home

Brands, Political Discourse and Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:31:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Getting past the smarmy pretension exhibited by Matt Yglesias and Dan Drezner in this discussion, at the 8:20 mark Matt makes an important point about brands in the political discourse. Not just for the Media, but for the entire chain, from the Times to the blogosphere. Discussing Mickey Kaus, Matt says:

It is not a political position that [Mickey Kaus]is espousing, [it is] a media product. . . . Mickey has created this persona for hmself, it is not . . . dishonest persona . . . but he is playing the Mickey Kaus character for Slate. And that is the same for columnists and stuff [I read "stuff" as all of the players in the political discussion] . . . . That is just the reality of it.

This is absolutely true. Everyone in the Media food chain is playing to persona. From figurative top to bottom. And that brings me back to what I always want to talk about, Iraq.

Previously, I wrote:

One of the most maddening things about the reaction of Move On and much of the Netroots to the disastrous House bill on Iraq funding is the newfound belief that it is now their role to be the "pragmatic conciliators" who need to cut deals.

. . . When did activists and Netroots People Power come to believe that they will be portrayed as reasonable compromisers in this? Do they not realize their role in all this? And how they will be portrayed no matter what?

I think this problem has been demonstrated in the results of the Iraq Supplemental debate. Will this change now? We'll see.

< MSNBC Permits Obvious GOP Falsehood | Iraq Supplemental: The Dem Gift To The GOP >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Brands, Political Discourse and Iraq | 10 comments (10 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    ditto (none / 0) (#1)
    by Semanticleo on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:48:44 PM EST
    "And that brings me back to what I always want to talk about, Iraq."

    Indeedy.  All roads lead to Iraq.(Follow the money)

    If Bush vetoes this next "compromise" (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:51:53 PM EST
    he might actually help unify the caucus behind something resembling your plan. I'm not holding my breath, though.

    Why The Netroots Sucks (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:58:37 PM EST
    This post from Bowers says it all. The man is investing time and resources to prove his hate on Hillary/Clinton Poll Inflation Theory. And his thinking is so inane as to be embarrassing:

    Hillary Clinton scores less well online than she does in live interviewer polling. Overall, Clinton gets 32% in the combined Cook Political Report/RT Strategies polls, just 24% in the YouGov America online poll. The big differences: Among Baby-boomers and in the West, the online panelists were less likely than respondents to a live interviewer poll to make Clinton their first choice for the nomination. Hispanics online are much less likely than respondents on the phone to support Clinton.

    Obama's scores are very similar online to what he scores in live interviewer polls. Overall, Obama gets 24% with live interviewers, 23% online. Obama tends to score as well or better online among younger voters, much worse among the oldest voters, and not as well online among African-Americans as he does under the live interviewer methodology.

    . . . While I have not had the time to go over it in full detail yet, on the surface it seems to support the idea that Clinton is not ahead nationally by the amount that traditional, live-interviewer polls suggest.

    Um, how in blazes does it do that? A self selected online poll, no matter what the weighting techniques simply is not a good poll yet. Bowers has lost his gourd in his drive to bring down Hillary. I saw him like this in 2003 and 2004 about how Dean was unbeatable.

    But the stupidity of it all is who gives a crap about polling this far out? What kind of Netroots leader is doing this? Honestly, this is just pathetic.

    We need a new Netroots.

    To begin with, it's boring (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:09:25 PM EST
    And frankly, I know this is the most dangerous question of the blogosphere, but what gives him special insight into polling methodology?

    Iraq is the issue.

    Parent

    Nothing (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:10:50 PM EST
    But that's not the issue, it is lousy analysis even if he was an expert.

    Parent
    Seems so (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:16:48 PM EST
    In my non-expert opinion, he'd be more convincing if he just said that national polls don't matter, and moved on.

    Meanwhile, I see people trying to claim that Feed and Forage can be used to buy arms.

    Parent

    if you point this out to bowers (none / 0) (#9)
    by Stewieeeee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:03:43 PM EST
    on mydd you'll get a warning first.


    Parent
    Reading this particular, I wondered, how will (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:12:34 PM EST
    BTD segue into defunding.  Oh.

    This is just a suggestion (none / 0) (#8)
    by Stewieeeee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:58:55 PM EST
    If the question here is why a group of people who have taken on a specific role will suddenly try to shrug off that role and become something else that no one will let them be anyway?

    This is just a suggestion.  It was often stated that one of the reasons why Dems must brook no compromise whatsoever was because as a MINORITY party, one is brokering that compromise from a position of weakness.

    It appears these same people might now be under the impression that they are now the MAJORITY party and that they are brokering compromises from a position of strength.

    And it's fair to point out that, with respect to this white house, it is a bad error to think that way, that with respect to Bush's White House, dems should effectively think of themselves as still the minority party.

    At least as far as Iraq is concerned.

    I just wanted to offer a reason why these groups would now be doing what they're doing that doesn't force one to conclude they have suddenly turned into idiots.

    Here's another way dems are still, effectively, a minority party.  The media.

    We may have the congressional majorities but as far as public discourse goes on the issue, the media still allows republicans to win the framing battles and they still outnumber dems on the weekly news shows like what, 3 to 1 (i don't keep track).  at least those battles that aren't so obviously refuted by the painful facts on the ground.

    Ha! I knew you were linking to Bloggingheads! (none / 0) (#10)
    by jerry on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:41:38 PM EST
    Trickery trickery!  Still no way I am going back there.

    Nice move, BTD, but I outsmarted you.  You shall maybe try again in the future, and we shall place this little game again!

    Brands, Political Discourse and Iraq | 10 comments (10 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment