My goodness, I've been remiss. I just added a new blog, one that I've read for ages and meant to put on my blogroll. I have added What Is Right For Virginia to my sidebar both in the blogroll and as one of the blogs that I follow. You would think I actually would have done this a while ago just to make it easier for myself. Instant access is a good thing. But so is the time to actually work on one's own blog.
Anyway, I met Jim White last Sunday, and he did this great post, with a very funny title about it. We were at CLUW's Bread and Roses dinner. And I promised to put up pix. Of course, with my husband taking them, there should be no excuses, but Jim beat me to it with his picture of the two of us. I promise to have some of Dan's photos up soon.
Meanwhile, Jim has a great site that I heartily recommend. Go check it out.
Showing posts with label blogosphere. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blogosphere. Show all posts
Monday, October 12, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
GOP Gotcha Induced Giddiness on Gitmo Vote?
That's such a great line, from Drew of Dem Bones, who further deconstructs the Republican bloggers lack of logic, which began with this post from Jim Hoeft. It crackled across the blogosphere with responses from Drew, Aznew, Lowell and me. Then my post spread the fire further with Shaun Kenney piling on, taking me to task for "faux outrage" and posting manufactured Democratic talking points. Here's how Drew describers it:
But when you don't make logical arguments, distort true positions, and manufacture fake outrage, you must think everybody else is doing the same thing. There are some terms for this. One is projection - that is projecting your own bad behavior or bad motives on to others.
The problem is that it's not working the way it used to. The genuine source of the real Republican outrage is that Obama won the election, the Democrats have won the last few election cycles here in Virginia, and the GOP no longer dominates the message. Rush and Newt simply don't have the whole stage and don't pack the punch they used to. And neither do the other Republican talking heads and bloggers.
Although the debate over the closing of Guantanamo is necessary and important, to be sure, I want to refocus the conversation back to the actual amendment vote, hopefully exposing the disingenuous nature of the Republican faux outrage - or is it gotcha-induced giddiness? - against Perriello. Again to recap: Last Thursday, Perriello, joined by 212 mostly Democratic colleagues, voted against Rep. Jerry Lewis' (R-CA) H.Amdt 220 added to HR 2847....But it actually seems like the shoe might be on the other foot, as Dem Bones points out here.
Basically, Republicans did not want to release funds to shut down Guantanamo Bay, to fund the President's executive order to close the base. The amendment was voted down, 212-213, mainly along party lines, and Republican's jumped on Perriello for being arm-twisted by Pelosi, for casting the deciding vote to bring detainees to Virginia.You see, here's the thing about the Republicans - even the very best of them - they really do manufacture faux outrage, attempt to distort the Democrats' actual record, and riff off the same GOP Central talking points. The funny thing is that when caught doing so, they attempt to turn the tables and accuse the progressives of doing those things.
Just two days prior, however, the house voted for a war supplemental bill (HR 2346), and it passed, 226-202, also along party lines; Democrats generally supported the supplemental, Republicans generally didn't. There, within the bill, are several important provisions disallowing the release of detainees on US soil. Click this text link, scroll down (about a fifth or a sixth of the way) to Title III: General Provisions, This Act and let's take a look:Sec. 30004) Prohibits funds from this or any prior Act from being used to release an individual who is detained, as of April 30, 2009, at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or the District of Columbia. Prohibits any such release for the purpose of detaining or prosecuting any such individual until two months after Congress receives from the President a comprehensive plan regarding the proposed disposition. Requires the plan to include: (1) the risk to national security posed by the transfer; (2) costs associated with not transferring an individual; (3) the legal rationale and associated court demands for transfer; (4) a certification by the President that any national security risk associated with a transfer has been mitigated; and (5) a certification by the President that the President has certified to the governor and state legislature of a state to which the President intends to transfer an individual that such individual does not pose a security threat to the United States.
Prohibits any funds from being used to transfer or release such an individual to the country of such individual's nationality or last residence, or to any country other than the United States, unless the President submits to Congress, at least 30 days prior to such release or transfer: (1) the name of the individual and the country involved; (2) an assessment of the risk to U.S. national security posed by the transfer or release; and (3) the terms of any agreement with another country for the acceptance of such individual, including any financial assistance related to the agreement.(emphasis mine)
...In a fever of political gamesmanship, however, Republicans - knowing that two days prior Perriello voted to close these possibilities - have tried to create trumped-up charges against Perriello. And, in light of the supplemental, Republicans are now equally accountable to the same charges levied against Perriello. If I wanted to be similarly dishonest, I could say that Republicans, in voting against the war supplemental, voted against prohibitions - thereby either allowing or in favor of - to release detainees onto US soil.
But when you don't make logical arguments, distort true positions, and manufacture fake outrage, you must think everybody else is doing the same thing. There are some terms for this. One is projection - that is projecting your own bad behavior or bad motives on to others.
The problem is that it's not working the way it used to. The genuine source of the real Republican outrage is that Obama won the election, the Democrats have won the last few election cycles here in Virginia, and the GOP no longer dominates the message. Rush and Newt simply don't have the whole stage and don't pack the punch they used to. And neither do the other Republican talking heads and bloggers.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Netroots Surrogate Debate This Sunday Night
This Sunday night at 7:30, three of Virginia's most distinguished progressive bloggers will participate in a surrogate's debate for the gubernatorial candidates. Common Sense Virginia is staging the debate at their website. Please go over there and leave questions for the candidates' surrogates in the comment section.
Lowell Feld will speak for the Terry McAuliffe campaign. Carla Ward, aka Catzmaw, will represent Brian Moran, and Waldo Jacquith, Virginia's blogfather, will speak on behalf of Creigh Deed's campaign.
This should be a spirited debate with some of the best informed representatives of the Virginia blogosphere.
Lowell Feld will speak for the Terry McAuliffe campaign. Carla Ward, aka Catzmaw, will represent Brian Moran, and Waldo Jacquith, Virginia's blogfather, will speak on behalf of Creigh Deed's campaign.
This should be a spirited debate with some of the best informed representatives of the Virginia blogosphere.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
The Washington Post Rorschach Test on McAuliffe
Today, Amy Gardner's article on Terry McAuliffe, in the Washington Post, has generated a narrative and counter narrative that is a Rorschach test of its readers.
Before I go any further, I have to say that, as somebody who has frequently been highly critical of Gardner's work, this is a fair, balanced, and extremely well done story. That's important to acknowledge because to be a critic is not always to be negative. When you catch somebody doing something right, it's very important to point that out too. So, kudos to Gardner for an exceptionally well done job with this report.
Meanwhile, here is what's so curious about the story. While McAuliffe and his campaign were happy with it, Brian Moran's supporters were also pleased and were using it as proof of their own points about Terry.
For example, Moran supporter Aimee Fausser used the Washington Post article to further her argument that Terry McAuliffe is not the right candidate to be governor of Virginia. She picked out parts of the article, like this quote:
Maybe. Maybe not.
Lots of candidates, especially those without an actual track record of elected office, have run on their life experience as successful business people. In fact, usually those who make that argument run as Republicans.
And among those who have succeeded with this approach, many have also foundered once in office because they've learned that the skill set that helped them to succeed in business is very different from the skill set that works for a public official. In many ways, the talent, skill, and knowledge that one needs to accomplish one's goals in the public sphere are very different from what it takes to be a successful businessman.
Of course, there are notable exceptions, such as Mark Warner, who succeeded both in business and as governor. But he is a man of unusual depth and ability, and he impressed people with his seriousness and intellectual capacity. He might have been an entrepreneur, but I don't think anybody ever referred to Warner as a huckster - a word McAuliffe freely applies to himself.
The other thing that strikes me is that this may not be the right time and place for candidates to run on their business experience because, as Gardner also observes when she quotes Robert Holsworth:
The very "hucksterism" he celebrates may strike a discordant note with a public that is no longer enamored of every robber baron that comes along. I am willing to bet that if people were to watch the movie Wall Street today, they would no longer be cheering as Gordon Gekko gives his "greed is good speech," as they did back in the 1980s.
We know that greed is not good for the average person and that Gekko was not our benefactor. And it may be that pro-business Terry Mac isn't either. In fact, it may be that Americans are finally fed up with hucksters and want public servants.
Both Creigh Deeds and Brian Moran fit that category. While McAuliffe was out making deals and using the Democratic Party, and his access to the highest levels of government, as career accessories, they were toiling in the more unglamorous Virginia General Assembly and the Senate, when both were Republican strongholds. While neither Deeds nor Moran are paupers, neither man is as rich, audacious, or capricious as McAuliffe and that is a good thing - for Virginia.
Of the two serious candidates, my favorite is Moran because his are the more progressive credentials, if by a hair. One can quibble over a lack of purity or an inconsistency here or there, but overall, Moran has stood with women, gays, environmentalists and working people over a lifetime of fighting for our interests. Creigh has, by his own admission, been a bit slower to come around on some issues. That does not disqualify him in the least. He would do the Democrats proud in a general election.
But since on primary day you can only pick one, my first choice is Brian because he was a bit quicker on the uptake when it came to gay rights and environmentalism. Terry, meanwhile, wasn't even in the Virginia race - he was out practicing the art of the deal.
Before I go any further, I have to say that, as somebody who has frequently been highly critical of Gardner's work, this is a fair, balanced, and extremely well done story. That's important to acknowledge because to be a critic is not always to be negative. When you catch somebody doing something right, it's very important to point that out too. So, kudos to Gardner for an exceptionally well done job with this report.
Meanwhile, here is what's so curious about the story. While McAuliffe and his campaign were happy with it, Brian Moran's supporters were also pleased and were using it as proof of their own points about Terry.
For example, Moran supporter Aimee Fausser used the Washington Post article to further her argument that Terry McAuliffe is not the right candidate to be governor of Virginia. She picked out parts of the article, like this quote:
Terry McAuliffe has a simple message for Virginia: Elect him governor this year and he will bring jobs, because he has more business experience than anyone else in the race.And this one:
Yet McAuliffe's business pedigree is not so simple. He is a dealmaker who made millions from investments. And many of his biggest deals came in partnership with prominent donors and politicians, creating a portrait over the years of a Washington insider who got rich as he rose to power within the Democratic Party.
McAuliffe is, at his core, a salesman -- and even called himself a "huckster" in his autobiography. In his bid for governor this year, McAuliffe is selling the idea that his uncanny knack for making money can bring prosperity to all Virginia. But at a time when public mistrust of millionaires and politicians is high, that strategy could backfire.
But they belie the complexity of a business career built mostly on intricate land deals and dot-com investments, often with wealthy political donors -- and sometimes with no jobs to show for it.And as Fausser sums it up in a very well-reasoned post:
...
For McAuliffe, politics and business have always been intertwined.
He was Richard Gephardt's national finance chairman and later gave Gephardt a loan from the bank he led, Federal City National Bank. He worked with then-House Whip Tony Coelho on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 1980s and later worked with him at a Washington real estate brokerage, the Boland Group.
...
McAuliffe made $16 million developing a shopping center in Florida after persuading a top labor leader he knew through the Democratic Party to invest $40 million from the union's pension fund
"I don't want a Governor who views his election as his next big business move. It sounds like no matter what Terry's job is, he's always looking out for himself first..."Meanwhile, McAuliffe's people are very satisfied with that same article. So much so that they sent out emails to supporters linking to it and put it up on their website. From their point of view, it illustrates the argument they've been making, which is that Terry McAuliffe is a successful business man who will bring his Midas touch to Virginia's governor's mansion. According to their reasoning in favor of McAuliffe, his business acumen will make him a successful governor who will bring jobs, economic growth, and prosperity to Virginia.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Lots of candidates, especially those without an actual track record of elected office, have run on their life experience as successful business people. In fact, usually those who make that argument run as Republicans.
And among those who have succeeded with this approach, many have also foundered once in office because they've learned that the skill set that helped them to succeed in business is very different from the skill set that works for a public official. In many ways, the talent, skill, and knowledge that one needs to accomplish one's goals in the public sphere are very different from what it takes to be a successful businessman.
Of course, there are notable exceptions, such as Mark Warner, who succeeded both in business and as governor. But he is a man of unusual depth and ability, and he impressed people with his seriousness and intellectual capacity. He might have been an entrepreneur, but I don't think anybody ever referred to Warner as a huckster - a word McAuliffe freely applies to himself.
The other thing that strikes me is that this may not be the right time and place for candidates to run on their business experience because, as Gardner also observes when she quotes Robert Holsworth:
"People are somewhat skeptical at the moment of certain kinds of business dealings," said Robert D. Holsworth, a political scientist and author of the blog Virginia Tomorrow. "There is a populist resentment that's directed at both government and business simultaneously. I don't know how that's going to play out."I would agree with that summation. In fact, I'm rather startled that McAuliffe's people even took this to be a complimentary article considering its very title is "McAuliffe's Background Could Be a Liability." And although Gardner is very careful to point out that McAuliffe has done nothing illegal or wrong, her main theme is that, at this time, when so many people have been harmed by some of the same businesses with whom McAuliffe has had such lucrative associations, the very background Terry touts may be his biggest liability.
The very "hucksterism" he celebrates may strike a discordant note with a public that is no longer enamored of every robber baron that comes along. I am willing to bet that if people were to watch the movie Wall Street today, they would no longer be cheering as Gordon Gekko gives his "greed is good speech," as they did back in the 1980s.
We know that greed is not good for the average person and that Gekko was not our benefactor. And it may be that pro-business Terry Mac isn't either. In fact, it may be that Americans are finally fed up with hucksters and want public servants.
Both Creigh Deeds and Brian Moran fit that category. While McAuliffe was out making deals and using the Democratic Party, and his access to the highest levels of government, as career accessories, they were toiling in the more unglamorous Virginia General Assembly and the Senate, when both were Republican strongholds. While neither Deeds nor Moran are paupers, neither man is as rich, audacious, or capricious as McAuliffe and that is a good thing - for Virginia.
Of the two serious candidates, my favorite is Moran because his are the more progressive credentials, if by a hair. One can quibble over a lack of purity or an inconsistency here or there, but overall, Moran has stood with women, gays, environmentalists and working people over a lifetime of fighting for our interests. Creigh has, by his own admission, been a bit slower to come around on some issues. That does not disqualify him in the least. He would do the Democrats proud in a general election.
But since on primary day you can only pick one, my first choice is Brian because he was a bit quicker on the uptake when it came to gay rights and environmentalism. Terry, meanwhile, wasn't even in the Virginia race - he was out practicing the art of the deal.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Additions to the Blogroll
Updated: I just added two more sites. One of them, Dem Bones, I discovered through my friend Alan Zimmerman's recommendation. Aznew, who is a very fine blogger, himself, has not steered me wrong yet. Drew, who writes Dem Bones, describes himself as a "theological junkie" and a progressive Democrat. He reminds me a lot of me in that respect, but he's a more orthodox Christian (with a small "o" in orthodox). He seems to have something of a universalist bent. Anyway, if you are interested in the intersection of religion and politics with culture, it's a good site to visit.
The second site I put up is in the "Other Sites of Note" section and it's my friend Jim Southworth's Inside Scoop Productions. I think Jim, Mark Levine, George Burke, and Shannon Sullivan do an excellent job of bringing political topics from a progressive point of view to Northern Virginia local cable access television. So, go check their schedule.
A funny thing happened to me over in the comment section of Not Larry Sabato. I got mocked. And when I clicked on Anonymous Is A Vandal's name, guess where it took me?
Since I figure that I better keep an eye on this young wiseguy conservative from PWC, he's on my blogroll. That's because it made me laugh.
Also on the blogroll, on the lefty side, I just put up The Great Blue Heron, which I've been meaning to do for ages. It's a wonderful blog.
So, from two opposite sides and very opposite points of view, welcome to both of you.
The second site I put up is in the "Other Sites of Note" section and it's my friend Jim Southworth's Inside Scoop Productions. I think Jim, Mark Levine, George Burke, and Shannon Sullivan do an excellent job of bringing political topics from a progressive point of view to Northern Virginia local cable access television. So, go check their schedule.
A funny thing happened to me over in the comment section of Not Larry Sabato. I got mocked. And when I clicked on Anonymous Is A Vandal's name, guess where it took me?
Since I figure that I better keep an eye on this young wiseguy conservative from PWC, he's on my blogroll. That's because it made me laugh.
Also on the blogroll, on the lefty side, I just put up The Great Blue Heron, which I've been meaning to do for ages. It's a wonderful blog.
So, from two opposite sides and very opposite points of view, welcome to both of you.
Monday, March 30, 2009
The Further Adventures of the Angry Spud - It's Not Who I First Thought
But I've got another theory.
I was going to do this as an update, but it deserves its own separate post. I got a full denial from my primary suspect in The Angry Potato mystery. Actually, it was an email passed on to me by a third party. I am waiting to see if I can get permission to reprint it, with steps taken to preserve the person's identity.
This, however, leads me to explore my second theory, which now seems more plausible in light of some new posts to that site. I'll get to that in a minute.
Bear in mind, I have no smoking guns. This is all circumstantial evidence based on speculation that seems logical. But I don't have "I've got your IP address and can prove your identity" type evidence. Nor do I care about the actual identity of the individual doing this. I simply love a good mystery and think this type deconstruction of circumstantial evidence is fun. In fact, it's almost as much fun as reading a good murder mystery.
With those caveats, here's my theory. More and more, I'm convinced that if this isn't the work of a disgruntled former blogger on the lefty side, it is a Republican posing as a Democrat. First of all, it's not as if Republicans are strangers to dirty tricks. Neither are Democrats, by the way. But here's why I think this is a GOPer's dirty trick.
First there is motive. They have the most to benefit from sowing seeds of dissension and mistrust among Democrats. The timing is perfect. There have been real fights among progressive bloggers and diarists. So whoever is doing this thinks that now is the time when it would seem plausible that a Democrat had ratcheted it up to the next level.
But if you read between the lines, whoever this person is always somehow makes the Republicans look better than the Democrats. No matter what the issue. When he's not engaging in pure vitriolic ridicule that is. Here's one example.
For background, the post refers to a proposal in Congress put forth by a very conservative Republican representative, Daryl Issa of California, to change the federal law so that if the first lady participates regularly in any policy group, she would be required to announce it and the meetings would have be public.
As Democrats pointed out, this could be viewed as an attack on Michelle Obama because it could be perceived as treating her differently than Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, or Laura Bush. Why this law and why now?
Here's what the angry little spud said:
The other thing I noticed, as a clue, is how genuinely kindly this blogger treats Vivian Paige. Now, I think Vivian is one of the better bloggers on the blogosphere. But she is one of the few progressive bloggers who also gets the genuine admiration of rightwing bloggers. In fact, it's the one area where I actually agree with them and am impressed with their good taste - it's, unfortunately, only a temporary lapse from their usual bad taste :).
Seriously, whoever is doing this site does admire Vivian but has little good to say about almost any other Democrat, including a high school aged Young Democrat. It would be pretty rare for a fellow Democrat, regardless of whom he was supporting in the primary, to post something this nasty about a kid.
Because the mashed brained spud seems to particularly resent Lowell and Josh and the BC crowd, some have speculated that this is somehow coming out of the Brian Moran camp. But I don't think so because the tiny tatter tot has thrown rotten potatoes at every single Democratic candidate and campaign running - McAuliffe, Moran, and Deeds. In other words, he doesn't actually like any of the Democratic candidates.
In fact, he's spending an awful lot more time trashing Democrats than Republicans. And then, just today, he came up with this beauty that is supposed to be a hit at Republicans from the Democrats' point of view.
And it's why I don't buy for a minute that this comes from a Democrat regardless of which faction he claims to be in. Another reason I don't think it's a Democratic blogger is that there's no Democrat, except for Vivian, who has ever earned this guy's respect, including Jim Webb. I only know of one Democrat left who still dislikes Jim Webb and she doesn't blog.
The Angry Potato also isn't the only site masquerading as Democratic-written. There's another site that claims to be from a Democrat and even from a supporter of one of the candidates. It's called StopPatEdmondson, and I've long suspected that that site also is a Republican dirty trick. It's a twofer. It ridicules and humiliates Pat and harms her opponent, Jody Wagner, by claiming to be one of her supporters. Let me tell you, no candidate would want a supporter publicly saying or writing such outlandish things about an opponent. Indeed, that site embarrases and harms Jody's campaign more than it does Pat's. So, it's easy to conclude it's an enemy of Democrats not one of them.
The dirty tricksters are out in full force this season. And I'd look to Virginia Beach to find at least some of them.
I was going to do this as an update, but it deserves its own separate post. I got a full denial from my primary suspect in The Angry Potato mystery. Actually, it was an email passed on to me by a third party. I am waiting to see if I can get permission to reprint it, with steps taken to preserve the person's identity.
This, however, leads me to explore my second theory, which now seems more plausible in light of some new posts to that site. I'll get to that in a minute.
Bear in mind, I have no smoking guns. This is all circumstantial evidence based on speculation that seems logical. But I don't have "I've got your IP address and can prove your identity" type evidence. Nor do I care about the actual identity of the individual doing this. I simply love a good mystery and think this type deconstruction of circumstantial evidence is fun. In fact, it's almost as much fun as reading a good murder mystery.
With those caveats, here's my theory. More and more, I'm convinced that if this isn't the work of a disgruntled former blogger on the lefty side, it is a Republican posing as a Democrat. First of all, it's not as if Republicans are strangers to dirty tricks. Neither are Democrats, by the way. But here's why I think this is a GOPer's dirty trick.
First there is motive. They have the most to benefit from sowing seeds of dissension and mistrust among Democrats. The timing is perfect. There have been real fights among progressive bloggers and diarists. So whoever is doing this thinks that now is the time when it would seem plausible that a Democrat had ratcheted it up to the next level.
But if you read between the lines, whoever this person is always somehow makes the Republicans look better than the Democrats. No matter what the issue. When he's not engaging in pure vitriolic ridicule that is. Here's one example.
For background, the post refers to a proposal in Congress put forth by a very conservative Republican representative, Daryl Issa of California, to change the federal law so that if the first lady participates regularly in any policy group, she would be required to announce it and the meetings would have be public.
As Democrats pointed out, this could be viewed as an attack on Michelle Obama because it could be perceived as treating her differently than Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, or Laura Bush. Why this law and why now?
Here's what the angry little spud said:
It’s about time Democrats stop reaching for the race card every time they get confused. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a racist. If I said, “Vivian’s blog is crap,” besides the fact that it’s untrue, does it make me a racist because Vivian is not a potato? But Blogwhore Central immediately jumps to the fact that Obama is black. That in and of itself indicates some deeply widening sense of racism (of otherness). Let me offer a different take on this issue, and Retweet you’re welcome to copy and paste all you want if you can figure out the big-boy words:Here's the mashed brain spud's spin:
Finally we have a First Lady who is more than a ceremonial garden statue. Michelle Obama has such potential to change our government, and yes our lives as American citizens, that Republicans are pushing to include her policy work within the same transparency framework as the President and Vice President. It’s an excellent opportunity for the better half of our Presidential Duo to elevate the role of the First Lady, and I believe that with Obama’s claim for more transparency, this bill should be embraced and expanded to grant greater power to the Office of the First Lady. And even if Republicans don’t see it that way, and their motives are not as pure, Democrats should take their bill and do something productive with it instead of bitching about motives.First thing to notice is the accusation that Democrats always play the race card against Republicans. Whenever we have a legitimate beef that something might be unfair or racist, the first thing the Republican blogosphere does is jump up and down and accuse us of injecting accusations of racism or sexism. If you read certain conservative blogs, it's a constant complaint against us and a constant theme of theirs. Indeed, I think the whole Angry Potato site is a parody portraying what Republicans think Democrats are, rather than a site that is authentically written by a Democrat.
It’s time for the Democratic party to man up and stop the name calling (I don’t count obviously because I’m better than you, and like T-Mac, I made you who you are today), stop the automatic race-card escalation, and take a step back before you start typing. I’m not saying there aren’t racists in every level of our government (there are, and there always will be, especially as we see more minorities reach the highest peaks of power), but for Christ’s sake, take a moment and try to make your point in a creative and original way, instead of just bouncing up and down on the bed yelling “racist.” If anyone has the right to talk about racism, it’s Vivian Paige, and not you white boy. But you’ll notice that the realities of life have helped Vivian develop the ability to disagree agreeably (while not looking like a total crackpot).
The other thing I noticed, as a clue, is how genuinely kindly this blogger treats Vivian Paige. Now, I think Vivian is one of the better bloggers on the blogosphere. But she is one of the few progressive bloggers who also gets the genuine admiration of rightwing bloggers. In fact, it's the one area where I actually agree with them and am impressed with their good taste - it's, unfortunately, only a temporary lapse from their usual bad taste :).
Seriously, whoever is doing this site does admire Vivian but has little good to say about almost any other Democrat, including a high school aged Young Democrat. It would be pretty rare for a fellow Democrat, regardless of whom he was supporting in the primary, to post something this nasty about a kid.
It seems another netroots activist (that’s a guy with a blog and a C+ in high school civics) has switched to the T-Mac campaign. That’s like secretly switching someones gourmet coffee with a steaming cup of shit. Here is the dirty details:Then there is this video that was put up after it was announced that AFSCME endorsed Terry McAuliffe. The video parodies a union boss and uses all the stereotypes portraying him as an obscenity spouting union goon. No Democrat would use that particular video, but I know which prominent Republican blog put it up recently. In fact, it was an RNC generated video, for which the RNC later apologized.
Because the mashed brained spud seems to particularly resent Lowell and Josh and the BC crowd, some have speculated that this is somehow coming out of the Brian Moran camp. But I don't think so because the tiny tatter tot has thrown rotten potatoes at every single Democratic candidate and campaign running - McAuliffe, Moran, and Deeds. In other words, he doesn't actually like any of the Democratic candidates.
In fact, he's spending an awful lot more time trashing Democrats than Republicans. And then, just today, he came up with this beauty that is supposed to be a hit at Republicans from the Democrats' point of view.
Democrats must act now to prevent the destruction of one of their most precious resources. Forget global warming and endangered pelican sperm, I’m speaking to you today about Jeff Frederick. Under Frederick’s leadership, the Titanic that is the RPV is ramming icebergs like an alcoholic drinking perfume snuck into rehab. If something isn’t done soon, Virginia may lose one if it’s most treasured gifts to the Democratic Party. To help you understand what this means, lets imagine an alternate universe.See, he's not really trashing the Republicans at all. Somehow, in every supposed anti-Republican post he does, they somehow come out ahead. In his posts about the Democrats, we never do. And whoever it is certainly admires Shaun Kenny. I don't know many Democrats who would actually declare Kenny a hero of the Republican Party or care that much who becomes their chairman. That's Republican inside baseball.
It’s April 1, 2009, and the RPV has ousted Jeff Frederick along with his entire staff. The announcement goes out that he is replaced by Shaun Kenny. Within the first month, Kenny has managed to create a comprehensive plan to right the ship, including uniting the activists, created a coherent message and a network of bloggers and local party chairs to disseminate this message, and has committed to a return to values. Within another month, people begin to realize that Kenny wasn’t paying lip service to RPV values when he starts releasing guides and instructions to the different parties, including talking points and a comprehensive direction of new ideas and solutions. By the summer, Kenny is so tied into the campaigns that he’s practically a staffer.
By the time the election is over, Kenny has united the party and created a fundraising machine. He has started working on campaigns to bring in minorities and independents who identify with his message and values. In the election, he doesn’t take back the Senate or Governor, but he holds the majority in the House, and starts building a strong base of candidates for the 2010 races. By 2012, Virginia is firmly in the red, the Senate is back under Republican control, and there has been a net change of one or two Congressional seats. The RNC is taking note and pushes Shaun’s message to all 50 states. Once again, the Republican party stands for something that people can identify, it learns to keep its mouth shut and its idiots in the closet, and the tide starts turning nationally.
And it's why I don't buy for a minute that this comes from a Democrat regardless of which faction he claims to be in. Another reason I don't think it's a Democratic blogger is that there's no Democrat, except for Vivian, who has ever earned this guy's respect, including Jim Webb. I only know of one Democrat left who still dislikes Jim Webb and she doesn't blog.
The Angry Potato also isn't the only site masquerading as Democratic-written. There's another site that claims to be from a Democrat and even from a supporter of one of the candidates. It's called StopPatEdmondson, and I've long suspected that that site also is a Republican dirty trick. It's a twofer. It ridicules and humiliates Pat and harms her opponent, Jody Wagner, by claiming to be one of her supporters. Let me tell you, no candidate would want a supporter publicly saying or writing such outlandish things about an opponent. Indeed, that site embarrases and harms Jody's campaign more than it does Pat's. So, it's easy to conclude it's an enemy of Democrats not one of them.
The dirty tricksters are out in full force this season. And I'd look to Virginia Beach to find at least some of them.
The Survival of the Progressive Virginia Blogosphere
Great news!
Just as I was getting ready to do a task that really made me sad, removing Blue Commonwealth because of their recent announcement that they were closing up, I saw this announcement that they will be back under new management. Here's the announcement in full:
Without a solid community blog, there would be a huge vacuum in Virginia progressive politics. Despite the disagreements over which candidate to support in the primary, bloggers create value in the election process. That's why all of the major campaigns have put out time and money to woo bloggers. Each of the gubernatorial campaigns has hosted blogger dinners, teleconferences, and interviews with bloggers. They have embraced live blogging and sat down for interviews with bloggers. Even small fry like me have been offered exclusive interviews. I don't do interviews because to do them properly and respectfully of the candidate, I think it requires lots of work researching the interviewees background and composing intelligent and challenging questions for him to answer. In short, interviewing is a skill that requires more dedication, time, and work than I am willing to give to what is for me a hobby.
If I wanted to be a reporter, I'd quit my day job and go back into journalism (although nowadays, that might not actually be a realistic career option).
Sorry to digress from the main point of this post. That point is that campaigns realize the value of blogs to spreading their message and, in some cases, to raising funds for them and encouraging grassroots activists to support and work for their campaigns.
The best read blogs are the large scale community efforts where readers can go to peruse a variety of opinions, get valuable information on the campaigns and where to go to volunteer, and find out each candidate's policy positions. A lot this inside baseball information for volunteers and activists is not avaliable in newspapers, which cover only the horse race aspects. And the largest daily newspaper in our region, the Washington Post, often gives scant coverage to smaller local races.
As a reader, I've learned more about local politics from the blogs than I ever did from the newspapers, even the smaller more localized papers like The Connection, The Fairfax Journal, The Examiner, etc. I'm not just talking about the Democratic Party's political messages, I've learned more about the Republican Party at the local level by being able to read the other side's blogs. And that makes me a more informed voter and citizen. The more information out there, the better for democracy.
But when a large state-wide blog with lots of contributors from all over the commonwealth folds, it creates a vacuum, as I said above, that will be difficult to fill by smaller blogs. Many of us who do one person blogs have neither the time nor resources to update several times a day or to present differing views within the spectrum of progressive politics. Heck, I sometimes can't post for days at a time. Raising Kaine and Blue Commonwealth were able to present new material throughout the day. The more news, views, and information you have on your site, obviously, the more readers you will attract throughout the day. People will check in periodically to see what's happened since they last read it in the morning. People can check AIAW about once every few days and be reasonably caught up with what I'm going to say and write since I can't sit here all day doing what BC, or RK before it, did. And the more timely information out there, the more people read it, the more word of mouth that that's where you go to keep up, the more valuable to site becomes for practical organizing.
Just as important, when newspapers neglect an important story or get it wrong or are biased, who will be there from the progressive side to call them on it?
Despite what our right wing friends claim, more of the mainstream media is right center than left center. There are just a few truly slightly left center papers around. And even they have a pro-business bias. In our area, the Washington Post is clearly a slightly right center, socially moderate, vey pro-business, very anti-union newspaper. Doubt me?
Recently, Sandhya Somashekhar and Tim Craig did a major article on the growing influence of unions on Virginia politics and the only labor person they interviewed was a labor official from Maryland whose union had almost no members in Virginia. They totally ignored the Virginia State AFL-CIO or even the Northern Virginia Central Labor Council, which is both one of the largest and most politically active labor councils in Virginia and is right in their own backyard. That's being pretty out of touch with your own community. (Ok, I have to add some snark here, maybe that's why the WaPo is losing readers and maybe they need to pay attention to the fundamentals of good reporting rather than making cosmetic changes to the way their paper looks).
So, with most newspapers having their own biases and shortcomings and an organized and energized rightwing blogosphere - underestimate them at your peril - who picks up the slack for us as we head into the general elections, after June 9th?
For me, it was starting to look like a pretty bleak prospect. It could easily have become a return to the days when Republicans dominated the media coverage and successfully got their talking points out while we couldn't get anybody to even listen to us - remember the talk radio, early Fox News days, and early blogosphere when there was virtually nobody out there to compete with the rightwing bloggers?
Because we didn't have much money and had less influence on the mainstream media, blogging was all we could compete with successfully and out of that desperation to get our message out, it was what the progressive community did brilliantly. We were simply better in recent election cycles than Republican bloggers at dominating the Net and getting out our narrative and it spread beyond the Internet and wended its way to network and print media.
Also, Republicans have not had anything like the concept of a community blog with lots of diarists posting whenever they wanted. The closest in Virginia is Bearing Drift, with its great variety of regular contributors, including some respected progressives, and its guest posts. But it is still managed by Jim Hoeft and friends, and contributors have to be invited to post. It is run more like a good on-line magazine, with a variety of contributors; but it's not a true community blog as RK or BC was. And that's not its business model.
But that was precisly what contributed to the Virginia progressive blogosphere's great success in driving the dialogue and the message. To be sure, there are some real problems with a bunch of amateurs posting in a free for all format. To my mind, the most glaring problem is that they break the most elemental rules of good journalism because they are untrained and those rules never occur to them. But the mainstream media also break some of those rules, and they are trained and should know better.
The main problem, for me, is that bloggers tend to post inside dirt, leak things, and think they are doing great investigative journalism, but they never go to the subjects of their posts to get their side of the story. In real investigative journalism, a Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein always interviewed their subjects, presented the material they had gathered, and attempted to get the subject to respond to hard hitting questions pertaining to that material. Good reporters interview targets of their stories and ask them to answer charges raised against them. Bloggers almost never do that and, I think, it's hurts their stories and hurts their credibility.
They may argue that they haven no obligation to get the other side's story.
They don't if all they are interested in is partisan advocacy. But if they are interested in doing good journalism, even from a liberal point of view, yeah, they actually are obligated to practice the tenets of of the profession and be fair.
There are other technical problems with the way bloggers handle stories. But I don't want to write - and I don't think readers want to read - a complete journalism textbook here. However, the issue of how to handle anonymous sources and getting verification from others willing to go public to confirm the information is another area that needs to be better thought out.
My point is that while there are areas where we bloggers could improve, overall we provide value in our coverage of campaigns and our advocacy for candidates that will be sorely missed if the largest of our progressive blogs can't make it and are forced to fold.
That's why I welcome a revised Blue Commonwealth. I hope the dedicated bloggers, diarists, and grassroots activists tone down the vitriol, concentrate on promoting their candidates, and remain positive during the rest of this election cycle. If they can't do that, we will lose more than the valuable resources of the blogs, we will also lose an important election and set Virginia's progressive politics back a great deal.
Just as I was getting ready to do a task that really made me sad, removing Blue Commonwealth because of their recent announcement that they were closing up, I saw this announcement that they will be back under new management. Here's the announcement in full:
Blue Commonwealth will be returning shortly, The URL will then point to a different address.Like many others across the progressive blogosphere, I was stunned by the level of acrimony that we were descending into in the primaries. And when Blue Commonwealth finally decided to fold under the weight of it, I was distressed all day yesterday.
We will still be a community blog, serving all Virginia Dems willing to behave with a modicum of common decency
we will be at a different location
we will be under different management
those of us who have been active here have decided we want to try to continue to have one blog in Virginia that is open to people who may disagree on whom to support in contested primaries
we will keep our name
we will have many of the same participants
we will invite others to join us, including you
so . . . . .
STAY TUNED We will let you know when we are about to "go live" in our NEW! IMPROVED packaging :-)
And we hope you will join us. :-) :-) :-)
Peace.
Without a solid community blog, there would be a huge vacuum in Virginia progressive politics. Despite the disagreements over which candidate to support in the primary, bloggers create value in the election process. That's why all of the major campaigns have put out time and money to woo bloggers. Each of the gubernatorial campaigns has hosted blogger dinners, teleconferences, and interviews with bloggers. They have embraced live blogging and sat down for interviews with bloggers. Even small fry like me have been offered exclusive interviews. I don't do interviews because to do them properly and respectfully of the candidate, I think it requires lots of work researching the interviewees background and composing intelligent and challenging questions for him to answer. In short, interviewing is a skill that requires more dedication, time, and work than I am willing to give to what is for me a hobby.
If I wanted to be a reporter, I'd quit my day job and go back into journalism (although nowadays, that might not actually be a realistic career option).
Sorry to digress from the main point of this post. That point is that campaigns realize the value of blogs to spreading their message and, in some cases, to raising funds for them and encouraging grassroots activists to support and work for their campaigns.
The best read blogs are the large scale community efforts where readers can go to peruse a variety of opinions, get valuable information on the campaigns and where to go to volunteer, and find out each candidate's policy positions. A lot this inside baseball information for volunteers and activists is not avaliable in newspapers, which cover only the horse race aspects. And the largest daily newspaper in our region, the Washington Post, often gives scant coverage to smaller local races.
As a reader, I've learned more about local politics from the blogs than I ever did from the newspapers, even the smaller more localized papers like The Connection, The Fairfax Journal, The Examiner, etc. I'm not just talking about the Democratic Party's political messages, I've learned more about the Republican Party at the local level by being able to read the other side's blogs. And that makes me a more informed voter and citizen. The more information out there, the better for democracy.
But when a large state-wide blog with lots of contributors from all over the commonwealth folds, it creates a vacuum, as I said above, that will be difficult to fill by smaller blogs. Many of us who do one person blogs have neither the time nor resources to update several times a day or to present differing views within the spectrum of progressive politics. Heck, I sometimes can't post for days at a time. Raising Kaine and Blue Commonwealth were able to present new material throughout the day. The more news, views, and information you have on your site, obviously, the more readers you will attract throughout the day. People will check in periodically to see what's happened since they last read it in the morning. People can check AIAW about once every few days and be reasonably caught up with what I'm going to say and write since I can't sit here all day doing what BC, or RK before it, did. And the more timely information out there, the more people read it, the more word of mouth that that's where you go to keep up, the more valuable to site becomes for practical organizing.
Just as important, when newspapers neglect an important story or get it wrong or are biased, who will be there from the progressive side to call them on it?
Despite what our right wing friends claim, more of the mainstream media is right center than left center. There are just a few truly slightly left center papers around. And even they have a pro-business bias. In our area, the Washington Post is clearly a slightly right center, socially moderate, vey pro-business, very anti-union newspaper. Doubt me?
Recently, Sandhya Somashekhar and Tim Craig did a major article on the growing influence of unions on Virginia politics and the only labor person they interviewed was a labor official from Maryland whose union had almost no members in Virginia. They totally ignored the Virginia State AFL-CIO or even the Northern Virginia Central Labor Council, which is both one of the largest and most politically active labor councils in Virginia and is right in their own backyard. That's being pretty out of touch with your own community. (Ok, I have to add some snark here, maybe that's why the WaPo is losing readers and maybe they need to pay attention to the fundamentals of good reporting rather than making cosmetic changes to the way their paper looks).
So, with most newspapers having their own biases and shortcomings and an organized and energized rightwing blogosphere - underestimate them at your peril - who picks up the slack for us as we head into the general elections, after June 9th?
For me, it was starting to look like a pretty bleak prospect. It could easily have become a return to the days when Republicans dominated the media coverage and successfully got their talking points out while we couldn't get anybody to even listen to us - remember the talk radio, early Fox News days, and early blogosphere when there was virtually nobody out there to compete with the rightwing bloggers?
Because we didn't have much money and had less influence on the mainstream media, blogging was all we could compete with successfully and out of that desperation to get our message out, it was what the progressive community did brilliantly. We were simply better in recent election cycles than Republican bloggers at dominating the Net and getting out our narrative and it spread beyond the Internet and wended its way to network and print media.
Also, Republicans have not had anything like the concept of a community blog with lots of diarists posting whenever they wanted. The closest in Virginia is Bearing Drift, with its great variety of regular contributors, including some respected progressives, and its guest posts. But it is still managed by Jim Hoeft and friends, and contributors have to be invited to post. It is run more like a good on-line magazine, with a variety of contributors; but it's not a true community blog as RK or BC was. And that's not its business model.
But that was precisly what contributed to the Virginia progressive blogosphere's great success in driving the dialogue and the message. To be sure, there are some real problems with a bunch of amateurs posting in a free for all format. To my mind, the most glaring problem is that they break the most elemental rules of good journalism because they are untrained and those rules never occur to them. But the mainstream media also break some of those rules, and they are trained and should know better.
The main problem, for me, is that bloggers tend to post inside dirt, leak things, and think they are doing great investigative journalism, but they never go to the subjects of their posts to get their side of the story. In real investigative journalism, a Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein always interviewed their subjects, presented the material they had gathered, and attempted to get the subject to respond to hard hitting questions pertaining to that material. Good reporters interview targets of their stories and ask them to answer charges raised against them. Bloggers almost never do that and, I think, it's hurts their stories and hurts their credibility.
They may argue that they haven no obligation to get the other side's story.
They don't if all they are interested in is partisan advocacy. But if they are interested in doing good journalism, even from a liberal point of view, yeah, they actually are obligated to practice the tenets of of the profession and be fair.
There are other technical problems with the way bloggers handle stories. But I don't want to write - and I don't think readers want to read - a complete journalism textbook here. However, the issue of how to handle anonymous sources and getting verification from others willing to go public to confirm the information is another area that needs to be better thought out.
My point is that while there are areas where we bloggers could improve, overall we provide value in our coverage of campaigns and our advocacy for candidates that will be sorely missed if the largest of our progressive blogs can't make it and are forced to fold.
That's why I welcome a revised Blue Commonwealth. I hope the dedicated bloggers, diarists, and grassroots activists tone down the vitriol, concentrate on promoting their candidates, and remain positive during the rest of this election cycle. If they can't do that, we will lose more than the valuable resources of the blogs, we will also lose an important election and set Virginia's progressive politics back a great deal.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Welcome Article XI
Question: Where can you find a blog that has Lowell Feld, Miles Grant and Jim Hoeft as contributors?
It's Articel XI, a brand new environmental blog that has brought Lowell out of semi-retirement. It promises to be a non partisan effort to begin a dialogue on environmental issues, from different political perspectives. Jim reminds readers that one of the founding fathers of the modern conservative movement, Barry Goldwater, was as passionate about conservation as he was about free markets and recognized the sometime contradictions that arose from those positions. Of course, real creativity often comes about precisely because of the tension of holding two diametrically opposite points of view in balance and arriving at a third, brand new position because of it.
Meanwhile, Lowell, Miles, and other contributors, who will be familiar to RK readers, will continue to write insightful posts on the Virginia environment, energy issues, and climate change. They will continue the quality that readers have come to expect from them.
I'll admit, that's not my area of expertise or even my passion - politics and economics are, with a dash of religion and culture thrown in. But since RK turned out the lights, nobody has been doing the important stories on energy conservation and the environment that need to be done. It's because it's a topic I know so little about that I welcome this new site. I need it as a resource as much as anybody else.
So, welcome to the Virginia blogosphere.
It's Articel XI, a brand new environmental blog that has brought Lowell out of semi-retirement. It promises to be a non partisan effort to begin a dialogue on environmental issues, from different political perspectives. Jim reminds readers that one of the founding fathers of the modern conservative movement, Barry Goldwater, was as passionate about conservation as he was about free markets and recognized the sometime contradictions that arose from those positions. Of course, real creativity often comes about precisely because of the tension of holding two diametrically opposite points of view in balance and arriving at a third, brand new position because of it.
Meanwhile, Lowell, Miles, and other contributors, who will be familiar to RK readers, will continue to write insightful posts on the Virginia environment, energy issues, and climate change. They will continue the quality that readers have come to expect from them.
I'll admit, that's not my area of expertise or even my passion - politics and economics are, with a dash of religion and culture thrown in. But since RK turned out the lights, nobody has been doing the important stories on energy conservation and the environment that need to be done. It's because it's a topic I know so little about that I welcome this new site. I need it as a resource as much as anybody else.
So, welcome to the Virginia blogosphere.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Welcoming Some New Kids On the Block
Blogs come and go. Sometimes the ones you've come to rely on take their leave and that's a sad fact. So, we've all been saying good bye to Raising Kaine and wishing Lowell and Eric the very best in all their new endeavors. Like many others, I know I'll miss them and RK.
At the same time, there are some new blogs to welcome to the Virginia blogosphere. I've added two of them to my blogroll. The first is Josh Chernila's effort to create a new virtual town square for progressives across the commonwealth. It's aptly named Blue Commonwealth. Josh was central to Raising Kaine and to the Internet movement in 2006 to draft Jim Webb. While nothing can replace the unique energy and spirit of RK, Blue Commonwealth is off to a great start in the ongoing effort to continue a statewide progressive presence on the Internet and in the blogosphere, which will make a difference in future campaigns.
Another new blog I am happy to welcome to my blogroll is an effort by Kenton Ngo, Johnny Camacho, and Aimee Fausser. It's called The New Dominion Project. Kenton and Johnny were, respectively, the youngest bloggers in the Virginia blogosphere at one time. Both of them presented insightful writing and analysis. They will be joined by Aimee whose equally intelligent writing will only add to their effort.
I remember working for a university in Florida in the 1980s when the Young Republicans were the most active and popular political club on campus. It was depressing because I could look down the years and realize that without Young Democrats and young people carrying on the progressive cause, our future would not be promising.
What a difference twenty something years makes. Today, I think the liberals and progressives and the Democrats have the momentum among young people in colleges and high schools around the country. In no small part, it's because of efforts by young people like Johnny, Kenton, and Aimee.
Good luck to all of you. And to my readers, all of these blogs look good - go check them out.
At the same time, there are some new blogs to welcome to the Virginia blogosphere. I've added two of them to my blogroll. The first is Josh Chernila's effort to create a new virtual town square for progressives across the commonwealth. It's aptly named Blue Commonwealth. Josh was central to Raising Kaine and to the Internet movement in 2006 to draft Jim Webb. While nothing can replace the unique energy and spirit of RK, Blue Commonwealth is off to a great start in the ongoing effort to continue a statewide progressive presence on the Internet and in the blogosphere, which will make a difference in future campaigns.
Another new blog I am happy to welcome to my blogroll is an effort by Kenton Ngo, Johnny Camacho, and Aimee Fausser. It's called The New Dominion Project. Kenton and Johnny were, respectively, the youngest bloggers in the Virginia blogosphere at one time. Both of them presented insightful writing and analysis. They will be joined by Aimee whose equally intelligent writing will only add to their effort.
I remember working for a university in Florida in the 1980s when the Young Republicans were the most active and popular political club on campus. It was depressing because I could look down the years and realize that without Young Democrats and young people carrying on the progressive cause, our future would not be promising.
What a difference twenty something years makes. Today, I think the liberals and progressives and the Democrats have the momentum among young people in colleges and high schools around the country. In no small part, it's because of efforts by young people like Johnny, Kenton, and Aimee.
Good luck to all of you. And to my readers, all of these blogs look good - go check them out.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Farewell to RK
I was shocked and saddened this morning to read that RK is folding. Here is an excerpt from Lowell's explanation for the decision to close down the site.
Those of us who read, posted and commented on RK came because we valued lively discussion, informed opinions, heated controversy, and valued friendships. I met and exchanged ideas across the Net with so many wonderful people because of RK. It was the first blog I read every morning. Often, it was the last one I read before switching off my computer at night.
Despite Lowell's modesty, RK can take a large share of the credit for turning Virginia blue. It quite simply was one of the best progressive statewide sites in the nation. I shall miss it.
Like so many others who began reading Raising Kaine during the Webb campaign, I came to rely on that site for news and opinion about Virginia and national politics. Lowell also was one of the most supportive people to me in my own blogging efforts. He constantly gave me encouragement and was generous in linking to this blog. In addition, he frequently front paged my RK diaries. And he often added illustrations to those diaries that made them livelier and more eye catching to readers. Lowell has always been generous with his support and encouragement to fellow bloggers.
Our decision to wrap up RK after four years was not a precipitous one at all. In fact, since Jim Webb's victory over George Allen, we have seriously considered shutting down this blog on several occasions. For whatever reason, maybe masochism (more charitably, we could say "dedication" and "commitment" - ha), we decided to continue through the 2007 General Assembly cycle and also the 2008 federal year. Overall, it was a lot of fun, although extremely time consuming (I haven't taken a real vacation in several years now...) and certainly not financially lucrative (so much for there being a "business model" for state-level bloggers - at least not for many years to come, I think). Also, as in any line of work, there are good people (lots of them) in blogging and politics, and there are...well, other people. :) But for myself, I'd rather focus on all the positive experiences and great people I've met the past 4 years.
At some level, it would be nice if this could continue forever, but I've got other things I want to accomplish and, frankly, this is making that more, not less, difficult to accomplish. The bottom line is this: today, Eric and I believe we are at the most natural of "natural breaking points" and - in keeping with the theme of the past year - that it's time for a change.
Personally, my #1 goal is to get back to what i was doing prior to March 2006; working on international energy, energy-related environmental, and energy security issues for the federal government. Currently, I'm in the middle of a job hunt, and we'll see how that works out, but I definitely want to devote all my attention to that and stop being distracted by the daily demands of blogging. I also, frankly, don't want to get sucked into the 2009 Virginia election season, because if I do get sucked in, something tells me I'll never get sucked back out again. :) And, also frankly, I simply don't want to start another 4-year political cycle (the expression, "been there, done that" springs to mind), especially now that I am eager to get back in the federal government, soon to be under new - and infinitely better - management!
Those of us who read, posted and commented on RK came because we valued lively discussion, informed opinions, heated controversy, and valued friendships. I met and exchanged ideas across the Net with so many wonderful people because of RK. It was the first blog I read every morning. Often, it was the last one I read before switching off my computer at night.
Despite Lowell's modesty, RK can take a large share of the credit for turning Virginia blue. It quite simply was one of the best progressive statewide sites in the nation. I shall miss it.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Netroots Rising Is An Engaging History of a Citizen Army of Grassroots Activists
I just finished reading Netroots Rising. Lowell Feld sent me a copy of the book a couple of weeks ago and I promptly forgot to email him to thank him. My apologies to Lowell for my bad manners. But I knew I wasn’t going to read it right away and I didn’t want him to know how long I was going to procrastinate before getting to it. In my defense, I’ll add that it’s been a busy few weeks.
Since I was overcome by events, I confess I put off reading it because I kind of suspected that once I started, I wasn’t going to want to deal with interruptions. I was right. So I carved out a chunk of time when I wouldn’t be disrupted while I was reading. Glad I did.
I suppose you really could start the book and put it down. I’m also told there are people who can eat just one potato chip.
Netroots Rising reads almost like a novel. It has several narrative lines and it switches back and forth between the points of view of both authors, Nate Wilcox and Lowell Feld. It has a rising story line with twist and turns, obstacles, and complications. And the varying plotlines converge at the end.
The book opens with the state of the political sphere in 2002, where the advantage went to the Republicans. Most fundraising in both parties consisted of large donors writing checks for at least $1,000 or $2,000 a pop. But the GOP had the lock on donations from small donors thanks to their mastery of direct mail and earlier computer technology. They built better databases than the Democrats had and led the way with grassroots GOTV field efforts. Their ground game was beating the Democrats most every time.
In addition, the earliest, most successful websites and blogs were dominated by Republicans such as the Drudge Report, Free Republic and Instapundit.
Although the Republicans dominated the Net, as they had the airwaves on cable television and radio, they mostly took their talking points from Rush Limbaugh, Tom DeLay and Karl Rove and theirs was a top down operation.
Netroots Rising opens from Nate Wilcox’s point of view with the situation in Texas and recounts the struggle of the progressive grassroots and the new netroots activists in local races there. It covers the antics of Tom DeLay and his newly formed Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC). It briefly describes Republican dirty tricks in other states, such as those that defeated Vietnam veteran and triple amputee Max Cleland in Georgia, and describes DeLay’s successful attempt to force an unprecedented and barely legal mid decade redistricting scheme in the Texas legislature. The tome describes in fascinating detail the various attempts to unseat DeLay and the role of a growing grassroots activist core, which did an admirable job of challenging him.
The book then segues into the mounting frustration of Lowell Feld, who watched, with increasing dismay as the 2000 election unfolded, followed by 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, and the Democrats’ totally ineffective 2004 election campaign, when John Kerry was Swiftboated into defeat while a core of paid professional consultants and party insiders appeared helpless to counter an aggressive Republican spin machine.
Lowell had earlier enlisted in the Draft Wesley Clark movement, attended meet ups, and gradually got involved in both netroots and grassroots activism. Meanwhile, Wilcox joined Howard Dean's campaign, one of the earliest to utilize the Internet effectively.
The book goes back and forth between Wilcox in Texas and Feld in Virginia. Of course, it ends with the triumph of Jim Webb’s election, truly one of the glowing success stories of the progressive Netroots in 2006. It gives the behind the scenes account of the famous maccacca incident that led to George Allen’s defeat by Webb.
The conflict between the grassroots and netroots activists versus the party insiders and professional staff is a constant theme running through the book. The tome also details the difference in campaign philosophy between the somewhat chaotic and exuberant bottom up style of the activists versus the top down, button down professional discipline of the professionals and insiders. A traditionalist would think that the top down model should be the more successful one because of its discipline and focus. But that wasn’t borne out by the results. Democrats kept losing elections under the helm of the party professionals like Bob Shrum and Tad Devine. So, grassroots activists, especially those newly enlisted from the netroots, felt justified in questioning the old top down model.
The book does not end on a triumphant note, however, content to rest on the laurels of Webb’s and Jon Tester’s victories in the Senate. Instead, I sensed a growing frustration on the part of authors Feld and Wilcox at the fact that netroots activists are still not exactly greeted with open arms by party insiders. There is dissatisfaction that, despite all the hard work of netroots and grassroots activists, they haven’t been embraced as part of the Democratic Party’s mainstream but are still outsiders looking in. So, Netroots Rising ends with a question: What is the future of the Netroots?
I don’t think anybody can answer that question. But based on the history of other grassroots reform movements and of alternative press from the past, I’d venture a guess that some of the better blogs will eventually become part of the mainstream. Some bloggers will lose interest and move on to other activities. And newer technology will replace all of this. Things we can’t even imagine yet will supplant the netroots and blogs with still greater innovation. But one thing will never change and that is the human desire to communicate with others and the yearning to use whatever technology is available to organize our fellow citizens and to improve our lives. In that, the netroots isn’t something brand new but is the newest addition to an honorable tradition. All of the reformers, those who published broadsides and pamphlets and underground newspapers and mimeographed fliers are all part of our rich legacy. And we will someday watch other exuberant newcomers grab onto the newest technology to go even farther than us.
Since I was overcome by events, I confess I put off reading it because I kind of suspected that once I started, I wasn’t going to want to deal with interruptions. I was right. So I carved out a chunk of time when I wouldn’t be disrupted while I was reading. Glad I did.
I suppose you really could start the book and put it down. I’m also told there are people who can eat just one potato chip.
Netroots Rising reads almost like a novel. It has several narrative lines and it switches back and forth between the points of view of both authors, Nate Wilcox and Lowell Feld. It has a rising story line with twist and turns, obstacles, and complications. And the varying plotlines converge at the end.
The book opens with the state of the political sphere in 2002, where the advantage went to the Republicans. Most fundraising in both parties consisted of large donors writing checks for at least $1,000 or $2,000 a pop. But the GOP had the lock on donations from small donors thanks to their mastery of direct mail and earlier computer technology. They built better databases than the Democrats had and led the way with grassroots GOTV field efforts. Their ground game was beating the Democrats most every time.
In addition, the earliest, most successful websites and blogs were dominated by Republicans such as the Drudge Report, Free Republic and Instapundit.
Although the Republicans dominated the Net, as they had the airwaves on cable television and radio, they mostly took their talking points from Rush Limbaugh, Tom DeLay and Karl Rove and theirs was a top down operation.
Netroots Rising opens from Nate Wilcox’s point of view with the situation in Texas and recounts the struggle of the progressive grassroots and the new netroots activists in local races there. It covers the antics of Tom DeLay and his newly formed Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC). It briefly describes Republican dirty tricks in other states, such as those that defeated Vietnam veteran and triple amputee Max Cleland in Georgia, and describes DeLay’s successful attempt to force an unprecedented and barely legal mid decade redistricting scheme in the Texas legislature. The tome describes in fascinating detail the various attempts to unseat DeLay and the role of a growing grassroots activist core, which did an admirable job of challenging him.
The book then segues into the mounting frustration of Lowell Feld, who watched, with increasing dismay as the 2000 election unfolded, followed by 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, and the Democrats’ totally ineffective 2004 election campaign, when John Kerry was Swiftboated into defeat while a core of paid professional consultants and party insiders appeared helpless to counter an aggressive Republican spin machine.
Lowell had earlier enlisted in the Draft Wesley Clark movement, attended meet ups, and gradually got involved in both netroots and grassroots activism. Meanwhile, Wilcox joined Howard Dean's campaign, one of the earliest to utilize the Internet effectively.
The book goes back and forth between Wilcox in Texas and Feld in Virginia. Of course, it ends with the triumph of Jim Webb’s election, truly one of the glowing success stories of the progressive Netroots in 2006. It gives the behind the scenes account of the famous maccacca incident that led to George Allen’s defeat by Webb.
The conflict between the grassroots and netroots activists versus the party insiders and professional staff is a constant theme running through the book. The tome also details the difference in campaign philosophy between the somewhat chaotic and exuberant bottom up style of the activists versus the top down, button down professional discipline of the professionals and insiders. A traditionalist would think that the top down model should be the more successful one because of its discipline and focus. But that wasn’t borne out by the results. Democrats kept losing elections under the helm of the party professionals like Bob Shrum and Tad Devine. So, grassroots activists, especially those newly enlisted from the netroots, felt justified in questioning the old top down model.
The book does not end on a triumphant note, however, content to rest on the laurels of Webb’s and Jon Tester’s victories in the Senate. Instead, I sensed a growing frustration on the part of authors Feld and Wilcox at the fact that netroots activists are still not exactly greeted with open arms by party insiders. There is dissatisfaction that, despite all the hard work of netroots and grassroots activists, they haven’t been embraced as part of the Democratic Party’s mainstream but are still outsiders looking in. So, Netroots Rising ends with a question: What is the future of the Netroots?
I don’t think anybody can answer that question. But based on the history of other grassroots reform movements and of alternative press from the past, I’d venture a guess that some of the better blogs will eventually become part of the mainstream. Some bloggers will lose interest and move on to other activities. And newer technology will replace all of this. Things we can’t even imagine yet will supplant the netroots and blogs with still greater innovation. But one thing will never change and that is the human desire to communicate with others and the yearning to use whatever technology is available to organize our fellow citizens and to improve our lives. In that, the netroots isn’t something brand new but is the newest addition to an honorable tradition. All of the reformers, those who published broadsides and pamphlets and underground newspapers and mimeographed fliers are all part of our rich legacy. And we will someday watch other exuberant newcomers grab onto the newest technology to go even farther than us.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Buzz on the Blogosphere: Netroots Rising
The Virginia progressive blogosphere is excited that one of our own, Lowell Feld, just released the new book, Netroots Rising, which he and Nate Wilcox co-authored. Waldo posted something about it and here's something from Wilcox on MYDD. Here’s a sample of the comments, from Leesburg Tomorrow, who wrote the following:
Then, after reading Lowell's and Josh's comments, the next thing I knew, my blog was listed on their blogroll, they asked me to cross post on RK, I began to get more readers, and somebody suggested that I also get my blog put on Lefty Blogs. Suddenly, I was part of the the Virginia Netroots.
Lowell has done more to encourage and promote me than almost anybody else, except my former neighbor Ben Tribbett. And that was before Lowell ever even met me. So, I’m proud and honored now to put up a link on my blogroll to his new website, Netroots Rising. Not only does it promote the book with excerpts and interviews, but it’s fascinating reading even as a stand alone.
Lowell’s interview with Donnie Fowler, the son of legendary South Carolina DNC Chairman, Donald Fowler (whom I had the pleasure of meeting once), gives a very good, balanced assessment of the new Netroots medium. Donnie, who grew up living and breathing politics, was General Wesley Clark’s first campaign manager and here’s what he had to say:
My favorite interview, though, is one Lowell conducted with Jon Henke, who was Lowell’s counterpart in the George Allen campaign.
Because I actively participated in blogging for Jim Webb and against George Allen at the time, I had a front row seat to some of what they are discussing. That campaign was as knock down and drag out as it gets. I remember trying to describe it to a friend who wasn’t familiar with the blogosphere. I said, “It’s a full contact sport, not for the faint of heart or squeamish.”
It’s fascinating all these years later to see these two worthy adversaries sit down to a cordial interview and to read Henke’s take on what happened.
If you buy the book, you’ll find out how a group of upstarts launched a movement, helped turn the Senate blue, and made history.
The blogger who has done the most to help me get on my feet and pushed me to keep writing and thinking is Lowell Feld of RaisingKaine. He and I do not necessarily agree all the time, but it is thanks to him that Leesburg Tomorrow is here today...I’d have to second that. When I first began blogging, I wrote something about Jim Webb and the next thing I knew I got two comments, one from Lowell and the other from Josh Chernila, both of RK. I didn’t even know who they were. That’s how naïve I was. I had just started blogging and was writing mostly about national level politics, economic populism, and religion. Then, I met Lee Diamond, who was handing out a petition to get Jim Webb on the ballot for the primary. That was how I found out about Webb. Since one of the big issues in Webb’s primary was outsourcing and economic justice at home, I jumped on the bandwagon. I'd been reading and linking to Paul Krugman as much as I could precisely because of his take on the economy.
Then, after reading Lowell's and Josh's comments, the next thing I knew, my blog was listed on their blogroll, they asked me to cross post on RK, I began to get more readers, and somebody suggested that I also get my blog put on Lefty Blogs. Suddenly, I was part of the the Virginia Netroots.
Lowell has done more to encourage and promote me than almost anybody else, except my former neighbor Ben Tribbett. And that was before Lowell ever even met me. So, I’m proud and honored now to put up a link on my blogroll to his new website, Netroots Rising. Not only does it promote the book with excerpts and interviews, but it’s fascinating reading even as a stand alone.
Lowell’s interview with Donnie Fowler, the son of legendary South Carolina DNC Chairman, Donald Fowler (whom I had the pleasure of meeting once), gives a very good, balanced assessment of the new Netroots medium. Donnie, who grew up living and breathing politics, was General Wesley Clark’s first campaign manager and here’s what he had to say:
Fowler: At the risk of being critical of the netroots, there’s a sense in the netroots….lots of them are new to politics, the 2003/2004 campaign was their first real political experience. There’s a sense that there was no grassroots before the internet came along, that’s just a misunderstanding. The grassroots has always existed. What technology has done has allowed us to do the most traditional politics much better and much faster. There’s nothing actually new. The netroots sometimes believes that they invented the grassroots, or some completely highly advanced super charged steroids-full grassroots.Fowler fought for the netroots when the Beltway professionals came in and took over Clark’s campaign. But he’s right that there always was a grassroots composed of loyal foot soldiers who get out the vote election after election, often with little personal reward beyond seeing their candidate win and getting a few of their favorite causes implemented as policy. The ‘net and netroots simply make communication and the exchange of ideas easier. The ideal, as Lowell has often said, is a new electronic town square, where the entire globe can be our village....
Fowler: The underlying feeling that the Democratic Party never did grassroots before the netroots came along, that’s just not true. There were unions, the pro-choice movement, the [civil rights] movement, all of which predated the internet. The internet makes it all easier.
My favorite interview, though, is one Lowell conducted with Jon Henke, who was Lowell’s counterpart in the George Allen campaign.
Because I actively participated in blogging for Jim Webb and against George Allen at the time, I had a front row seat to some of what they are discussing. That campaign was as knock down and drag out as it gets. I remember trying to describe it to a friend who wasn’t familiar with the blogosphere. I said, “It’s a full contact sport, not for the faint of heart or squeamish.”
It’s fascinating all these years later to see these two worthy adversaries sit down to a cordial interview and to read Henke’s take on what happened.
Henke: I believe the Democrats “got” the Netroots in 2006, while Republicans did not get it at all. In 2007, Republicans are just now at the same place Democrats were in late 2002/early 2003: they know this whole “new media” thing is important and they know they should try to figure it out, but it’s still a bit of a mystery to most of them. It will take some time for the establishment to grow comfortable with the new communications medium.I could, of course, tell you what Henke said about the Macacca Moment. But nah! For that, you’ll just have to go to Netroots Rising and read it for yourself. And read what Jim Webb had to tell Lowell.
Henke: I think pro-Democratic blogs outnumber pro-Republican blogs almost everywhere, regardless of the hue of the State. Democrats have a much more developed new media operation, and the liberal/progressive movement throws more resources at their new media effort. However, in Virginia, as in much of the country, it’s simply a matter of Democrats being out of power, frustrated and in search of new venues for their voice. Democrats gravitated to blogs for the same reason that Republicans gravitated to talk radio and Free Republic in the 90s. It gave them a place to shout – a place to get involved.
Feld: Do you believe that senior Allen strategists like Dick Wadhams were surprised at the intensity of the Virginia blogosphere? Did anyone ever say to Wadhams, “Dick, I don’t think we’re in South Dakota anymore!”
Henke: I think virtually all Republicans were surprised at the effectiveness of the Democrats internet media machine. I suspect that a few years of apparent impotence had lulled them into the belief that the LeftRoots movement was just the “fringe crazies”. That misses the real power and influence of the liberal blogs, in my opinion, which is much more in narrative development and messaging to the influentials than about fundraising and GOTV.
If you buy the book, you’ll find out how a group of upstarts launched a movement, helped turn the Senate blue, and made history.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Statement of Support for RK's Change of Logo
Just a housekeeping note. Given the recent controversy about Governor Tim Kaine's endorsement of Gerry Connolly, many in the progressive blogosphere, who supported him enthusiastically in his 2005 gubernatorial race, are understandably upset with his decision. My own personal feelings are in this post.
Out of respect for the RK community, which has altered its logo to read RK, I have changed their name on my blogroll to support their decision. If they ever change it back, so will I.
Out of respect for the RK community, which has altered its logo to read RK, I have changed their name on my blogroll to support their decision. If they ever change it back, so will I.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
New Kid on the Block
There's a new blog out of Roanoke. It's one of those annoying Scrutiny Hooligans, Hank Bostwick, who, after all, is actually a Virginian now, so it's about time he launched a Virginia blog :) . By the way, his new site is good. It's called Star City Harbinger and one of the lead stories is "Mayor Helps Local Hooligans Launch a Blog."
Pretty funny. The story, however, is serious and it's a nice piece on the local mayor in Roanoke.
Anyway, it's always good to see a new Virginia blog. Welcome Hank!
I've put your site on my blogroll. And I've also put the original North Carolina blog, Scrutiny Hooligans on it too. After all, how else will I watch you guys?
Pretty funny. The story, however, is serious and it's a nice piece on the local mayor in Roanoke.
Anyway, it's always good to see a new Virginia blog. Welcome Hank!
I've put your site on my blogroll. And I've also put the original North Carolina blog, Scrutiny Hooligans on it too. After all, how else will I watch you guys?
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Scrutiny Hooligans: New Blog on the Block Thinks It Knows Virginia
There's a new blog inserting itself into Virginia's political blogosphere, called Scrutiny Hooligans. Curiously, it's a blog run out of Ashville, North Carolina. I've been on and off clashing with two of this blog's authors, over at Not Larry Sabato, where they've both accused Ben of racism.
Now, anybody who knows Ben - and who in Virginia politics and the blogosphere actually doesn't know NLS? - knows he's a bomb thrower full of piss and vinegar and hyperbole. That's his charm.
We all read him, of course, not because of the controversies he stirs up but because of his brilliant analysis of election results in district by district races and because he's a genius with numbers. Right. And all 16 year old boys read Playboy for the articles.
Anyway, although I do object to the way both Gordon Smith, who came across NLS on his one and only visit to Virginia, and Hank Bostwick, who actually now lives in Roanoke, have inserted themselves into Virginia politics like gangbusters, without actually knowing or understanding the dynamics of either the blogosphere or the local political situation here.
I have no quarrel with their joining the discussion about the presidential race, of course, because that's not local and they know as much as any of us. But when they take it upon themselves to email, and encourage their North Carolina readers, to contact Leslie Byrne, Jim Webb, and Del. Lionel Spruill to urge them to denounce Ben as a racist, they are stepping into quicksand and will rapidly sink.
For one thing, no politician or candidate needs to get involved in a blogger war. We should be shielding them from that because they have to run on serious issues not on the rantings of every loose cannon blogger. Blogs, after all, are free and anybody can have one. Nobody can control bloggers. And nobody should be held responsible for what bloggers say.
But what Jim Webb and Leslie Byrne also know that these two didn't is that Ben was one of the first bloggers to run the infamous Maccaca video that exposed genuine racism. George Allen's. If it wasn't for Ben and also Lowell of Raising Kaine, that video would have been a blip on the back page of the Washington Post on a slow Saturday. Without Virginia bloggers exposing it and keeping it alive not only might Jim Webb not have been elected but the U.S. Senate might now still be under Republican control.
I think the Scrutiny Hooligan guys actually are well meaning. I've been reading their site. I was particularly impressed with their call for civility between the Obama and Hillary camps. Both the Obama supporters and the Hillary supporters in the blogosphere need to get a grip before we bring defeat upon the Democratic nominee, whoever it turns out to be (and if they had stopped to read our blogs before launching in, they'd know that I have been preaching that since the beginning), and the whole party in November. Here's what SH said:
Now, anybody who knows Ben - and who in Virginia politics and the blogosphere actually doesn't know NLS? - knows he's a bomb thrower full of piss and vinegar and hyperbole. That's his charm.
We all read him, of course, not because of the controversies he stirs up but because of his brilliant analysis of election results in district by district races and because he's a genius with numbers. Right. And all 16 year old boys read Playboy for the articles.
Anyway, although I do object to the way both Gordon Smith, who came across NLS on his one and only visit to Virginia, and Hank Bostwick, who actually now lives in Roanoke, have inserted themselves into Virginia politics like gangbusters, without actually knowing or understanding the dynamics of either the blogosphere or the local political situation here.
I have no quarrel with their joining the discussion about the presidential race, of course, because that's not local and they know as much as any of us. But when they take it upon themselves to email, and encourage their North Carolina readers, to contact Leslie Byrne, Jim Webb, and Del. Lionel Spruill to urge them to denounce Ben as a racist, they are stepping into quicksand and will rapidly sink.
For one thing, no politician or candidate needs to get involved in a blogger war. We should be shielding them from that because they have to run on serious issues not on the rantings of every loose cannon blogger. Blogs, after all, are free and anybody can have one. Nobody can control bloggers. And nobody should be held responsible for what bloggers say.
But what Jim Webb and Leslie Byrne also know that these two didn't is that Ben was one of the first bloggers to run the infamous Maccaca video that exposed genuine racism. George Allen's. If it wasn't for Ben and also Lowell of Raising Kaine, that video would have been a blip on the back page of the Washington Post on a slow Saturday. Without Virginia bloggers exposing it and keeping it alive not only might Jim Webb not have been elected but the U.S. Senate might now still be under Republican control.
I think the Scrutiny Hooligan guys actually are well meaning. I've been reading their site. I was particularly impressed with their call for civility between the Obama and Hillary camps. Both the Obama supporters and the Hillary supporters in the blogosphere need to get a grip before we bring defeat upon the Democratic nominee, whoever it turns out to be (and if they had stopped to read our blogs before launching in, they'd know that I have been preaching that since the beginning), and the whole party in November. Here's what SH said:
Most surprisingly, though, is the way Senator Clinton has been vilified by those who profess to be left-leaning, progressive or liberal bloggers. Consider a site like Washington State’s The Progressive Review. PR purports to support the progressive agenda but the site is slathered with links or posts containing claims about Hillary Clinton that are so offensive it reads like an aggregator of Rove’s honorable mentions. Senator Obama’s camp has rightly accused some Clinton supporters of exacerbating the racial divisions growing within the Party, but take this guy at Politik Ditto and his post “Maggie Williams: Driving Mrs. Clinton.” It appears the images and language of racism can come from any direction. Not surprising, even MySpace is filled with the most obnoxious anti-Clinton sites boasting thousands of friends, many who spread the same baseless lies perpetrated by the right-wing sites listed above.More than curious. It's disastrous for us. Both sides do, indeed, need to get a grip. Here's some good advice from our guys at Scrutiny Hooligans worth taking.
By now, most readers understand the charges against Senator Obama from various corners of the conserva-sphere: he’s a terrorist, no I’m sorry, a terrorist who (hearts) sex offenders, and a covert Muslim extremist.
What twists my melon is this guy at No Quarter, Larry Johnson. Good ole LJ basically plagiarizes Foxnews, Jews Against Obama, and Bill Cunningham at the same time he links to, and is linked from, many blogs claiming a liberal bent and professing allegiance to the Democratic cause. Curious.
Perhaps some progressive prognosticators should consider the implications of the images, metaphors, and analogies they use to fuel the snark their readers crave, especially those that impact the lives and self-esteem of members of our Party.It's all excellent advice. Now if they could maybe also tone down the rhetoric and get to know the Virginia blogosphere before firing shots from North Carolina, we could have some productive dialgogue
Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, the millions who have already voted and the millions yet to vote, all deserve the chance to participate in the difficult conversation that lies ahead, but they should be encouraged to join the discussion in a thoughtful, civil way. Many will say such an expectation is naive or no-fun. Perhaps.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
What's Wrong With This Picture?
If you are googling The Richomond Democrat, you will find some interesting results. The first link is this and the second site is this.
Two very different sites. And they are supporting two different candidates. The first link is the real Richmond Democrat. He's JC Wilmore and he was blogging even before I started up AIAW. I think he was among the first blogs to link to me (others were Raisking Kaine and Not Larry Sabato).
Lately, JC and I have had our very spirited differences. But the truth is that despite those disagreements, I can tell you nobody has done more for the blogosphere and has been more helpful to fellow progessive bloggers than JC. He doesn't deserve to have his on-line identity stolen. No blogger does.
The bogus Richmond Democrat is very clever. He has put in his logo banner "The Real Richmond Democrat" which he hopes would be sufficient to shield him from legal prosecution. The thinking is probably that that one word in the title makes it just different enough that he would be able to claim in a court case that it's not the same title and so is not an infringement on another blogger's brand name.
But it's theft and it's dishonest nonetheless. And it may also be a deliberate dirty political trick.
The fake Richmond Democrat (despite the claim that he is ther real one) also has in his logo "Virginia Blogs for Hillary." Unfortunately, he also seems to be the only blogger in that group. He has no blogroll and no name listed. Each post is labeled Peter's blog. And the Virginia Blogs for Hillary links to a different website, Virginians for Hillary. Beyond this, there is no indication on the site as to whose it is or who Peter might be.
I certainly hope that nobody in the Clinton campaign has authorized this. However, I suspect that JC will get to the bottom of it and we'll be hearing more about it including who is behind it.
Meanwhile, the authentic Richmond Democrat is hosted by Blogger and has Blogspot in his address and the screen on his site is blue. The bogus Richmond Democrat has an orange logo and a white screen.
And the biggest difference is the real Richmond Democrat is supporting Barack Obama and always has.
Two very different sites. And they are supporting two different candidates. The first link is the real Richmond Democrat. He's JC Wilmore and he was blogging even before I started up AIAW. I think he was among the first blogs to link to me (others were Raisking Kaine and Not Larry Sabato).
Lately, JC and I have had our very spirited differences. But the truth is that despite those disagreements, I can tell you nobody has done more for the blogosphere and has been more helpful to fellow progessive bloggers than JC. He doesn't deserve to have his on-line identity stolen. No blogger does.
The bogus Richmond Democrat is very clever. He has put in his logo banner "The Real Richmond Democrat" which he hopes would be sufficient to shield him from legal prosecution. The thinking is probably that that one word in the title makes it just different enough that he would be able to claim in a court case that it's not the same title and so is not an infringement on another blogger's brand name.
But it's theft and it's dishonest nonetheless. And it may also be a deliberate dirty political trick.
The fake Richmond Democrat (despite the claim that he is ther real one) also has in his logo "Virginia Blogs for Hillary." Unfortunately, he also seems to be the only blogger in that group. He has no blogroll and no name listed. Each post is labeled Peter's blog. And the Virginia Blogs for Hillary links to a different website, Virginians for Hillary. Beyond this, there is no indication on the site as to whose it is or who Peter might be.
I certainly hope that nobody in the Clinton campaign has authorized this. However, I suspect that JC will get to the bottom of it and we'll be hearing more about it including who is behind it.
Meanwhile, the authentic Richmond Democrat is hosted by Blogger and has Blogspot in his address and the screen on his site is blue. The bogus Richmond Democrat has an orange logo and a white screen.
And the biggest difference is the real Richmond Democrat is supporting Barack Obama and always has.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
New Blogger on the Block
I've just added a couple of new blogs to my blogroll.
One of them is new to blogging, though I'm pretty sure you'll recognize her name. Leslie Byrne is certainly not new to Virginia politics nor to the political blogosphere. She's read our blogs, live blogged, commented and generally supported our efforts; so, now it's time to support her, read her blog, go to her website and contribute to her campaign. And certainly, as her campaign gears up to take on Tom Davis next year, be on the look out for opportunities to volunteer.
BTW, her current post is funny and shows the lady has a sense of humor!
The other blog I've added is not new. I've just gotten around to updating though and I recommend Dan Geroe's site , Donkey With a Trunk, very highly. Dan used to known as Dannyboy. And his four part study on the Evangelical voters is worth reading carefully. It's on a topic dear to my heart and on which I will have more to say here at my own site in the coming days.
Geroe and his fellow blogger afausser have a lot of interesting things to say, so go take a look.
One of them is new to blogging, though I'm pretty sure you'll recognize her name. Leslie Byrne is certainly not new to Virginia politics nor to the political blogosphere. She's read our blogs, live blogged, commented and generally supported our efforts; so, now it's time to support her, read her blog, go to her website and contribute to her campaign. And certainly, as her campaign gears up to take on Tom Davis next year, be on the look out for opportunities to volunteer.
BTW, her current post is funny and shows the lady has a sense of humor!
The other blog I've added is not new. I've just gotten around to updating though and I recommend Dan Geroe's site , Donkey With a Trunk, very highly. Dan used to known as Dannyboy. And his four part study on the Evangelical voters is worth reading carefully. It's on a topic dear to my heart and on which I will have more to say here at my own site in the coming days.
Geroe and his fellow blogger afausser have a lot of interesting things to say, so go take a look.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Will the Republican Blogosphere Blow Their Integrity for Jeannemarie Devolites Davis?
UPDATE: One Republican blogger refused to participate in whitewashing JMDD's disgraceful campaign dirty trick. Bwana, from Renaissance Ruminations has all my respect and admiration. And my eternal thanks for restoring my faith in the basic decency of people from both sides of the aisle. I kinda hope some others will follow his example and come forward.
By now most people in Northern Virginia, whether they read blogs, watch TV news, listen to local radio, or read newspapers, are aware of the campaign brochure that Jeannemarie Devolites Davis sent out displaying Chap Petersen’s personally identifiable information including the names of his wife and children, and his address and phone number. In fact, Chap issued a press release and held a press conference yesterday, which was widely carried by all the local media.
JMDD responded with a press conference of her own where she dismissed Chap’s anger as overblown. She asked what the big deal was since all the information shown in her campaign flyer was publicly available anyway.
What was instructive was that every point she made in her press statement had already been said yesterday on the blogs, both in the comments on Not Larry Sabato (here, here and here) and as posts on some of the Republican blogs, such as Mason Conservative (here and here) and Virginia Virtucon. (Note: That's only a small sample of their sychophantic rationalizing on behalf of the Davises).
It is obvious that Republican bloggers got their talking points early and repeated them often, hoping that, like Joseph Goebbels’ famous dictum, if you state a lie often enough people will believe it. Their lie was to tell people that what Jeannemarie Devolites Davis did was unimportant because all the data she exposed, when releasing the copy of Chap Petersen’s disclosure form, was public information anyway. Furthermore, his personal identifying information is publicly available. For example, his name, address and phone number are listed in the phone book as well as on numerous public forms. And he, himself, has shown images of his children and wife on his website and campaign mailers. He refers to them often. So, the logic goes, what is the big deal about Jeannemarie sending out 30,000 copies of the disclosure form with the names, address and phone number of Chap’s family and personal residence listed? And with that information circled in red, with a red arrow pointing to it, just in case readers accidentally miss the data while perusing the document?
Well, I will happily walk these Republican bloggers step by step through why it is a big deal. Consider this the equivalent of a book called “The Dangers of Releasing PII Publicly for Idiots.”
In that ubiquitous series of tomes, with the orange, yellow and blue covers, the first words in the introduction always state, “You are no idiot of course ….” But in this case, about the kindest thing anybody can say about the Republicans who are employing the above line of reasoning to justify Jeannemarie’s actions is that they are indeed idiots. There are much worse things one could call them. "Morally obtuse hypocrite" is also one of the milder epithets you could hurl at them.
Anyway, here’s what’s so wrong about her actions, step by step for those idiots among us:
Let’s start with the fact that there are two different personality types prone to harassing public figures. The one that most people are familiar with from TV cop dramas is the stalker who carefully plots out his harassment of his victim. This is the type of person who will do in depth research, meticulously plan his actions, and spend hours observing and tailing his subject before striking. That kind of stalker doesn’t need a flyer with a candidate’s address and phone number. He will go to the Internet, the phone book, the library and even pore over tax and court records in dusty basements of public buildings to glean whatever information he needs. Indeed, such a stalker could rival the best investigative reporter or private detective. He is also the most dangerous type, the one most prone to seriously tracking his victim for years. He’s also the hardest to catch and stop. Fortunately, that type of stalker is also relatively rare.
Much more common is the garden variety harasser who wouldn’t dream of even opening a phone book because he doesn’t start out intending to harass or intimidate anybody. He just opens his newspaper, reads a blog, or sees a commercial and gets emotionally worked up. This person is excitable, has poor impulse control, is prone to acting on those impulses without thinking much about it, and he’s very suggestible. That’s the person who will look at an inflammatory piece of mail, get his emotions worked up, which is the intention of the piece, see the phone number and address and, in the heat of the moment, place an angry phone call. Such a person could be a harmless irritant who makes one call, blows off steam, slams down the receiver and forgets it. Or he could grab a gun and go shoot somebody. It all depends on how unstable he is. The most common harasser of this sort will make an angry call and move on because he also doesn’t have a long attention span.
But his actions can disconcert his victim nonetheless.
I don’t believe Jeannemarie wanted to see Chap’s family put into real danger by an out of control shooter. But I do think her intention in the mailer was to inflame readers to go out and vote against Chap. Unfortunately, the same piece could also inflame somebody to go out and make harassing phone calls. In fact, it did just that. Providing the phone number and the name of Chap’s wife and children to such a person so they could act out their impulse makes Jeannemarie Devolites Davis an enabler and, in legal terms, an accessory to any harassing action.
It was an irresponsible act that showed utter lack of judgment and no sense of responsibility. The fact that it came from a public official who has run her campaigns on a platform of family values and taking personal responsibility for one’s behavior makes it even worse.
I get it that a lot of Republican bloggers support her candidacy as the best shot at holding on to the state Senate this year. But to defend her actions or explain this away with the same lame excuses that JMDD herself has given just doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s rotten and it reeks.
That’s especially true since a major tenet of the Republican Party, one which the most conservative of the local bloggers proudly promotes, is personal responsibility. Is that just for other people, or do they really mean it for everybody, including themselves and their candidates?
There’s a big difference between a blogger spinning his candidate’s performance in a debate or his failure to get an endorsement from a union or newspaper, versus spinning a real misdeed. Attempting to explain away a true wrongdoing is one of those things that will destroy one’s own credibility and in the end will make any blogger less valuable to future candidates he may support.
Here’s a rule of thumb for anybody wanting to blog. If you harm your own integrity by trying to defend the indefensible, you will leave your readers little reason to take you seriously in the future when you support another candidate. This becomes especially true if somewhere down the road you find out something damaging about an opponent. Once you’ve blown your credibility, you will not be believed even when you later deserve to be. Once readers perceive you as a political hack and partisan attack dog without integrity it will be too late to be useful to a political candidate or his campaign.
There simply are times when you have to step away from a candidate or at least not defend his or her misdeeds. Believe me, I know. It happened to the Democrats early on with a candidate. Both Vivian Paige and I got out front in defense of a Democratic candidate and attacked a Republican blogger for uncovering damaging information about him only to learn that it was true. Both Vivian and I immediately retracted our earlier defense of that candidate and publicly apologized to the blogger. Believe me, it was one of the most embarrassing and unpleasant things I had to do; admit I was wrong. But my credibility was at stake. So, I bit the bullet and did it. So did Vivian.
It’s time to see if any Republican blogger will step up to the plate now. Those who don’t back away and admit that this was, at the very least, a terrible mistake for which JMDD should apologize will have lost their right to be taken seriously by any reader in the future. And those who continue to spin this as not really serious or not really a big deal will simply show that they, like the Davises, have no moral compass. I think that decision will cost them. And I’m not sure that Jeannemarie Devolites Davis deserves to be the candidate for whom they jump the shark.
By now most people in Northern Virginia, whether they read blogs, watch TV news, listen to local radio, or read newspapers, are aware of the campaign brochure that Jeannemarie Devolites Davis sent out displaying Chap Petersen’s personally identifiable information including the names of his wife and children, and his address and phone number. In fact, Chap issued a press release and held a press conference yesterday, which was widely carried by all the local media.
JMDD responded with a press conference of her own where she dismissed Chap’s anger as overblown. She asked what the big deal was since all the information shown in her campaign flyer was publicly available anyway.
What was instructive was that every point she made in her press statement had already been said yesterday on the blogs, both in the comments on Not Larry Sabato (here, here and here) and as posts on some of the Republican blogs, such as Mason Conservative (here and here) and Virginia Virtucon. (Note: That's only a small sample of their sychophantic rationalizing on behalf of the Davises).
It is obvious that Republican bloggers got their talking points early and repeated them often, hoping that, like Joseph Goebbels’ famous dictum, if you state a lie often enough people will believe it. Their lie was to tell people that what Jeannemarie Devolites Davis did was unimportant because all the data she exposed, when releasing the copy of Chap Petersen’s disclosure form, was public information anyway. Furthermore, his personal identifying information is publicly available. For example, his name, address and phone number are listed in the phone book as well as on numerous public forms. And he, himself, has shown images of his children and wife on his website and campaign mailers. He refers to them often. So, the logic goes, what is the big deal about Jeannemarie sending out 30,000 copies of the disclosure form with the names, address and phone number of Chap’s family and personal residence listed? And with that information circled in red, with a red arrow pointing to it, just in case readers accidentally miss the data while perusing the document?
Well, I will happily walk these Republican bloggers step by step through why it is a big deal. Consider this the equivalent of a book called “The Dangers of Releasing PII Publicly for Idiots.”
In that ubiquitous series of tomes, with the orange, yellow and blue covers, the first words in the introduction always state, “You are no idiot of course ….” But in this case, about the kindest thing anybody can say about the Republicans who are employing the above line of reasoning to justify Jeannemarie’s actions is that they are indeed idiots. There are much worse things one could call them. "Morally obtuse hypocrite" is also one of the milder epithets you could hurl at them.
Anyway, here’s what’s so wrong about her actions, step by step for those idiots among us:
Let’s start with the fact that there are two different personality types prone to harassing public figures. The one that most people are familiar with from TV cop dramas is the stalker who carefully plots out his harassment of his victim. This is the type of person who will do in depth research, meticulously plan his actions, and spend hours observing and tailing his subject before striking. That kind of stalker doesn’t need a flyer with a candidate’s address and phone number. He will go to the Internet, the phone book, the library and even pore over tax and court records in dusty basements of public buildings to glean whatever information he needs. Indeed, such a stalker could rival the best investigative reporter or private detective. He is also the most dangerous type, the one most prone to seriously tracking his victim for years. He’s also the hardest to catch and stop. Fortunately, that type of stalker is also relatively rare.
Much more common is the garden variety harasser who wouldn’t dream of even opening a phone book because he doesn’t start out intending to harass or intimidate anybody. He just opens his newspaper, reads a blog, or sees a commercial and gets emotionally worked up. This person is excitable, has poor impulse control, is prone to acting on those impulses without thinking much about it, and he’s very suggestible. That’s the person who will look at an inflammatory piece of mail, get his emotions worked up, which is the intention of the piece, see the phone number and address and, in the heat of the moment, place an angry phone call. Such a person could be a harmless irritant who makes one call, blows off steam, slams down the receiver and forgets it. Or he could grab a gun and go shoot somebody. It all depends on how unstable he is. The most common harasser of this sort will make an angry call and move on because he also doesn’t have a long attention span.
But his actions can disconcert his victim nonetheless.
I don’t believe Jeannemarie wanted to see Chap’s family put into real danger by an out of control shooter. But I do think her intention in the mailer was to inflame readers to go out and vote against Chap. Unfortunately, the same piece could also inflame somebody to go out and make harassing phone calls. In fact, it did just that. Providing the phone number and the name of Chap’s wife and children to such a person so they could act out their impulse makes Jeannemarie Devolites Davis an enabler and, in legal terms, an accessory to any harassing action.
It was an irresponsible act that showed utter lack of judgment and no sense of responsibility. The fact that it came from a public official who has run her campaigns on a platform of family values and taking personal responsibility for one’s behavior makes it even worse.
I get it that a lot of Republican bloggers support her candidacy as the best shot at holding on to the state Senate this year. But to defend her actions or explain this away with the same lame excuses that JMDD herself has given just doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s rotten and it reeks.
That’s especially true since a major tenet of the Republican Party, one which the most conservative of the local bloggers proudly promotes, is personal responsibility. Is that just for other people, or do they really mean it for everybody, including themselves and their candidates?
There’s a big difference between a blogger spinning his candidate’s performance in a debate or his failure to get an endorsement from a union or newspaper, versus spinning a real misdeed. Attempting to explain away a true wrongdoing is one of those things that will destroy one’s own credibility and in the end will make any blogger less valuable to future candidates he may support.
Here’s a rule of thumb for anybody wanting to blog. If you harm your own integrity by trying to defend the indefensible, you will leave your readers little reason to take you seriously in the future when you support another candidate. This becomes especially true if somewhere down the road you find out something damaging about an opponent. Once you’ve blown your credibility, you will not be believed even when you later deserve to be. Once readers perceive you as a political hack and partisan attack dog without integrity it will be too late to be useful to a political candidate or his campaign.
There simply are times when you have to step away from a candidate or at least not defend his or her misdeeds. Believe me, I know. It happened to the Democrats early on with a candidate. Both Vivian Paige and I got out front in defense of a Democratic candidate and attacked a Republican blogger for uncovering damaging information about him only to learn that it was true. Both Vivian and I immediately retracted our earlier defense of that candidate and publicly apologized to the blogger. Believe me, it was one of the most embarrassing and unpleasant things I had to do; admit I was wrong. But my credibility was at stake. So, I bit the bullet and did it. So did Vivian.
It’s time to see if any Republican blogger will step up to the plate now. Those who don’t back away and admit that this was, at the very least, a terrible mistake for which JMDD should apologize will have lost their right to be taken seriously by any reader in the future. And those who continue to spin this as not really serious or not really a big deal will simply show that they, like the Davises, have no moral compass. I think that decision will cost them. And I’m not sure that Jeannemarie Devolites Davis deserves to be the candidate for whom they jump the shark.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Women Who Blog
Vivian has up a post about a list of women political bloggers. It was compiled by Catherine Morgan of Informed Voter. She wondered where all the female bloggers were and set out to compile a list of 100 women bloggers. That list grew to 200 and includes women who blog from both sides of the aisle and from many different perspectives. And it is by no means exhaustive. There are so many really good blogs written by women that nobody could possible list them all. But Catherine made an amazing attempt to capture a sampling.
Many people believe that the blogosphere is male dominated and that we women who blog are the rare bird. The exception rather than the rule. But as this post shows, many of us have a voice and a presence bringing our own points of view to the net.
Thank you Catherine!
Many people believe that the blogosphere is male dominated and that we women who blog are the rare bird. The exception rather than the rule. But as this post shows, many of us have a voice and a presence bringing our own points of view to the net.
Thank you Catherine!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)