Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: If you cut and run... | |
|
Author: Stephen |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 19:13:39 06/26/07 Tue In reply to: Oropan 's message, ""often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere"" on 13:13:56 06/07/07 Thu You'll recover from your errors sooner. Just like divorce. The logic touted in your editorial doesn't make sense. >Beware the Bloggers' Bile >Wednesday, Jun. 06, 2007 By JOE KLEIN >Thomas Dworzak / Magnum for TIME > A strange thing happened to me the day the House of >Representatives voted to pass the Iraq-war-funding >bill. Congresswoman Jane Harman of California called >as the debate was taking place. "Look, I would love to >have cast a vote against Bush on this," she told me. >"We need a new strategy, and I hope we can force one >in September. But I flew into Baghdad [with 150 young >soldiers recently]. To vote against this bill was to >vote against giving them the equipment... they need. I >couldn't do that." I posted what Harman said on >Swampland, the political blog at Time.com, along with >my opinion that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had >changed their positions and voted against the funding >for the worst possible reason: presidential politics. > >And then Harman changed her position. After we spoke, >she voted against the funding. The next day, I was >blasted by a number of left-wing bloggers: Klein >screwed up! I had quoted Harman in the past >tense—common usage for politicians who know their >words will appear after a vote takes place. That was >sloppy and... suspicious! Proof that you just can't >trust the mainstream media. On Eschaton, a blog that >specializes in media bashing, I was given the coveted >"Wanker of the Day" award. Eventually, Harman got wind >of this and called, unbidden, to apologize for >misleading me, saying I had quoted her correctly but >she had changed her mind to reflect the sentiments of >her constituents. I published her statement and still >got hammered by bloggers and Swampland commenters for >"stalking" Harman into an apology, for not checking >her vote in the Congressional Record, for being a >"water boy for the right wing" and many other riffs >unfit to print. > >This is not the first time this kind of free-range >lunacy has been visited upon me. Indeed, it happens, >oh, once a week to each of us who post on Swampland >(Karen Tumulty, Jay Carney and Ana Marie Cox are the >others). A reasonable reader might ask, Why are the >left-wing bloggers attacking you? Aren't you pretty >tough on the Bush Administration? Didn't you write a >few months ago that George W. Bush would be remembered >as one of the worst Presidents in history? And why on >earth does any of this matter? > >First, let me say that I really enjoy blogging. It's a >brilliant format for keeping readers up to date on the >things I care about—and for exchanging information >with them. I recently asked Swampland readers with >military experience to comment on whether it was >General David Petraeus' "duty" to tell the unvarnished >truth about Iraq when he testifies on Capitol Hill in >September. About a dozen readers responded with links >to treatises about "duty" in various military >journals. Furthermore, I've found that some great >reporting takes place in the blogosphere: Juan Cole's >Iraq updates are invaluable, Joshua Micah Marshall's >Talking Points Memo did serious muckraking about the >U.S. attorneys scandal, and Ezra Klein (no relation) >is excellent on health care. I love linking to smart >work by others, something you just can't do in a print >column. > >But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, >bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has >overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. >Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most >extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed—especially >people like me who often agree with the liberal >position but sometimes disagree and are therefore >considered traitorously unreliable. Some of this is >understandable: the left-liberals in the blogosphere >are merely aping the odious, disdainful—and >politically successful—tone that right-wing radio >talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered. They are >also justifiably furious at a Bush White House that >has specialized in big lies and smear tactics. > >And that is precisely the danger here. Fury begets >fury. Poison from the right-wing talk shows seeped >into the Republican Party's bloodstream and sent that >party off the deep end. Limbaugh's show—where Dick >Cheney frequently expatiates—has become the voice of >the Republican establishment. The same could happen to >the Democrats. The spitballs aimed at me don't matter >much. The spitballs aimed at Harman, Clinton and Obama >are another story. Despite their votes, each of those >politicians believes the war must be funded. (Obama >even said so in his statement explaining his vote.) >Each knows, as Senator Jim Webb has said repeatedly, >that we must be more careful getting out of Iraq than >we were getting in. But they allowed themselves to be >bullied into a more simplistic, more extreme position. >Why? Partly because they fear the power of the >bloggers to set the debate and raise money against >them. They may be right—in the short (primary >election) term; Harman faced a challenge from the left >in 2006. In the long term, however, kowtowing to >extremists is exactly the opposite of what this >country is looking for after the lethal radicalism of >the Bush Administration. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |