Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Choose Your Own Goliath
Matthew Sheffield and Noel Sheppard respond to my explanation for Daily Kos's success and right-wing blogs' inability to clone it.
Daily Kos got its start virtually at the same time America was discussing going to war with Iraq in 2002. Irrespective of the poll numbers at the time favoring an invasion, the anti-war crowd is always active, vocal, and easily incited... On the web, Kos filled the gap.
That helps explain why dKos got so popular, but I'd argue again that Moulitsas' willingness to open up the blog and let the readers run it was crucial. He was far more interested in horse race stuff and outsourced the war writing to Steve Gilliard (R.I.P.) and to a lesser extent Billmon. And dKos's insane popularity spike came in and after 2004, by the time critical war coverage was everywhere.
[A]s presidential candidate Howard Dean's anti-war cry began to get noticed, he hired Moulitsas as a technical advisor, and started an Internet fund-raising campaign that was not only far beyond what other candidates were doing, but rather revolutionary for its time. The ancillary benefit for Kos was that it drove traffic to his website comprised largely of Dean supporters opposed to the war.
But that doesn't explain how dKos took over the world. Patrick Ruffini was a Bush '04 consultant and grabbed new and faithful readers once Bush won and he re-launched his blog. But his was an owner-driven and -written blog where the most involvement a reader could have was taking a poll. I doubt Dean fans who went to Kos would have stuck around if his site wasn't so democratized.
Sheffield and Sheppard argue that Kos grew quickly because elected Democrats, being losers for the first four years of the site's existence, also participated in the forums. That's true, but it doesn't seem like it was a huge factor. And then they argue that this is all about focus:
When you compare the main victories achieved by rightish bloggers -- the ouster of Dan Rather, the exposure and resignation of CNN's Eason Jordan, the various fauxtography-related firings, the Scott Thomas Beauchamp affair -- with those of liberal blogs -- booting Trent Lott from his Senate GOP perch, the George Allen macaca "scandal," greater online fund-raising prowess -- the pattern becomes clear: liberal bloggers attack Republicans while conservative and libertarian blogs attack the media establishment.
Kos readers are actually convinced that the media is biased towards Republicans and war, but this is right, they're more focused on electoral politics. The most successful election-focused conservative blog, Daschle v. Thune, was launched on the premise that South Dakota media was biased against Republican candidate John Thune. Most Democratic blogs are launched as a way of coordinating and stoking grassroots support, not attacking the media. This might have more to do with psychology than with the reality of media political alignment. Liberals believe they can bypass the press to elect their candidates; conservatives believe that they need to "fix" the press before their candidates will get a fair shot.
I don't think I've made this point before: the dKos style forums, which are much like the Slashdot or Plastic.com forums, are more fun than old-style threads. Anonymous commenters get to rate each other's work, get into side debates that don't derail the main thread, and if they want to they can become stars. The blog has "fellows" whose work gets to go at to the front of the main page, and they got their start just posting comments on the site. The fun factor and the possibility of fame (and internet fame is increasingly similar to real fame) are huge assets, more important to dKos's success than any external political factors.
|9.7.07 @ 10:04AM|#
"Sheffield and Sheppard argue that Kos grew quickly because
elected Democrats, being losers for the first four years of the
site's existence, also participated in the forums."
The key word is participated. Out of work Republicans
would have been hired on to serve as advisor or policy analyst or
something. The Sh and Sh argument also fails because the anti-war
crowd is still just as rabid, but a top-down format like Air
America isn't a success. There are too many unexplained details for
their arguments to be dispositive.
|9.7.07 @ 10:05AM|#
Liberals believe they can bypass the press to elect their
candidates; conservatives believe that they need to "fix" the press
before their candidates will get a fair shot.
As evidence, see Fox News, talk radio, etc...
|9.7.07 @ 10:21AM|#
Liberals believe they can bypass the press to elect their
candidates; conservatives believe that they need to "fix" the press
before their candidates will get a fair shot.
Also, I think conservatives are more interested in the culture war
and loathing liberal/hippie/elitist/Anti-Christians and that
Republican politics is only one part of this. Dan Rather is a much
bigger scalp for them than some senator.
Jesse Walker|9.7.07 @ 10:28AM|#
The authors' quote from Glenn Reynolds is pretty
revealing:
People on the right think their political machine works, but
that the media is out to get them. Hence rightish blogging is more
about punditry and reporting, and they've succeeded--note the
paucity of lefty bloggers embedding in Iraq, while the number on
the right is extensive enough that I can no longer name them all.
People on the left, on the other hand, know the media is basically
on their side, but feel that their political machine stinks, so
they've focused on building a new one. And they've succeeded,
too.
If Reynolds thinks Kos-style Netroots liberals "know" that "the
media is basically on their side," he needs to spend a little more
time paying attention to what actual liberals actually write, say,
and think.
M.|9.7.07 @ 10:33AM|#
Kos also has the benefit of the 'rich becoming richer'. Often it
is easier to go from one million visitors to two millions than it
is to go from 10k to 20k...
Of course that wouldn't work without a website that people like to
go to - and on those points I think that David is right.
|9.7.07 @ 10:33AM|#
Conservative bloggers may attack media figures more and
politicians less so (though I'd say it's debatable), but
conservative media (talk radio and FOX, for example) most certainly
DO go after politicians, every bit as voraciously as any liberal
blogger. It's conservative media's primary function, in fact.
Sheffield and Sheppard's argument is just more conservative
victimhood. But I like the scare quotes around Allen's
"scandal".
M.|9.7.07 @ 10:37AM|#
I guess the question is: If you like Kos' model so much, why isn't reason using a similar commenting system?
|9.7.07 @ 10:45AM|#
It's always kind of tricky to figure out why a handful of things come from out of nowhere to become very popular while millions of others do not. (See Harry Potter as another example) I tend to agree with DW that the DailyKos model of allowing many bloggers a chance to contribute helped quite a bit. Some of it was just that at the time Kos was launched, liberals were looking for something to call their own when it seemed that the media, government, and popular opinion was against them.
|9.7.07 @ 10:49AM|#
There are a lot of rich and upper middle class aging white left overs from the 1960s and their jock sniffing young wannabes who want a voice on the internet. Kos found a niche and filled it. It is really that simple. Why isn't there a conservative KOS? Because conservative gadfly types tend to be more middle class and less internet savy and more drawn to talk radio. In that sense, there is a conservative KOS, Rush Limbaugh. Those two really are two sides of the same coin, just one uses the internet and appeals to people living in Cambridge who shop at Whole Foods and the other appeals to people living in Topeka who shop at Wall Mart. But make no mistake, they are both media entities and self promoters and intellectual lightweights. I don't quite understand why anyone finds it so remarkable that like minded people of any stripe like to sit to communicate with each other and feel like their voice is being heard.
|9.7.07 @ 10:55AM|#
The Sh and Sh argument also fails because the anti-war crowd
is still just as rabid, but a top-down format like Air America
isn't a success.
I'll go out on a limb and contend that close to all media
revolutions/innovations are bottom up vice top down driven.
rho|9.7.07 @ 10:58AM|#
That helps explain why dKos got so popular, but I'd argue
again that Moulitsas' willingness to open up the blog and let the
readers run it was crucial.
There was a certain willingness, I agree, but also that kind of
heirarchy was built-in to the Web toolkit he used for his site. It
was the same software that runs kuro5hin.org, and kuro5hin's
programmer, Rusty Foster, was involved with dKos from a very early
point.
You mentioned Slashdot. Well, Scoop (the Web toolkit) was
programmed in response to Slashcode, which Rusty felt wasn't
community-oriented enough. Rather than editors as gatekeepers, the
site's community acted in concert. Scoop was a proto-wiki in a
sense.
|9.7.07 @ 11:28AM|#
Every explanation of the Left/Right blog disparity I've read is
wrong -- including yours, Weigel.
The real answer has to do with the basic market ideology of the
Right: Anything worth doing is worth doing for money, and since
being a blog "diarist" pays zip (about the same pay rate as being a
commenter at Hit & Run), your average Republican figures, "Why
should I waste my time? I sent my check to the RNC. Why don't they
hire people to do that stuff?"
Think about this: Could the Wall Street Journal convince 50,000
people to show up in LaFayette Park and protest against a
minimum-wage increase? No, because WSJ readers are too busy earning
a living to spend time marching around, holding posters and
shouting slogans.
That same principle is the essence of the difference between the
Left and Right on the 'sphere. The best bloggers on the Right
aren't stereotypical "grassroots citizen-journalist" slobs sitting
around unshaven in their pajamas, they're
highly-educated professionals who get
paid to blog. You know, like ... Dave
Weigel.
I could explain it all but, as I tried to tell Rod Dreher, I write for
money.
Fluffy|9.7.07 @ 11:31AM|#
I think one thing about the right blogosphere is that it tends
to lean heavily towards over-moderation of the few participatory
elements it actually introduces into its content.
I guess that speaks to the "ownership model" stuff you've been
talking about. I think it also speaks to the fact that a lot of
bloggers on the conventional right are chickenshit cowards.
The guys at LGF and at Freerepublic are exhibits A and B. LGF is so
afraid of participation that might confront their message that they
have blocked registration to their site for eons. Freerepublic
periodically purges people, not even for not being on the right,
but for not supporting the correct mainstream Republican candidate.
This is not the way to position your blog for explosive growth. If
the goal of the right blogosphere is to produce a right-wing Kos,
it will never happen as long as touchy little bitches are
throttling the growth of their own blogs.
|9.7.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Mr. McCain,
Apparently, you've never heard of Beureaucrash, which is a right
leaning group of protesters. The NY Times couldn't mobilize their
readers any more than the WSJ could. The whole righties work for a
living and lefties are unemployed losers is false (not to mention
idiotic). Hell, look at the comment section of right and
libertarian blogs (those that allow it, at least). At Kos, those
commenters would be more involved and determine more content. It's
the whole participatory media.
dhex|9.7.07 @ 11:47AM|#
if the right is so market oriented, why are they such a gang of
little statist pigfuckers? maybe "money oriented" which is not the
same thing.
i think that's a good explanation of the mythology of left/right
separations, but when it comes down to it the lack of participation
is everything. over-moderation kills any interest people have
|9.7.07 @ 12:08PM|#
"if the right is so market oriented, why are they such a
gang of little statist pigfuckers?"
Because there is an abundant supply of pig anuses, leading to lower
prices and widespread interest.
|9.7.07 @ 12:14PM|#
If you remove the phoney anti-elitism from John's post, he's got
it about right.
Conservatives are drawn to media where the big men tell them what
to think, and liberals are liberals are drawn to media where there
is a back and forth dynamic.
|9.7.07 @ 12:15PM|#
Robert Stacy McCain,
All of those wankers proclaiming that their warblogs are another
front in the War on Terror are doing it for money?
Are you sure about that?
dhex|9.7.07 @ 12:27PM|#
Because there is an abundant supply of pig anuses, leading
to lower prices and widespread interest.
hmm that's a good point.
and by fucking pigs today, conservatives preserve a future where
porcine anuses are held as private property and a valuable,
trade-enabled commodity.
Conservatives are drawn to media where the big men tell them
what to think, and liberals are liberals are drawn to media where
there is a back and forth dynamic.
ha! good one!
D. Greene|9.7.07 @ 12:27PM|#
This post begs the question: why doesn't Hit and Run allow user registration and more commenting features?
Episiarch|9.7.07 @ 12:29PM|#
Conservatives are drawn to media where the big men tell them
what to think, and liberals are liberals are drawn to media where
there is a back and forth dynamic.
TEAM RED TEAM BLUE GO TEAM GO (sorry to steal your deal dhex)
Yes, joe. The left are paragons of virtue. It's not like they are
statist controlling assholes just like the right.
|9.7.07 @ 12:31PM|#
Um, just a head's up, fellas - noting that a statement makes one
or another party look better isn't actually a refutation of that
statement.
Sometimes - and I know this is difficult for people like Ralph
Nader, David Broder, or your typical libertarian to hear - one
party actually is superior to another on a certain question.
dhex|9.7.07 @ 12:32PM|#
This post begs the question: why doesn't Hit and Run allow
user registration and more commenting features?
well this thread probably answers it as well.
to be fair, as awesome as i am - and i learned from the best, THEE
URKOBOLD - i wouldn't want me shitting up reason either.
besides there is a fair amount of back and forth here with writers
that influences blog content as well as gives the staff here a
chance to pimp them archives as much as possible.
|9.7.07 @ 12:48PM|#
Believe me I have no desire to get into a mind-numbing argument
with joe
"Conservatives are drawn to media where the big men tell them what
to think, and liberals are liberals are drawn to media where there
is a back and forth dynamic."
But really, is it in your DNA or are you psychologically unable to
stop arguing with the conservative in your head?
|9.7.07 @ 12:50PM|#
"This post begs the question: why doesn't Hit and Run allow
user registration and more commenting features?"
No. This post raises the question. Begging the question is
totally different.
User registration sucks, drives down participation and gums up the
works. Unless there's a libel problem here, I don't see a need for
it. People can, and do, link to their own blogs and blather sites.
What are the good features at Kos that are missing here?
|9.7.07 @ 12:52PM|#
"Conservatives are drawn to media where the big men tell
them what to think, and liberals are liberals are drawn to media
where there is a back and forth dynamic."
I, for one, wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I wouldn't
have phrased it in such an incendiary manner, and I would have
perhaps noted that liberal "back and forth" can be just as
obnoxious as AM radio hosts. I would also note that there is much
more dissent amongst liberals than there is for conservatives.
|9.7.07 @ 12:55PM|#
bendover,
Like Rush Limbaugh or a political blog without a comments section,
I don't have to answer you.
Episiarch|9.7.07 @ 1:08PM|#
Like Rush Limbaugh or a political blog without a comments
section, I don't have to answer you.
But on DKos you do? Come on, joe, you usually make more sense than
this. The endless partisanship is damned tiring.
Dave W.|9.7.07 @ 1:11PM|#
liberals are liberals are drawn to media where there is a
back and forth dynamic.
I don't know. You seem like a liberal and yet you also seem pretty
picky about when you will do back and forth. On the left versus
right partisan stuff you will (but then so will John). On disputes
that do not map well to that familiar spectrum you always seem to
get real quiet, joe.
|9.7.07 @ 1:19PM|#
Dave W. - sometimes the "back and forth" of these debates are
simply the choir singing the same tune in round.
row, row, row your boat....
|9.7.07 @ 1:25PM|#
Episiarch,
Yes, your partisanship is tiring.
Have you ever bothered to, you know, go to DailyKos, see how it
works, and how it is different from conservative web sites?
Or is the fact that they are liberals all you need to know?
|9.7.07 @ 1:27PM|#
Dave W,
Discussions that generate conflict are always going to create more
interest. That's hardly something that's unique to me. Look at the
teevee news.
|9.7.07 @ 1:29PM|#
Let me translate Joe into something less inflammatory:
Liberals REALLY like to argue. Sites like Dkos allow the arguments
to happen, but with just enough community moderation to prevent
FreeRepublic/DU cesspits (and community prevents it from feeling
authoritarian. The number of out-right bannings on Dkos are
suprisingly low).
Liberals are famous for liking to argue amongst themselves. There's
jokes going back 50 years about it..."I don't belong to any
organized political party, I'm a Democrat" and "circular firing
squad" and all that.
DKos is a very, very, very large and well-populated site that has
attracted a lot of people who like to argue. And it's big enough
that there's generally someone just as knowledgeable, if not more
so, on whatever topic you want to argue about that you can get a
good discussion/argument going.
Conservatives, on the other hand, don't seem to be as predisposed
to massive, freewheeling argumentation. I suppose mostly because
they tend to value party discipline a bit more, and that filters
down to their supporters.
Another blogger noted that Democrats tend to nominate and elect
wonks of one type or another, and Republicans don't. They seem more
apt to vote for people that "reflect their values" or "are the
right sort of people". A different filter for what makes a good
leader.
|9.7.07 @ 1:37PM|#
Yeah, Joe there is so much dissent going on at KOS. Why don't
you go over there and argue for the war or say that perhaps
impeachment is a bad idea or that perhaps socialized medicine isn't
such a good thing. I am sure you are going to get lots of support
over there. What will happen is that your account and IP address
will be banned and that will be the end of that. KOS is extremely
insular compared to say Hit and Run or Ann Althouse where pretty
much anyone can post a comment at any time. To say that group of
moonbats is somehow open to dissent is beyond credulity.
Further, Rush Limbaugh never drove public opinion in his life. You
have it backwards. He is popular because he tells people things
they agree with and what they want to hear, just like KOS is
popular because he reaffirms liberals' prejudices. It is not like
no one had ever thought of or supported the things Limbaugh says
and he all of the sudden through magic I guess started getting
people to think things they wouldn't have otherwise thought. It is
that people who held a certain set of beliefs finally found someone
in Limbaugh with whom they agreed. Look at it this way, if Rush
Limbaugh all of the sudden morphed into Michael Moore and spouted
spouting communist nonsense, according to your theory all of his
listeners would agree with him since conservatives in your world
are apparently so easily lead. Of course, in the real world, if
Limbaugh started doing that his listenership would fall to nothing
and he would be off the air within a month.
|9.7.07 @ 1:39PM|#
Conservatives just aren't smart enough to figure out a computer. A radio is easier.
|9.7.07 @ 1:40PM|#
Morat,
I think white liberals like to hear themselves talk. So do white
conservatives for that matter. The interesting question is why is
there not a black or an hispanic KOS? Why is KOS as lilly white as
the country club in Caddyshack? Black people certainly know how to
and do use the internet and are about 90% or more Democratic in
their politics, yet KOS can't seem to appeal to them.
|9.7.07 @ 1:52PM|#
"At Kos, those commenters would be more involved and determine
more content. It's the whole participatory media."
Of course it is a lot easier to have participatory media when you
don't actually believe in anything in particular beyond the odd
slogan. Seriously, what the hell does KOS stand for beyond
meaningless slogans like "free healthcare" and "restoring
Democracy"? The answer is really nothing. It is like the
anti-globalization rally where radical feminists march hand and
hand with fundamentalist Islamist. There is no coherent ideology to
the left anymore other than that they have common enemies. Love it
or hate it, conservatives have a much more concrete ideology. That
makes participatory media a bit more difficult since there are
parameters to what it means to be conservative. Other than a
general love of government largess and a hatred of Republicans, I
am frankly not really sure that the people at KOS could really
agree on anything concrete.
Looked at in that light, it makes sense that such an intellectual
light weight like KOS could start the site. If you listen to the
guy, he really doesn't know what he thinks either. He knows he
doesn't like the war and doesn't like the current Democratic Party
but he also does things like claim to be a libertarian but admit he
has never read Hyak and isn't that familiar with the base tenants
of it. I think he just likes the word. I guess in short, the Right,
since the fall of Communism is in many ways are more dogmatic than
the left, but that is probably not a bad thing for the Right.
M. Simon|9.7.07 @ 2:05PM|#
The Lamont victory over Lieberman is a shining example of KOS
success.
I believe it is the only victory they have had so far.
They certainly didn't help elect the Blue Dogs who are the Ds
margin in Congress.
If you look at actual political positions vs. party affiliation you
would find that the right won the election of 2006.
|9.7.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Of course Simon, Liberman is still in office. All they did was win a primary which was dominated by the radical fringe. Had they manage to get Lamont elected to something, that would have been notable.
M. Simon|9.7.07 @ 2:15PM|#
John,
I was being sarcastic.
I never use sarc tags. I like to keep people guessing.
It is a personality defect.
Simon
|9.7.07 @ 2:18PM|#
If the goal of the right blogosphere is to produce a
right-wing Kos, it will never happen as long as touchy little
bitches are throttling the growth of their own blogs.
I'd say that this is right. Trevino wanted to model Redstate on
Kos. His old site Tacitus started to develop in that direction,
with diaries and all, but he wanted more activism on the right. Too
many lefties on Tac.
Redstate seems to enjoy "blamming" anyone they don't like. I have a
hard time seeing someone go at their editors like some of the DK
crowd goes after Kos.
|9.7.07 @ 2:24PM|#
OMG! The blue statists have a community blog and the red
statists don't! But wait! The red statists have lotsa call-in radio
shows and the blue statists don't!
We have to do something to correct this horrible inequity, or the
[fill in the blank] statists will win!
Seriously, wake me up when we get a really good libertarian talk
show or community blog. And no, Neal Borscht doesn't count...
|9.7.07 @ 2:31PM|#
If Reynolds thinks Kos-style Netroots liberals "know" that "the media is basically on their side," he needs to spend a little more time paying attention to what actual liberals actually write, say, and think.
As I always wonder when I see people talk about the press - what
political stripe are the folks who don't think the media
supports their political enemies?
M. Simon|9.7.07 @ 2:50PM|#
John,
LOL. Thanks!
==
OK. Who gets more traffic? Free Republic or DailyKos?
Hint: the winner does not have Kos in the name.
|9.7.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Morat20,
I like "a liberal is a person so broadminded that he won't take his
own side in an argument."
The point about the difference between left and right sites isn't
just allowing argumentation over what THE HOST writes, but allowing
"diarists" and whatnot to put content on the site. They don't just
allow more responses, but more voices to put forward ideas from
different viewpoints.
|9.7.07 @ 2:55PM|#
If you look at actual political positions vs. party
affiliation you would find that the right won the election of
2006.
This is a popular position among conservatives in denial that their
policies and behavior are not popular. Are you saying the Democrats
were to the left of the Republicans that they beat? Conservative
politicians and policies lost. Yes, the Dems elected in rural
districts were more conservative than average Dems. But that's
because people in rural areas are generally more conservative. Last
time I checked Arnold was still counted as a Republican victory,
even though he's pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-ESCR. Not exactly
three conservative planks. Didn't Arnold speak at the National
Convention too? I didn't realize that Republicans would celebrate
liberal victories.
|9.7.07 @ 2:57PM|#
I'm sorry, but ultra-liberal blogs like Dkos, Huffington Post, and Pandagon are just as intolerant and insular as the right-wing quasi-fascist sewers of LGF and Free Republic. The thought that liberals are some how more open with their blogs than conservatives is a huge myth.
|9.7.07 @ 3:01PM|#
John-
Judging from the times I've read liberal blogs and the posts left
by their commentors, the only things they seem to agree on
are--
1)Bush is evil
2) The war is bad
3)Abortion (Pro-Choice)
3) Anyone who is poor, female, a minority, or queer is good
4) Conversely, anyone who is white, not poor, a male, or
heterosexual is bad (or at least suspect)
5) Repealing the Bush tax cuts for the "Wealthy" solves
everything.
|9.7.07 @ 3:02PM|#
John,
Why don't you go over there and argue for the war or say that
perhaps impeachment is a bad idea or that perhaps socialized
medicine isn't such a good thing. I am sure you are going to get
lots of support over there. What will happen is that your account
and IP address will be banned and that will be the end of
that.
Clearly doesn't know anything about DailyKos. What will happen is
that your diaries won't get read. You know, those diaries that
ordinary people who sign up for accounts are allowed to post all by
themselves. You wouldn't know about that, because you don't have
any idea what you're talking about. That happens when you consider
it virtue not to know things.
Further, Rush Limbaugh never drove public opinion in his life.
You have it backwards. He is popular because he tells people things
they agree with and what they want to hear, just like KOS is
popular because he reaffirms liberals' prejudices. Then why,
immediately after the 2006 elections, did he talk about how
"liberating" (his word) he was because he no longer had to "carry
water" (his words) for the Bush administration?
Do you ever, ever, bother to check anything but your gut before you
make pronouncements? It might be a good idea.
|9.7.07 @ 3:03PM|#
Hey, John.
Markos, the "KOS" from Daily Kos, is a Salvadoran.
Christ, you are one ignorant summbitch.
|9.7.07 @ 3:13PM|#
You can always tell when Joe looses an argument he starts swearing. Kos maybe a Salvadoran with a Greek name but the fact is his movement is completly and totally white and upper middle class. Not that that is a bad thing, rich aging liberals have 1st Amendment Rights to, but it is still a fact no matter how uncomfortable and mad it makes you.
|9.7.07 @ 3:16PM|#
"Then why, immediately after the 2006 elections, did he talk
about how "liberating" (his word) he was because he no longer had
to "carry water" (his words) for the Bush administration?"
Of course he carried water for Bush because his listeners were Bush
supporters. You prove my point. If Rush could do anything but react
to his listeners views, he would never have had to carry water for
Bush. He could have come out against Bush and not worried. He
couldn't come out against Bush because he listeners would have
abandoned him. Who do think his listeners are? I know it shocks you
since you don't get out much, but there are millions of people out
there who think Bush is the greatest thing since canned bear and
those people tend to make up the bulk of who listen to Rush
Limbaugh.
|9.7.07 @ 3:21PM|#
Yeah, you really got me there with your, um, false and
immediately discredited statement. Wow, what a pummeling I'm
taking.
Backpedal harder, John! Harder!
|9.7.07 @ 3:22PM|#
Joe, don't forget that Steve Gilliard, most prominently of the
Kos alumni was Black. There are indeed black participants at
Kos.
They sure do argue with each A LOT over there, but I'm a gun
owning/hunting/military family liberal and was, in the past (as my
comp didn't support the new Kos system updates for the past year or
so ago), very open about this there.
I wasn't purged, or even troll rated for my stance there, in fact,
I got points on a number of my posts. I now can, with a new comp,
go back. The radical fringe elements post and then the comments
rage about whatever the radical posted. It's interesting to
watch.
It's a huge "room" with a bunch of people shouting all the time,
with the front pagers and Kos basically doing their own thing,
often with a billion diaries following telling them why they are
WRONG.
Too noisy for me.
|9.7.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Of course he carried water for Bush because his listeners
were Bush supporters. If Rush could do anything but react to his
listeners views, he would never have had to carry water for
Bush.
John he was talking about "carrying water" for the administration's
immigration policy! You know, the one his listeners despised?
Your gut is a moron, John. Stop listening to it, and try, for once,
to actually relate the things you write to objective reality.
|9.7.07 @ 3:25PM|#
capelza,
Good point about Gillard.
And, oh yeah, Kos is also a big supporter of gun ownership.
Hey, John, are there a lot of gun controllers posting at NRO?
|9.7.07 @ 3:30PM|#
And I will have you know that I often swear in my posts, regardless of how the debate is going, because I am a crotchety old cuss, thank you very much.
|9.7.07 @ 3:41PM|#
Hold it Joe,
I thought all of Rush's listeners thought whatever he told them?
You mean they disagree with him? Think about what you are saying.
If Rush Limbaugh was catching flack from his listeners for toeing
the line on immigration, again you prove my point. Why on earth was
glad not to have to carry water for Bush after the election?
Because his listeners disagreed with Bush about immigration and
Rush was apparently taking it on the chin from them for doing so. I
would also imagine he was worried about his ratings, which again
proves my point. Rush is popular because he agrees with his
listeners not because he leads them. If he lead them, putting out
he unpopular line about immigration would not have been such a
problem.
Joe, you are not a stupid person. But you are so prejudiced and
insecure that you constitutionally incapable of admitting any flaw
in anyone you agree with or any virtue in anyone with whom you
disagree. It totally clouds your judgment. Why is it so hard to
admit that reasonable people can think differently than you? Why
does disagreement with you always have to come from some sinister
force like Rush Limbaugh leading people astray?
Fluffy|9.7.07 @ 3:49PM|#
"I'm sorry, but ultra-liberal blogs like Dkos, Huffington Post,
and Pandagon are just as intolerant and insular as the right-wing
quasi-fascist sewers of LGF and Free Republic. The thought that
liberals are some how more open with their blogs than conservatives
is a huge myth."
I can post whatever I want on DKos. Maybe if I posted StormFront
links or something I'd get banned, but that's about it.
I can't join LGF even to comment. I can't comment on the Hannity
boards about a REPUBLICAN Presidential candidate. I may be able to
sneak a few posts in on FreeRepublic, but I'm sure another mass
purge will come along any day now.
There's no comparison, man. Come on.
Pick a political topic and Technorati search it. I can almost
guarantee you that a huge percentage of the blogs that take the
"conservative" side will either not allow comments or will require
author approval of comments. That percentage will almost certainly
be higher than that of "liberal" blogs, with the possible exception
of some Femiblogs.
|9.7.07 @ 3:49PM|#
I'll leave you to your straw men. Like the one where I made
comments about Rush's listeners, rather than his political/media
model.
The blatherings of an idiot about my character and intellect don't
matter to me, so save your typing fingers.
|9.7.07 @ 3:50PM|#
Why is it so hard to admit that reasonable people can think
differently than you?
Please, joe, please please please say I'm not wrong please please
please please please.
|9.7.07 @ 3:51PM|#
John - a word of advice:
bendover | September 7, 2007, 12:48pm | #
Believe me I have no desire to get into a mind-numbing argument
with joe
nuff said
|9.7.07 @ 3:52PM|#
There are many people who disagree with me from principle, John.
I debate with them every day on this site.
You, on the other hand, are just a shill for the Republicans, and
write whatever you think will make them look good, no matter how
far removed your arguments are from the facts, or even from your
own principles.
|9.7.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Fluffy-
So I could go onto DKos, say Bush i right about the war, that I'm a
registered Republican, and pro-life? And I wouldn't get banned? I
doubt it.
How about if I do that on Democratic Underground?
I think we both can agree about the Femiblogs though. Pandagon is
almost as insular and self-congratulatory as LGF.
|9.7.07 @ 3:58PM|#
Cesar,
Give it a shot, and tell us what happens.
DU, you would probably get banned.
|9.7.07 @ 4:07PM|#
Joe,
Where in this entire thread have I ever shilled for Republicans? My
point was that people like to talk to other people who agree with
them and that is why people who provide such a forum like Kos and
Limbaugh do so well. I made no comment on which was better only
that I think both of them are intellectual lightweights who are
good at putting their fingers to the wind. The only real difference
between the two is that Limbaugh has for better or worse a pretty
dogmatic view of the world and KOS like the rest of the hard left
really has no idea what he beleives in or wants other than ending
the war and knowing that Republicans and anyone who disagrees with
him is evil. Who is better or worse? Since I don't take either one
of them seriously, I really can't say.
Episiarch|9.7.07 @ 4:43PM|#
John. first of all, bendover is right: you are wasting your
time.
Secondly, what you don't seem to get is that to joe, if you
criticize the left (or Democrats) you are automatically
for the right and Republicans. He is completely incapable
of seeing non-partisan criticism of the left, mostly because he is
so partisan himself.
I frequently argue with him, and he constantly accuses me of being
a shill for the right/Republicans (as he did to you). I despise the
right and Republicans as much as the left and Democrats, but joe
cannot understand that.
You're beating your head against a brick wall. If it entertains
you, have at it.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245