by Matt Stoller, Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:03:33 AM EDT
So today I was at the Heritage Foundation, which also makes it a good day to debut my appearance in the New Republic with a piece Chris and I wrote rebutting Jonathan Chait's analysis of the progressive blogosphere. Naturally, Chait's original article was a hit piece on who we are and what we believe in, spinning off nice little sub-hit pieces from folks like Jonah Goldberg in the LA Times. And it's not just filtering into the right-wing bloodstream and the mass media. I've already been contacted by very infuential thinkers who took Chait's piece as an axiomatic description of what we're doing. Chait knew where his piece would go and he knew exactly how he wanted us to be framed. I guess for this reason it had to be rebutted, but it does feel like navel-gazing. If you want more, follow me to the flip side.
by jayackroyd, Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 05:24:58 AM EDT
Chris Bowers, Kos, and, fwiw, myself look to have been wrong about the Lamont race being lose-lose for the left blogosphere. I just picked up the paper, and AdNags pretty much has it right. The Times editorial page pretty much has it right. Noam Scheiber (!) pretty much has it right. There's some pretty incoherent hand-wringing about the future of the Democratic party if guys like a young Harry Reid can't get elected to the State House, but otherwise it looks he's read and understood CtG.
by jre, Sun Jul 30, 2006 at 10:30:00 PM EDT
Last month, I argued that there was only room in media discourse for one "Un-Hillary," and that the lack of consensus about Hillary Clinton's political profile creates the potential for that "Un-Hillary" to emerge from the left or from the right. Over at TNR, Ryan Lizza suggests, I think rightly, that John Edwards' star as a candidate for the Un-Hillary mantle is rising at the moment. There's plenty to agree with in his analysis. And then his piece ends with a peculiar turn of phrase:
by chicago dyke, Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 01:41:24 PM EDT
Crossposted a Corrente.
I'd really welcome fine tuning of this piece; it's not directed at any particular person(s) so much as practice for me, as I try to convince people of the urgency of the day and of why we should rethink our time management. A snippet:
Again, I'm not calling for everyone to suddenly stop reporting that O'Reilly lies, that Limbaugh is a barely reconstructed fascist, or that Ann Coulter has a penis. It's amusing (at times) and provides a useful counterpoint to the other information and narratives we discuss in the blogosphere. But to think that the ~30% of this country that still, yet, and even so supports the Administration are going to stop doing so is foolish, and perhaps even a waste of our limited resources at a critical time in our electoral cycle. It is beyond important for us to show some unity, and embrace the reality of what we are up against. A key recognition: fascists, by definition, cannot change. They can only be removed from power.
by Matt Stoller, Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 10:13:39 AM EDT
Bumped for light-heartedness, jerome
I don't know why TNR's Jason Zengerle has to seemingly fabricate evidence to prove that bloggers talk to each other (update: Zengerle probably didn't fabricate evidence, he just reprinted fabricated evidence and refused to burn the source that lied to him). And I don't know why David Brooks wrote what sounds like the rantings of a paranoid lunatic in his Sunday New York Times Op-Ed, citing Zengerle's work.
I think these insiders and Republicans are just obsessed with us.
Update: I feel bad for annoying you with this silliness. If you want to make up for spending any of your brainpower on this insidery nonsense, read this important article on the climate crisis.
And consider this an open thread.
Update [2006-6-25 8:44:56 by Jerome Armstrong]: Let me just state for the record that any payola allegations or some quid pro quo deal involving Markos and myself are complete fabrications. Perhaps they are obsessed because they represent a party that has shown it's complete inability to govern in this country, and they recognize that a people-powered movement is happening in this country that is going to oust them into the bin of history. No one person is the leader of this movement, but as it grows, the fight from the opposition that resists the change that must happen in this nation will arise. Let them fight, we will still win.
Another Update [2006-6-25 14:13:39 by Jerome Armstrong]: Oh yea, on the astrological stuff. I have done the new age type things over the yearslifes never boring that way. Down that line, I dabbled with planets and predictions in the most abstract manner, as one of several different predictive mathematical disciplines, when coming out of finances and into politics during my early blogging days (nobody is surprised that remembers the early 2001 days here), and since then have completely tapered out of it over time. So yea, the cons got me on this one being a little out of the ordinary
It has nothing to do with what I consult with in online political strategy. But hey, like JP Morgan once said, millionaires dont use astrology, billionaires do! I hope to see those wingnuts that are obsessed with every little thing I do at the next bikram yoga or vipassana meditation session in DC-- but fair warning that I believe we evolved from monkeys!