the GOP honchos - as I mentioned above - is to paint Democrats as angry, rather than engage the substance of the Dems’ message. (As I indicated earlier, this is not suprising, since the GOP has nothing to run on substantively speaking. Katrina? Medicare reform? The Iraq war? Abramoff? Deficit reduction?)

Lo and behold, this article comes along that sums it all up. From the AP:
The Republican national chairman created a furor this week when he suggested Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is too "angry" to win the White House in 2008. And to hear Republicans tell it, Clinton is just one of many Democrats with an anger management problem.

Former Vice President Al Gore is angry. So is Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. The party is held hostage by the "angry left."

In recent months, GOP operatives and officeholders have cast the Democrats as the anger party, long on emotion and short on ideas. Analysts say the strategy has been effective, trivializing Democrats’ differences with the GOP as temperamental rather than substantive.

"Angry people are not nice people. They are people to stay away from. They explode now and then," said George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at the University of California at Berkeley. His book "Don’t Think of an Elephant" has become something of a Bible for Democrats trying to improve their communication with voters.

Political history is dotted with failed presidential candidates perceived by the voters as too angry — think of Howard Dean’s famous scream in 2004, or Bob Dole admonishing George H.W. Bush in 1988 to "stop lying about my record." Both parties’ most revered figures in recent years, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, projected optimism and hope.

The latest example of the anger strategy came Sunday, when Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman said on ABC that Clinton "seems to have a lot of anger." He cited comments she made in Harlem on Martin Luther King Day in which she likened the Republican-led House to a "plantation" and called the Bush administration "one of the worst" in history.

"I don’t think the American people, if you look historically, elect angry candidates," Mehlman said.

Democrats defended Clinton.

"Democrats want a leader who shares their frustration — even anger — about Republican failures," Democratic strategist Dan Newman said. "Anger at terrorists is expected, outrage about corruption is a plus."

Some Democrats, in fact, complained that Clinton doesn’t get angry enough. Some also denounced Mehlman as mean-spirited, and smelled more than a whiff of sexism in his remarks.

"It’s the stereotype of the crone — angry, nasty, but powerful," Lakoff said.
So - on Sunday Mehlman tells the bloggers what to say about the Dems. On Thursday, McQ dutifully says the following:
So for the moment, anyway, I agree with his conclusion. Blogs on the right seem to be more of an asset, if considered as another important voice among many and nothing more. Whereas blogs on the left are much more of a liability, since they’re rooted in activism and anger. The activism is focused in the extremes and the anger doesn’t translate well to most of the voting population, left or right.


And then the commenters pick up on the idea:
Most people are not put together to experience anger constantly and continuously. So those who are not so disposed to anger are more likely to drift away, leaving a core of folks for whom anger is their defining characteristic.

We all know about decisions made in anger. They are seldom good ones. Imagine being part of a group in which every decision is made in anger.
There you have it. From GOP Chairman, to blogger, to poster. That is what winger blogs do - act as echo chambers for the right-wing noise machine. Create message discipline. Create the meme.

It’s amazing to watch it in action, the process that is. Of course, it is not the most fertile environment for independent thought, or challenging party leadership, - in other words, for participatory democracy. (The Miers fiasco is notable only because it is so exceptional.) The right wing drones get the message, and then dutifully pass it on just as Chairman Mao - er Mehlman - instructed them to do. Think for themselves? Are you kidding? Wonder when they are going to finally start waving little red books around.


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Right - a freelance journalist who no one has ever heard of with an occasional aritcle or two is an equivalent "commentator"...
What part of "or whoever" (your words) don’t you understand?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Calm down mkultra
I’m simply saying one man’s "supporter" is another man’s "lap dog," depending on your point of view. It’s like the "MSM is biased to the left" mantra. I (and others like me) happen to believe it because I skew slightly right of center. My die hard democrat friends think that it is pure, unobjective reporting. Jenine Garafolo thinks that unless Noam Chomsky says it, it’s pure fascism.

Who’s right?

Sorry... Who’s correct?

I will point out though that I am able to acknowledge that FOX news IS biased to the right.

Interesting posting an article which says:

Analysts say the strategy has been effective, trivializing Democrats’ differences with the GOP as temperamental rather than substantive.

Sounds an awful lot like you’re just living in a different echo chamber.

The article by Jim Geraghty we’re "discussing" here was actually part of the echo chamber you’re complaining about:

Unfortunately for the Democrats, these bloggers are pushing them relentlessly to take a more combative stance.

I’ve seen Al Gore screaming, I’ve heard the kos kids yelling, I’ve seen Ted Kennedy snapping... when everyone seems angry on their own, how is it "painting" them angry simply to mention it? They are angry. You seem pretty angry yourself. Isn’t that the point of most lefty blogs..."Why aren’t more people angry?!"
 
Written By: Alex
URL: http://
I’ve seen Al Gore screaming, I’ve heard the kos kids yelling, I’ve seen Ted Kennedy snapping... when everyone seems angry on their own, how is it "painting" them angry simply to mention it? They are angry. You seem pretty angry yourself. Isn’t that the point of most lefty blogs..."Why aren’t more people angry?!"
I recall Dick Cheney standing in the floor of the Senate and telling Pat Leahy to go f*** himself.

I recall Jean Schmidt standing on the floor of the House, with spittle dripping from her lips, and her jaw clenched with rage, explaining that Jack Murtha was a "coward."

I recall ....

Well, you get the idea. And of course, the anger is not limited to the politicans on the right. Take Ann Coulter. You want to talk about an angry woman. If she isn’t calling for this person to die, she is calling for that person to be killed. And all the angry talk radio guys. Ever heard Michael Savage go on his anti-liberal rants. He puts liberals to shame.

Oh - and read Charles Johnson - that is one dark, angry man.

So are the Dems any more angry than the GOP’ers. Of course not. But the silly meme continues to reverberate around the right-wing echo machine because - as I mentioned above - the GOP’ers can hardly run on their record.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Well yes, a right wing echo machine does exist. I acknowledge that I can’t quantify which side has more angry partisans, and that an "angry left" meme is echoing right now. Just don’t tell me the left doesn’t play the same game. Let me know when the "Bush Lied" meme dissappears.
 
Written By: Alex
URL: http://
Ann Althouse has a post up on this same subject.
 
Written By: Chris
URL: http://
"Let me know when the "Bush Lied" meme dissappears."

When Bush stops lying? Or more likely, when nobody cares about his lying anymore.

4/12/2006
 
Written By: Ed
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider