Thursday, November 11, 2004
Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due - With a Big "Fuck You"
Over at Oliver Willis:
Look, I'm relatively new at this. I started my first blog back in 2002 but didn't really get on the political thing until the war started; this blog started during the summer. I acknowledge that people like Dkos, Atrios, OW, and others are in some small part responsible for building a coalition on the left the past few years and creating the "blogger phenomenon" that the nitwit media looks at quizzically and invariably gets wrong. These are sites I stop at several times a day to see what's going on, to get some informed opinion. Lately, however, I've been less than thrilled with the pretense of punditry that some of these bloggers have been aspiring towards.
IMHO, some of these "big dog bloggers" have been reluctant to jump on the vote fraud story because most of the evidence suggesting vote fraud is anecdotal at best, mere conjecture at worst. Fair enough. No one's asking anyone to put a tin foil cap on and start connecting dots to what might be just nonsensical splatter. Frankly, I don't know if there's anything to the Vote Fraud story (in spite of all the links I've been posting the last week to throw suspicion on the vote count), my beef has been with the process itself.
Every one of these bloggers has, at one time or another, spoken up about the potential for fraud in paperless voting; every one of those bloggers has (rightfully) complained about Republican intimidation of voters, disenfranchisement, scrubbing voter rolls, etc. I don't know if it's contrarianism or elitism but I don't buy that these bloggers are "too reasoned" or "too rational" to even mention the possibility of vote fraud. What I do think is that since issues of vote reform currently carry the taint of conspiracy theory (due to it's proximity to the vote fraud issue), those bloggers throw the baby out with the bath water.
Thing is, I've read all of these bloggers post whackier claims than what are being discussed in the vote fraud thread only to eat a little crow when the truth was brought to light. So what makes the vote fraud story different? Why is it that Atrios, OW, TPM, and others won't touch reforming the process? Why couldn't they say, "While it could appear that there might have been some hanky-panky regarding the vote, it's not looking like that to me. However, because the system itself lends itself to those doubts, there's obviously a problem and since we couldn't get them done for 2004, we need to get them addressed now"?
Instead, I'm reading, "In my highly informed and educated opinion, I think X would be the perfect candidate for the King of Cheese and Senator D is a crook," and seeing fucking pictures of cats and dogs. What I'm also seeing is a lot of people howling about how Dems need to get behind something but no great ideas on what that might be. "Oh, we need to (or, rather, THEY need to) create enthusiasm among voters... what that would be is beyond me."
The issue to energize Dems (and voters) is all over the blogosphere and no one has to buy into half-baked conspiracies in order to get behind it.
What I see is a sniff of derision, an attitude of "Let those little guys sully their non-existent reputations with unproven theories, I'm too respectable to join in the fray. When Newsweek comes calling at least I won't have THAT blot on my resume..."
Fuck them and their pretense of respectability. Let em' go down on Wonkette and say they like the taste. Let's have a revolution, right here, right now.
What Atrios said. Quit sending emails about me working with the media cabal to "cover up" the story.
Look, I'm relatively new at this. I started my first blog back in 2002 but didn't really get on the political thing until the war started; this blog started during the summer. I acknowledge that people like Dkos, Atrios, OW, and others are in some small part responsible for building a coalition on the left the past few years and creating the "blogger phenomenon" that the nitwit media looks at quizzically and invariably gets wrong. These are sites I stop at several times a day to see what's going on, to get some informed opinion. Lately, however, I've been less than thrilled with the pretense of punditry that some of these bloggers have been aspiring towards.
IMHO, some of these "big dog bloggers" have been reluctant to jump on the vote fraud story because most of the evidence suggesting vote fraud is anecdotal at best, mere conjecture at worst. Fair enough. No one's asking anyone to put a tin foil cap on and start connecting dots to what might be just nonsensical splatter. Frankly, I don't know if there's anything to the Vote Fraud story (in spite of all the links I've been posting the last week to throw suspicion on the vote count), my beef has been with the process itself.
Every one of these bloggers has, at one time or another, spoken up about the potential for fraud in paperless voting; every one of those bloggers has (rightfully) complained about Republican intimidation of voters, disenfranchisement, scrubbing voter rolls, etc. I don't know if it's contrarianism or elitism but I don't buy that these bloggers are "too reasoned" or "too rational" to even mention the possibility of vote fraud. What I do think is that since issues of vote reform currently carry the taint of conspiracy theory (due to it's proximity to the vote fraud issue), those bloggers throw the baby out with the bath water.
Thing is, I've read all of these bloggers post whackier claims than what are being discussed in the vote fraud thread only to eat a little crow when the truth was brought to light. So what makes the vote fraud story different? Why is it that Atrios, OW, TPM, and others won't touch reforming the process? Why couldn't they say, "While it could appear that there might have been some hanky-panky regarding the vote, it's not looking like that to me. However, because the system itself lends itself to those doubts, there's obviously a problem and since we couldn't get them done for 2004, we need to get them addressed now"?
Instead, I'm reading, "In my highly informed and educated opinion, I think X would be the perfect candidate for the King of Cheese and Senator D is a crook," and seeing fucking pictures of cats and dogs. What I'm also seeing is a lot of people howling about how Dems need to get behind something but no great ideas on what that might be. "Oh, we need to (or, rather, THEY need to) create enthusiasm among voters... what that would be is beyond me."
The issue to energize Dems (and voters) is all over the blogosphere and no one has to buy into half-baked conspiracies in order to get behind it.
What I see is a sniff of derision, an attitude of "Let those little guys sully their non-existent reputations with unproven theories, I'm too respectable to join in the fray. When Newsweek comes calling at least I won't have THAT blot on my resume..."
Fuck them and their pretense of respectability. Let em' go down on Wonkette and say they like the taste. Let's have a revolution, right here, right now.
