website statistics

Archive for the 'Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere' Category

Did Ann Coulter Just Undo the Damage Done by Amanda Marcotte?

Published by William Beutler on March 3, 2007 in C-SPAN, Democrats, Elizabeth Edwards, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere, National Politics, Netroots, Rhetoric, Web video, White House '08 and YouTube. 6 Comments

David Bonior dispatched for e-mail response to Ann Coulter's slur on John Edwards

The last few weeks have not been good ones for the Edwards campaign, with professional blowhard Bill Donohue shouting the unfortunate comments of short-lived Edwardsville blogress Amanda Marcotte into the New York Times and Washington Post — and Marcotte herself prolonging the story in Salon and the Austin Chronicle. Nor were they helped when Lindsay Beyerstein of Majikthise filed her own Salon column confirming Elizabeth Edwards’ involvement in blog strategy and claiming she had warned Edwards staffers of how a netroots hire could go wrong.

One reason the incident has been so bad for the Edwards campaign is that it turned an asset — his widespread support among liberal bloggers — into a liability. While few among the netroots actually abandoned him, it exposed the possibility that a wedge could be driven between them — and his campaign hasn’t regained its footing since.

Until now, that is, and John Edwards has none other than Ann Coulter parody Ann Coulter to thank as the leftosphere is working overtime this weekend to turn this year’s CPAC — where Coulter referred to Edwards as a “faggot” — into the political equivalent of this year’s NBA All-Star weekend in Las Vegas (Pacman Jones or no). Call it a reverse Perlstein: the leftosphere always liked Edwards. Now they finally have a reason to rally around him again.

The incident won’t necessarily help him with Beltway handicappers who fault the campaign’s decision-making, although they should be reassured that Edwards quickly released an e-mail letter from campaign chairman David Bonior, pictured below, and worked it into a fundraising pitch, asking for “Coulter Cash”:

John Edwards fundraising pitch for Coulter Cash

Note that they are making the video available on their own site — this is to their credit, as traditional campaign wisdom holds that you don’t want to keep a negative story going. But this attack was so meanspirited and witless and obviously saying far more about Coulter than Edwards that there is virtually no downside.

The rightosphere can denounce her all they like — calling her a “verbal suicide bomber” and likening her to David Duke and Michael Moore — but they can’t make up for the YouTube-ready audience laughter and applause that greeted Coulter’s remarks.

For the same reason, Howard Dean’s call for the GOP frontrunners to denounce Coulter’s remarks was pretty smart, too. He got his presidential denunciations on short order, but some conservatives refocused their ire on him and effectively defended Coulter. Liberal bloggers may have painted a picture of the conservative blogosphere as a mere appendage of the right-wing establishment, but there’s no way Glenn Greenwald will let Ed Morrissey speak for the movement on this one.

Only CPAC can do that now. Will the conference organizers announce that Ann Coulter will not be invited next year? Her post-9/11 “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” column got her axed from NRO, so they would even have the cover of precedent. Or are they too fearful losing Coulter’s College Republican fan base?

P.S. What do we make of the fact that PoliPundit blogger and Duncan Hunter campaign paid staffer Michael Illions is one of the few conservative bloggers publicly standing by her, while this same week the Hunter campaign cut loose two South Carolina operatives for making bigoted statements? Just asking.

P.P.S. Beyerstein got at least one thing wrong in her Salon column — Matt Stoller, whom she cited twice as a better potential hire than herself or Marcotte, missed the boat entirely as this was breaking last night:

I called a contact at the Edwards campaign for a response. Nothing yet. It would be stupid to respond to Coulter, but it’s a good idea to hang Coulter around Romney and Giuliani’s neck.

Right. Certainly nothing you’d want to use to solicit campaign contributions…

Republican Party Reptiles

Published by William Beutler on February 12, 2007 in Barack Obama and Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere. 5 Comments

Every political blog is an inkblot test of some kind or another, but Little Green Footballs is more of one than most: Los Angeles Magazine called it “constitutionally-protected hate speech” for its adversarial view of (radical) Muslims, while it is championed by allies as an exemplar of “anti-anti-Semitism.”

But there is a crucial disconnect between the site’s defenders and detractors. The former, such as NRO’s Cathy Seipp, focus on the front-page blogging of (software-programming, jazz guitar-playing, bicycle-riding) Charles Johnson; the latter zero in on the self-named Lizardoids, members of the closed-registration commentariat that typically adds hundreds of comments to each posting. LGF Watch, arguably the longest-running blog watchdogging another single blog, finds most of its (legitimate) material in the comment sections. (What’s more, this being the Internet, there is always someone on hand to watch those who spend their time watching the watchers.)

LGF Lizard Lounge Logo by Cox & ForkumWhich is why my interest was piqued when I first saw a link to the “Lizard Lounge” — a chat room linked in the upper right-hand corner of Johnson’s website. It seems to have opened in November 2006, and like the primary LGF community, is restricted to the registered. There’s no telling when, or if, registration will be opened again.

Johnson is already known for putting comment-submission filters on unambiguous slurs. But people will always find a way, and the comment restrictions may have helped spur along more, um, creative slurs such as “moose limbs” and “Koranimals.” Could the creation of a Lounge, off-limits to detractors such as former business partner Dennis the Peasant, be another way to shelter the community from criticism?

That answer probably depends on one’s existing feelings about LGF. However, with at least an attempt at objectivity, I compared the LGF archives from October 2006, the first month before the Lizard Lounge went online, and January 2007, the most recent calendar month for which it has been open.

Survey says? I got nothing. I find no drop-off in comments in January that would suggest the Lizardoids had taken their less defensible slang behind closed doors. And though LGF Watch can hardly be considered a disinterested arbiter of Little Green Footballs’ rhetoric, they did post 9 times more in January than in October.

That said, just this weekend the watchdog site did identify some objectionable comments about Islam and race vis-á-vis Barack Obama. So if the Lizard Lounge was supposed to keep the more incendiary stuff beyond critics’ reach, it doesn’t seem to be working.

Additional links and material provided by Olly Ruff.

Weekend Update

Published by William Beutler on February 10, 2007 in Blogs vs. MSM, Entertainment, Iraq, Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere, New York Times, Newspapers and Washington Post. 0 Comments

The Iraq war-supporting and -opposing halves of the political blogosphere don’t agree on much, but one thing they do have in common is an abiding mistrust (or distrust) of the mainstream media, especially when the subject is Iraq.

This lack of trust often begets outright derision, sometimes even overt attempts at and references to comedic entertainment. Today, as juxtaposed at Memeorandum, the Washington Post takes a whack from the right and the New York Times takes one from the left:

Neo-Neocon, on Walter Pincus and R. Jeffrey Smith’s “Official’s Key Report On Iraq Is Faulted”:

Neo-Neocon and Emily Litella

A Tiny Revolution, on Michael R. Gordon’s “Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says”:

A Tiny Revolution and Michael Gordon

There’s some mild irony here — the editorial division of the New York Times has mostly opposed the Iraq war, while the Washington Post’s editorial page has mostly supported it. Of course, today’s complaints are directed at the ostensibly impartial news division. Editorial editors may have their fans, but among partisans, the straight news reporter has no advocates.

Leftosphere of Influence

Published by William Beutler on January 3, 2007 in Asymmetrical Media, Barack Obama, Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere, MSM and White House '08. 0 Comments

The top of Memeorandum at 7:35 a.m. this a.m. leads me to ask: Is John Amato bigger than Keith Olbermann?

Keith Olbermann, John Amato, Crooks and Liars, CNN, Memeorandum

I’m pretty sure the safe answer is “no,” but the truth is, I’m not so sure. And if Olbermann is worth anything like $4 million a year, let alone “north of” that, shouldn’t MSNBC at least send Amato a nice gift basket?

Another hit for Amato’s Crooks and Liars this week is eliciting an apology from CNN for this:

CNN, Barack Obama, Osama bin Laden

The Chicago Tribune hat tips Raw Story, but again, Amato got there first.

I think there are a few lessons to be learned here. For one, conservatives should observe this reminder that the MSM are capable of playing the same dumb jokes on Democrats as sometimes happens to Republicans. Meanwhile, the left as well might consider that when Fox News mislabeled then-Rep. Mark Foley as a Democrat, chances are it was just a mistake.

·      ·      ·

And while we’re on the subject of “Barack Hussein Obama,” a phrase that has peaked but isn’t going away, I wonder if anybody realizes that the first person to use the full construction last year was not GOP consultant Ed Rogers, but actually… Chicago Sun-Times columnist Lynn Sweet. She is nobody’s conservative, but certain corners of the rightosphere were already way ahead of Rogers.

Another nickname affixed to him these days is “Obambi,” referencing his lack of political experience. In recent weeks, both Jonathan Alter of Newsweek and John Fund of the Wall Street Journal have both referenced the term, crediting it only to a “Chicago columnist.” Which Chicago columnist? How hard is it to properly credit the person responsible?

The papers won’t say. But I will: It’s Michael Sneed, also of the Chicago Sun-Times.

So why does Sweet escape blame for the xenophobic “nickname” while Sneed gets no credit for the innocent one?

In Chicago, the answer might be: People like Sweet a lot more than Sneed (I am not a Chicagoan, but I have consulted with one).

Inside the Beltway, there are a few possibilities, but they aren’t much different. In the case of DC bureau chief Sweet, I doubt they really care/remember. In the case of Chicago-based Sneed, I doubt they really remember/care.

Oppo Knocks?

Published by William Beutler on December 14, 2006 in Asymmetrical Media, Blog Consultants, Blog Fights, Campaigns, Democrats, George Allen, Internecine Battles, James Webb, Lamont v. Lieberman, Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere, Midterms '06, Oppo Research and Virginia Politics. 9 Comments

Anybody who watched the Virginia Senate race this year knows that Senator-elect Jim Webb ran a savvy Internet campaign. He hired bloggers, leveraged YouTube, played bloggers and the press off each other and off soon-to-be former Sen. George Allen.

But we may just now be learning how savvy his campaign really was: Last evening, conservative Virginia blogger Shaun Kenney posted this unsourced but possibly legitimate report:

If you are a Virginia blogger, chances are that the Webb campaign has an opposition research book on you. Bloggers that made the cut include Chad Dotson, Jim Hoeft, Ben Tribbett, Waldo Jaquith, Josh Chernila, Lowell Feld, Jim Riley, J.C. Wilmore, Jon Henke, and a host of others. These are not your typical background checks either… a significant amount of money was spent crafting the kind of opposition research one would typically find on a candidate running for public office. It seems as if the Webb campaign made a strategic decision to unleash this opposition research if something damaging came out against their candidate, simply to personally slander the blogger making the claim.

Slander might not be the right word here; assuming the dirt was true, “smear” would probably cover it just fine. Many of Kenney’s commenters wanted proof. None has surfaced as yet, but they did get the next best thing in an apparent confirmation from liberal Virginia blogger Ben Tribbett, who is Not Larry Sabato:

What I have been told by some reliable sources is that Shaun’s report is very close to reality. However, I am hearing that the list of bloggers researched is “smaller” than Shaun’s list, while the amount of information compiled on those bloggers chosen is “very large” … The staff involved can not keep their story straight. One person pointed out they had a report done on them, and we should feel complimented, and another denied any such thing existed. I’m hearing “yes” on J.C. Wilmore, Jon Henke, myself and Lowell Feld, and working on confirmation on others. If this list stays slanted to the Democrats, we can assume these reports were generated for potential retribution instead of proactive research.

That bloggers in opposing political camps are giving credence to the story is what makes it credible, and the Webb campaign targeting bloggers in opposing political camps is what makes it interesting. (There is another reason why this story is notable, and we’ll get to it shortly.) Of course, let me add that right now this story remains purely a rumor. Repeat: There is no actual evidence to support these claims, only the integrity of the bloggers involved. End disclaimer.

It might come as a minor revelation that political campaigns would look into the backgrounds of bloggers who oppose them, but as long as the oppo research stays on safe legal ground, there’s nothing particularly controversial here. But what of the supposed research into Webb’s allies — and employees? Feld heads up Virginia’s biggest liberal blog, Raising Kaine, and was employed by Webb as netroots coordinator. Why on Earth would he want to risk alienating his chief ally in the blogosphere?

Easy: To protect himself. Everybody who follows politics at least casually knows about oppo research, but the flip-side of that seamy-but-crucial campaign activity is what’s called self-research.

It shouldn’t be too surprising that the Webb campaign would do this, if they did this. Recent history gives us good reason to assume that politicians are wary of bloggers, certainly more so than traditional volunteers (who do not make a point of expressing their opinions in public).

Recall not just the blackface controversy in this year’s CT SEN race — after which Ned Lamont unconvincingly blurted to reporters: “I don’t know anything about the blogs” — but also the infamous “screw them” moment in 2004, where then-rising blog star Markos Moulitsas callously dismissed the deaths of American contractors in Iraq.

Some Virginia bloggers assume this research might have been used for character assassination, but what’s more likely is the Dem-side research was done to decide whether to hire Feld in the first place, and whether to associate with other bloggers. Do we really expect that a Senate campaign wouldn’t do this kind of due diligence?

There is certainly some political risk in doing so; bloggers often don’t like being part of “poltics as usual,” and that’s certainly what this is. If Webb really was cagey enough to research not just his opponent’s allied bloggers but his own as well, many think that would put him over the line from “shrewd” to “paranoid.” Indeed, it would be highly cynical of Webb to imagine that Feld might turn around and start attacking him before the race concluded. But it’s less cynical to think that someone not on his payroll — Tribbett, Jaquith, Wilmore — might do so. In politics, cynicism pays. And where it comes to the blogosphere, right now every campaign is making it up as they go along.

Wilmore, who writes The Richmond Democrat, does not think that this is necessarily Webb’s doing:

I don’t think this story is about Jim Webb. I think it’s about Jessica Vanden Berg, and it seems to me that this is really two stories. The first story is that the Webb campaign did oppo research on Republican opposition bloggers. To me this only makes sense. Members of Allen’s “A-Team” and “B-Team” had certainly injected themselves into the political process and were fair game. For my part, I know for a fact that I was oppo’d by the Allen campaign. I have no complaints on that score … The second story is where the controversial part of this incident lies. Did Jessica Vanden Berg authorize opposition research on prominent Democratic bloggers who were allied to (and in some cases employed by) the Webb campaign? Were research dossiers or “books” compiled on some of Webb’s key supporters? It’s an important question. It implies that we were considered threats to the Webb campaign, which is odd, because most of us were involved, to some degree or another, in getting the Webb campaign off the ground. … No, it seems unlikely to me that we were perceived as a threat to Jim Webb. But were we a threat to Jessica Vanden Berg? Were we were oppo’d for that reason? Did Vanden Berg — feeling threatened by the dialogue occurring on our blogs — authorize oppo research on us to shore up her own position within the campaign?

He followed up, e-mailing Vanden Berg for confirmation or denial. And a denial he got:

We don’t have an opposition research on you. We don’t have any opposition research books on any people who blog.

And that’s what also makes this story interesting. This denial rules out more than just oppo on Jaquith, Wilmore, Feld, Tribbett and other Webb supporters, but Allen’s A-Team members including Dotson, Riley and others. The Webb camp didn’t do any research on anyone who blogged the campaign? Not even on Henke — a paid adviser to the Allen campaign?

This answer is either untenable or too revealing. Maybe they weren’t so savvy after all — perhaps we’re only finding out that they were lucky.

In any case, this one started in the blogosphere, but if these questions are to be resolved, the MSM just might have to step in.

P.S. Henke has published his own oppo file, to the best that he can recall:

When I was about 5 years old, I stole a quarter from a girl named Jennifer Weidler. It was a Bicentennial quarter, which I thought it was very cool-looking. I’ve always regretted that.

P.P.S. It’s also worth noting that Tribbett is no fan of Vanden Berg’s, though it may be immaterial to the facts in this case.

P.P.P.S. Also worth noting, a contributor to Raising Kaine, not Feld, added today:

My sources at the campaign are saying this simply isn’t true.

He probably means transition team, as the campaign has concluded. That said, it would be nice to know how many sources each blogger is citing, and which of them actually worked with Vanden Berg.

Bolton Resigns, Bloggers Resigned

Published by William Beutler on December 4, 2006 in Foreign Policy, George W. Bush, Iran, Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere, Middle East and National Security. 0 Comments

The big news this morning is that President Bush has accepted U.N. Ambassador John Bolton’s letter of resignation. As many have pointed out, this development is no great surprise — as Martini Republic put it, “This time it’s not to spend more time with the family. It’s for want of votes.”

In one sense, the reaction from the blogosphere is predictable — many a conservative blogger is calling this a “sad day” for the U.S., while the left is saying “good riddance” — Firedoglake has even posted a YouTube video of the Peanuts kids dancing.

United Nations building at Turtle BayWhat exactly Bolton has done wrong while serving as ambassador is not terribly clear; the knock against him seems to remain his brusque manner and outspoken disdain for the institution, as it was before his recess appointment, which is an issue itself. But nor is it clear what Bolton might get done that another U.N. Ambassador could not — and I think anyone would be hard-pressed to single out anything meaningful he has accomplished. One pro-Bolton blogger tried to do just that, but if the list doesn’t put you to sleep, you may find some irony in a conservative citing U.N. resolutions as “accomplishments.”

The theme of futility can be found in on both sides of the political divide. Here’s American Footprints, arguing that this is why Bolton was the wrong pick in the first place:

Bolton has been consistently ineffective in terms of achieving desired objectives, and most parties (including his cohorts in the Bush administration) prefer to circumvent his involvement rather than invite to the table. From forging beneficial arrangements with Libya, to advancing the non-proliferation regime, it has proven easier to get things done without him around.

At A Blog For All, Lawhawk recognizes the fact that Bolton has changed little, but gives him credit just for trying:

The ambassador position is not meant to advance the UN position in the US, but vice versa. Bolton understood this, and this meant tackling the issues of rampant corruption in the Secretariat and pushing for action on Darfur and other human rights crises. It meant standing up for the rights of our allies, including Israel that came under constant attack from Islamic terrorist groups, and the UN General Assembly instead sought to limit Israel’s response. Bolton tried to deal with Darfur, and ran into roadblocks in the form of China and Russia. The same thing happened on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, which continues to proceed at full speed.

As the headline of this post indicates, the general atmosphere, at least on the right, is one of disappointed acceptance. Perhaps the most succinct is Allahpundit at Hot Air:

Not a surprise, really. Bad things happen when you lose your majority.

But there are a few on both sides who badly overstate the importance of this development. On the left, we have Middle Earth Journal calling Bolton a “national disaster for the country.” But the clear winner of this dubious contest is Macsmind, on the right, who writes:

Expected, but simply a foretaste of what danger the Democratic Party will be putting the country in in the next two years. … As for that ass-clown Rino Lincoln Chafee, if there were a death penalty for being a moral coward I would happily throw the switch.

Wow. If there was a death penalty for being a moral coward, the first order of business would have to be be removing cowardice from the list of capital crimes. Also, I’m not sure that “cowardice” best describes Chafee’s opposition to Bolton — is “obstinacy” not enough?

But back to the point — what danger does he refer to? I assume he means the Iranian nuclear program, and a nuclear Iran would indeed be a dangerous development. But there’s a lot more to it than John Bolton. Other than the fact that he currently occupies the ambassador position, why is he our last hope? Assuming Iran can be stopped at the United Nations, that is — isn’t the problem with the U.N. supposed to be that it’s ineffective?

It is possible that Bolton’s known dislike for the U.N. hampered his ability to work with other ambassadors and effect change, though the list of resolutions linked above indicates they can at least stand to be in the same room together. It’s also possible that U.N. incompetence and corruption simply cannot be overcome, or at least couldn’t in the last two years. As we try to advance our interests in the organization, so do fairweather friends such as China, Russia, France and non-friends such as Venezuela and, of course, Iran. Shouldn’t we expect a stalemate?

Whether Bolton was good for the country or bad for the country I don’t know enough to say. But one ambassador — let alone the Walrus himself — is not the difference between success (however that’s defined) and failure (which the U.N. seems quite good at).

Photo credit: This site.

Newt Gingrich is Not Running for President

Published by William Beutler on November 30, 2006 in Campaigns, Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere, Newt Gingrich, Republicans, Rhetoric and White House '08. 5 Comments

No, that’s not exactly what he said, but whether he meant to effectively drop out of the presidential race or not, that’s just what he did this week in New Hampshire. Amidst the controversy surrounding his calling the Iraq war a failure this week, this tidbit has fallen through the cracks. So let’s get down, reach as far as we can, and maybe we can knock this back into reach:

A few minutes ago, the MSNBC chyron announced that Gingrich won’t decide on a presidential run until next September. The sound was off and they’ve moved on to other segments, but I believe they’re referring to this report by James Pindell:

Gingrich said he is more concerned with injecting ideas into the campaign than himself. Monday night at a First Amendment dinner in Manchester and again Tuesday morning he said he will not consider running for president until September 2007, a relatively late date.

The third quarter of 2007 is way too late to start playing the staffing game — by that point every other candidate will have already signed up the top rung of advisers. That’s not to say a candidate couldn’t get in late and still succeed; if Wes Clark had been a better candidate, he might have pulled that off. But it’s not clear Gingrich is this kind of candidate, either. If Gingrich is waiting that long, then he’s not seriously thinking of running for president. Worse, he doesn’t even realize he should be making people think that he actually is.

NY Daily News 1995 Newt Gingrich Cry Baby coverThis must come as a disappointment to the thousands of conservative blog readers who made him their top choice in the latest GOP Bloggers straw poll, but it couldn’t have come as much of a surprise. Like the liberal bloggers for whom Russ Feingold was a runaway straw poll favorite but would probably have ended up supporting Hillary (not likely) or Edwards (more likely) even if Feingold hadn’t dropped out, by September of next year conservative bloggers will likewise be deciding to reluctantly support McCain (see: Hillary), Romney (see: Edwards), or Rudy Giuliani (it depends), regardless of what Gingrich does.

Gingrich’s candidacy — in the works at least since Mr. Clinton’s Wild Plane Ride — has always been premised on the idea of promoting conservative ideas within the context of the election, not on actually winning electoral office. Issue candidates are a time-honored part of presidential politics, so this is not duplicitous in of itself.

But issue-based candidacies only work if you actually make moves like you’re going to run — see Dennis Kucinich in the last cycle, who ran a threadbare but earnest campaign through 2003, or Duncan Hunter (who has already announced that he will run) on the GOP side this time. But Gingrich won’t even think about putting a team together until nearly a year from now, which at that point will be less than six months from the Iowa caucuses.

Running a credible presidential campaign is about creating a presence — momentum, or the appearance thereof. Newt Gingrich, needless to say, will not be creating any of this. If Gingrich won’t even bluff, the media won’t play along.

Update: Via Political Wire, the suspicion that Hillary Clinton might not run for president gets a boost from a QC Times report saying Clinton isn’t staffing up in Iowa. If true, then this wide-open free-for-all nomination race only continues to thin out.

Paging Jackie Chiles…

Published by William Beutler on November 20, 2006 in Blogs vs. MSM, Entertainment, Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere and YouTube. 2 Comments

Any day with two stories where the leftosphere and rightosphere agree is an unusual day, so let’s not let it pass unnoticed.

This afternoon News Corp. announced it would not be publishing the O.J. Simpson book, “If I Did It,” and it naturally follows, Fox would not be airing the accompanying Judith Regan interview. If there’s anyone in the blogosphere who’s upset with this turn of events, you won’t find them on Memeorandum. When Firedoglake and Michelle Malkin agree on something, pause to savor the moment (or let your stomach settle).

Before the announcement, Newsweek had a story prepped for the issue out today that you just know the authors had a great time writing:

Regan’s imprint at HarperCollins, which has put out books about convicted wife-killer Scott Peterson and a memoir by porn star Jenna Jameson, is set to publish a “fictional” account by O.J. that details how he would have killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman if he did kill them, which he still insists he did not. The book, titled “If I Did It,” will go along with a two-part “Fox television event” in which Regan—a former National Enquirer reporter—will interview O.J., who’ll apparently spell out in gory detail precisely how he didn’t commit the crime.

Time may have hired Ana Marie Cox, but Newsweek can do the snark, too.

Next, how could we ignore the bizarre, racist and unfunny Michael Richards meltdown this weekend — making the former hipster doofus another victim of the YouTube revolution, if not actually YouTube itself. Any sympathy for him in the blogosphere? Not a bit. There really is only one take on this, although as Roy Edroso points out, after the initial condemnation, the tangents followed by some are less than enlightening.

Bonus Fun Fact: Longtime readers of Gothamist’s franchise in the District might recall that this is not the first indication that there was something odd about Richards:

Michael Richards — you know, Cosmo Kramer — got interested in Freemasonry around the time that “Seinfeld” ended. In 2001 he told the Post’s Peter Carlson about reading [impenetrable thousand-page Masonic text written by an alleged Kluxer] “Morals and Dogma.” Said Richards: “I don’t fully understand it, but I have an intuitive understanding of what it means.” That Kramer — he’s always up to something!

I’m not sure exactly how to tie in that episode of “Seinfeld” where Kramer played the O.J. role in a re-enactment of the Bronco chase or Jackie Chiles’ Darden-esque courtroom gambit — “Of course a bra’s not going to fit on over a leotard. A bra’s gotta fit right up against a person’s skin… like a glove!” — but then again, I suppose I just did.

The Eschatology of Eschaton

Published by William Beutler on October 23, 2006 in Atrios, Blog Fights, Instapundit, Iraq and Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere. 1 Comment

What inspires this?

In case you didn't know, Atrios sucks. But, he's not alone. For example, Matt Stoller and PsiFighter37 and Oliver Willis and thereisnospoon suck too. Of course, Kos sucks. My Left Wing sucks. I suck too. Chris Bowers sucks not once but two times. Armando sucks. Meteor Blades sucks. And in case you are not sure, Steven D sucks too.

Apparently, it’s this thorough fisking of this post at Eschaton by the cleverly-named Philosoraptor, a self-proclaimed ex-Atriot, “Winston Smith.” Eschaton, the popular link-driven community blog written by Duncan “Atrios” Black has succumbed to

the RushLimbaughification of political discourse. Limbaugh is not–contrary to what some people think–stupid. He’s a man of about average intelligence. It’s not that he believes the moronic and vitriolic things he says–rather, he just lets loose with a stream-of- consciousness invective. You can hear in his voice that even he doesn’t believe much of what he’s saying. He isn’t stupid, he’s dishonest. He’s simply saying “liberals are bad” over and over again in as many different ways as he can think of, without regard for whether the sentences with which he expresses this sentiment are true or false.

And, he argues, the comment section only compounds the problem:

The most disheartening part of the entire Eschaton post in question is, as usual, the comments. Though Atrios himself begins his post by saying “well, this thought isn’t much,” his dittoheads shower the post with praise. You are so wise Atrios…you are so fantabulous Atrios…you are so keen Atrios… Such adulation would be a tad weird even if the post had been vaguely good. Given how awful it was, it’s downright spooky.

To his credit, Atrios actually seems more amused with the post than anything. On the other hand, his readers show up in the Philosoraptor comments, as they have done elsewhere recently, to say things like

wow. this blog DOES suck. now I’m pissed at atrios for sending me over here; I’ll never get the stink off.

and generally assist in proving his original point. Indeed, Mark Kleiman’s “In defense of Atrios” post actually concedes

Much of what Winston says about the decline of Eschaton seems to me (regrettably) sound. And the post Winston attacks could have been better written.

before mounting arguments in favor of John Wayne and Wesley Clark (serious).

Philosoraptor isn’t the first blogger to comment on Atrios’ wan blogging style, nor is he the first to make the Atrios-Instapundit comparison, though he does offer a key insight:

I’d say that Atrios used to be less partisan and foolish than Glenn Reynolds, but now I’d say he’s worse. What made the difference, if there is, in fact, a difference? Could it be because Atrios included comments and Reynolds didn’t? They both play to the crowd, but only Atrios has an adoring chorus hanging on his every word.

Philosoraptor encourages Atrios to become more intellectually honest, although if one really wanted, the post could be construed as a suggestion that Atrios stick to what he’s good at: linking. It has been said many a time over the years that in the blogosphere the blogosphere is made up of “linkers” and “thinkers.”

One day soon I’ll construct a survey demonstrating the continuum between the bloggers who are mostly editors (Atrios and Instapundit being among them) and those who are mostly writers (Digby, Captain Ed). Though they each serve a purpose, linkers are frequently looked down upon by the thinkers, even as they sometimes depend upon them for traffic. Anyone could do what they do, except if you tried, nobody would read you, because they’re already reading them. So the Philosoraptor quote could also be construed as a bit of sour grapes (and Atrios’ fans have certainly been willing to suggest that).

Nevertheless, if you’re going to be a linker, you need to have an edge. What Atrios has instead is snark, and if one limits oneself to visiting Atrios no more than once a day, snark will do. Visit any more often than that, and chances are you just can’t get enough of Atrios, or you just can’t get enough of how full of it he is.

P.S. Can I quote a relevant piece of 1990s literary fiction for three posts in a row? Yes, I believe I can. Atrios explains that the name “Eschaton” comes from a chapter in David Foster Wallace’s 1996 heartbreaking work of staggering genius, “Infinite Jest,”

in which students at a private tennis academy play a complicated game called Eschaton. It’s a strange half-explained simulation of WWIII, sort of a Risk-like wargame played on tennis courts, with tennis ball bombardment representing nuclear bombardment. The game has arcane rules requiring a computer to compute the value of each “hit” based on position, trajectory, etc… In the passage the game eventually gets completely out of hand and the rules break down.

It’s a comic passage, all right:

Timmy Peterson takes a ball in the groin and goes down like a sack of refined flour. Everybody’s scooping up spent warheads and totally unrealistically refiring them. The fences shudder and sing as balls rain against them. Ingersoll now resembles some sort of animal that’s been run over in the road. … Nobody’s using tennis balls now anymore. Josh Gopnik punches LaMont Chu in the stomach, and Lamont Chu yells that he’s been punched in the stomach. Ann Kittenplan has Kieran McKenna in a headlock and is punching him repeatedly on top of the skull. … LaMont Chu is throwing up into the Indian Ocean. Todd Possalthwaite has his hands to his face and is shrieking something about his ‘doze.’

Hmm… sound like any blogs you know of?

The Agony and the Apostasy

Published by William Beutler on October 19, 2006 in Blog Fights, Defections, Elections, George W. Bush, Internecine Battles, Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere, Primary fights, Terrorism and White House '08. 4 Comments

Back in 2004, one of the founding members of the political blogosphere managed to blog his way out of the good graces of many he had inspired to take up Blogger accounts in the first place. That was Andrew Sullivan, and while he undoubtedly remains an A-lister, he’s probably already proved a kind of blogosphere peak traffic theory.

Another popular veteran blogger has been steering wider and wider away from his peers in the rightosphere, and unlike Sullivan, it’s one who has called himself a Republican. This is John Cole, the West Virginian Army vet and Pajamas Media signatory who writes Balloon Juice. His site is a rarity in the sense that the chief blogger identifies as right of center, but the readership (as demonstrated by its loyal commenters) leans decidedly to the left. For some time now, Cole has featured a co-blogger, Tim F., who is even more critical of the contemporary right than himself.

Andrew Sullivan, John Cole, conservative blogger discontentBoth Cole and Sullivan have voiced greater concerns about the direction of the Iraq war and the war on terrorism, and about the Republican Party’s priorities regarding social issues than most mainstream conservative bloggers (and more than avowed non-conservative Glenn Reynolds, at least until the “pre-mortem” post). Unlike many of their peers, they’ve lost all respect for the Bush presidency and reclaimed/redefined conservatism enough to justify staying on the same side of the fence.

The very fact of their disagreement isn’t so much the issue — they could have drifted apart and largely ignored each other. Instead, the animosity really has to do with Sullivan and Cole coming around to openly fight with their erstwhile allies. These arguments look like personality conflicts, and they certainly are, but are also so contentious because an ideological fight underlies them.

The fights they pick are not without merit, though it’s sometimes hard to decide which side is thinking about it more clearly, if anyone — and so I’ll punt and just say “follow the links”: a non-definitive summary would note that Sullivan has clashed with Glenn Reynolds and with James Taranto and become an inside joke among numerous other bloggers. Cole is currently in the middle of a blog fight with Dan Riehl, just concluded one with Red State, and before long will probably go another round with Michelle Malkin.

As far as I can tell, it seems Cole usually aims to stand up for decency, Sullivan for his principles. This also seems to mean Sullivan-engaged arguments often revolve around himself — and hey, that’s just what Time is probably hoping for. To use a phrase more commonly associated with the leftosphere, they’re like concern trolls* in the wider conservative blogosphere.

Such blog fights can be either great fun or excruciatingly dull, depending on how much you have invested in the squabbling parties. And considering the war’s prominence in these splits, there will probably be more. Assuming Iraq gets worse before it gets better — that being one thing supporters and opponents of U.S. Iraq policy might agree on — we’ll see more bloggers reach a breaking point, lambasting their spherical allies for failing to understand what they do now, while the stalwarts kick them to the curb and renounce them as apostates.

It’s hard to say what this means for the 2008 White House scrum, currently still in training camp (pre-season begins with the first post-election early primary state straw poll). Both the left and right blogospheres will fracture, sometimes with acrimony and sometimes amicably, as they all back different candidates for president.

Since its post-2002 midterm formation, the leftosphere has been an anti-Bush monolith, and his eventual departure from Washington (and our eventual withdrawal from Iraq) will create new tensions for Democrats and the bloggers who favor them, along with the expected opportunities. If Democrats win the White House in ‘08, we could see the blogospheric equivalent of a geomagnetic reversal — on both sides, existing bloggers would realign, some veterans might lose readership, and newcomers could pick up big traffic.

It seems plausible that Sullivan and Cole could support a Republican for president alongside their erstwhile compatriots, but probably not until after the primary is decided. But I have to wonder, when Cole has been putting his “Republican Stupidity” category tag to much greater use lately compared with his “Democratic Stupidity” one, even though the latter category was once created 10 places before the former.

Of course, if a Republican takes the oath of office in January 2009, things certainly won’t remain static. 9/11 created the right-blogosphere and the Iraq war defined it, but as domestic (social and economic) policy has been inevitably regaining significance compared to foreign policy (which again, they don’t always agree on) things have gotten — and will continue to get — more interesting.

So, let’s settle for a hypothesis: The longer an individual participates in the blogosphere, the likelihood of a political shift dividing said blogger from his or her allies along new lines approaches one.

Note: Additional text and argumentation provided by OXR.