Monday, September 25, 2006
I'd argue that the most important part of blogging (especially political blogging) is the fact that readers can comment. Sure, anyone can stand out on a street corner with a "Walberg=Bad" sign, and anyone can go ahead and post that on the internet as well. But with blogging, there's instant feedback from those hearing your message, and that forces you to work harder-- either to convince those with negative comments or to keep up the good work for the folks with positive comments.
Now, I'll admit, this is an area I need to work harder on. What I ought to do is post well-reasoned, insightful responses to all of your comments in the comments section. And I hope to do that in the future. But lately, I've been kind of busy and kind of lazy. I haven't taken advantage of the dialogue opportunity.
There are, however, some really great comments from the last couple weeks that I'd like to point out. My one complaint: Why so many "Anonymous"'s? Come on, guys, give me a name to work with!
In my brief link to the Sharon Renier interview, there's been a bit of a discussion on Renier's message. One Anonymous writes:
This is the first of any "substance" I have found on Sharon Renier. So far her campaign has been lackluster at best, I was hoping for much more from her, especially facing a wingnut like Walberg. He can be defeated.And another anonymous responds:
You guys are the ones who sound like a cliche machines, not Sharon Renier. How is supporting the troops but not the war a cliche? Maybe you're not old enough to remember the aftermath of Vietnam, but when those soldiers came back home, they were directly blamed for what had happened. They were shunned, spit on, ignored. Renier's point is that it is not the fault of the soldiers that they're fighting a destructive pointless war and getting killed for nothing, worse than nothing. She is a strong supporter of the military, including expanded access to jobs and education, for those coming home. If you call that having it both ways, fine.When Joe Schwarz launched an editorial attack on the far-right in the Washington Post, I asked anyone with links to some of the pre-primary attack ads to let me know. The Adrian Insider answered:
To see some of those ads, check out this page: http://adrianinsider.blogspot.com/2006/06/tv-radio-ad-wars.html
After Lincoln Chafee won his primary over a Club for Growth challenger, one anonymous commenter suggested that the Club was doomed to defeat nationwide, and MI-07 was the exception, not the norm.
CFG's defeat of Joe Schwarz was for all intent and purpose...a fluke.I hope s/he is right... Incidentally, another commenter on the same subject reminds us:
Bouchard is also endorsed by Club for Growth.That being Michael Bouchard, Republican opponent to Senator Debbie Stabenow.
When an article appeared quoting some harsh rhetoric against Tim Walberg by Schwarz, one anonymous commenter reminded us:
Let no one forget that Walberg refused to endorse Schwarz after the last primary. He encouraged people to vote for the Constitution Party candidate in 2004 when he lost to Schwarz.With that, today's Comment Roundup concludes. If you're upset that yours wasn't included, don't take it personally. I have no doubt it was interesting and insightful.
Labels: 2006 Election
I agree with you 100 percent. On my blog, every comment gets a response. If someone takes the time to not only read what I write but to post a comment as well gets at the very least an acknowledgement from me. As a journalist, it means a lot to get some feedback of any kind.
As for anonymous, I vowed when I first began blogging –even as just a poster without my own blog – no one would have to guess it was me or the same person doing the posting, even when I had the option of posting anonymously.
However, it has led to some people figuring out my true identity, and as a freelance writer that’s not a good thing. I make it a point to never, ever write about something professionally that I cover on my blog nor write or do I cover or write about politics professionally.
Actually, I met Mr. Walberg briefly back when I was a staff reporter for your beloved Daily Telegram back in 1996.
... And consider this your ackknowledgement!
On the anonymous issue, I understand perfectly why people are unwilling to reveal their names on the internet. My name isn't actually "Fitzy," for example.
I suppose what bothers me about anonymous posting is that I can't get a sense of whether I have a small but devoted group of repeat commenters or a broad group of one-time commenters. Not that it matters much, but these are the sorts of things that a Sitemeter account can't quite tell you.
I don't suppose you'd care to share your impressions of Tim Walberg ten years ago, would you?
I agree with your take on anonymous. However, I allow it because a republican blog I was on where I made it a point to attached my name, first name last initial to everything I posted, went to only allowing bloggers to post because someone said something he did not like and could not disprove about a friend of his. My blog is a free speech zone.
My meeting with Mr. Walberg was very brief. It was in the newsroom of the Daily Telegram, and he was there to meet with the political reporter and Doug Spade in a kind of informal kitchen cabinet kind of debate. That was some race wasn’t it? It was just a handshake and a hello.
FYI,Post a Comment
This is what Walbergs handlers thinks of senior citizens.
"In fact, the Club for Growth's founder, Steve Moore, has reportedly made this comment about Social Security recipients: "I can say this because I'm not an elected official: the most selfish group in America today is senior citizens. Their demands on Washington are: 'Give us more and more and more.' They have become the new welfare state, and given the size and political clout of this constituency, it's very dangerous. One of the biggest myths in politics today is this idea that grandparents care about their grandkids. What they really care about is that that Social Security check and those Medicare payments are made on a timely basis."
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008