7 Comments

Previously, those of us living outside of Iowa or New Hampshire were largely left out of the process.

That’s true as far as it goes. Folks in, say, New York or Washington are left out of the process for two months every four years. Folks from Iowa, New Hampshire, etc., are largely ignored for the other forty-six months.

The Democrats are in deep trouble because of the increasing empowerment of the blogs. Their polices are generally idiotic and unworthy of respect. The MSM have long been their unofficial partners. By 2008, an eternity in our fast pace world, few will give a damn what the New York Times or CBS has to say about any subject whatsoever. The blogs will dominate.

The blogs are also making life difficult for those Republicans who misbehave. Please note the recent anger over the wiliness of our elected officials to throw money around like a drunken sailor. We want to see some action. Mouthing the appropriate words is simply not good enough.

The Democrats in the House voted down a bill which would have excluded blogs from regulation by the FEC under the McCain-Feingold law. So it’s pretty funny to hear that Feingold himself likes to blog.

I’d like to see Roger and PJ Media speak out on this issue.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll559.xml

Roger:

The pols that can write and take off the buttoned up PR straightjackets that restrict them to poll tested cliches will be able to blog and use the new technology and bypass the traditional media filters to great effect. But if their blog sites become computer versions of their mailers then their sites will never take off. The first politician that gets the idea that many people are waiting for straight talk and leadership from the heart will use the blogoshpere and blow people away. It will take time and they will have to drop the beltway doublespeak but it could be done. And more then likely it won’t happen.

Agreeing with Kevin P: “if their blog sites become computer versions of their mailers then their sites will never take off. The first politician that gets the idea that many people are waiting for straight talk and leadership from the heart…”

Maybe it’s because of my own professional bent and experience that I believe such a politician will ideally team with a new kind of PR+ghostw.+editor+blogger, to hone the “from the heart” without party-pol dampening. It’s likely that anyone not a political and emotional genius will eventually get into trouble while ambling with public candor among the thorns of sentence structure, unfortunate word choice, or wandering antecedents which can take on a life of their own in the public record. No one wants to have to call “what I meant to say” press conferences.

Also, momentum and loyalty require regularity once a blog is launched. One person in the spotlight would require backup, shaped a bit perhaps like Tom Peters’ blog, but with more substantial and varied content. Suggesting topics and eliciting a candid and eloquent paragraph from an important and harried person is a rather specific skill, requiring efficient access to staff and candidate.

The comment monitoring and answering will be important, too, including shaping the answers on the fly.

I apologize if this sounds like a commercial. Maybe it can be filed more generally under the analytic rubric of “Professional bloggers, Opportunity, Political arena.”

Certainly a business op for PjM contracting-out, I suspect.

Yeah, flenser. I’d like to see McCain-Feingold overturned, too. I haven’t seen too much blog coverage of this issue today. We have to be careful not to become too complacent; right doesn’t necessarily triumph of its own accord. Especially in this current age of disinformation.

Flenser, old flame: I have my doubts about

McCain-Feingold too. Michael Kinsley said it best: “Having more money is an unfair advantage only to the extent that it is spent on sending a louder or more persuasive message. The government can and should do many things to help make the softer voices louder. But when it tries to make the louder voices softer, it is reducing speech, which is unconstitutional.”

But given that it remains the law of the land, what rationale is there to exclude one form of media from its political speech limits and not others? Unless the Supreme Court overturns the law, or Congress repeals it, it should apply to Internet advertising.