We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, October 17. 2011
In case you don't know what Wonkette is, it is — by far — a blog site full of the biggest Lefty fruitcakes in existence. "Frothing at the mouth" would be an adequate description. Following is a selection of their posts and links from just this past week.
Remember, folks, if you want the latest anti-right screed, then you want Wonkette!
Oh, wait a sec. Damn it!
Sorry, everyone. I've made a terrible mistake. Those were last week's links from Hot Air, the "leading conservative blog for breaking news and commentary."
And just why is the "leading conservative blog for breaking news and commentary" so incredibly defeatist? I have no idea. But hey, this was the blog site that had more anti-Palin links than pro-Palin links during the 2008 election, so who knows what's going on behind the scenes? If anyone out there has the scoop, please let us know in the comments. It's all quite the little mystery. After founder and ex-boss Michelle Malkin wrote her anti-Perry HPV article a month ago, Hot Air promptly ran twenty anti-Perry headlines in a row over the next two weeks. Twenty.
The kicker is that Hot Air is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the California-based Salem Communications Corporation, owner of over 1,650 sites, and the "bloggers" are actually compensated writers.
In other words, they were paid for the above.
Again, I apologize for my grievous blunder, and I promise to be more careful in the future.
At least, until next week.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Ever since it left the direct care of Michelle Malkin, I've found HotAir to be suspect at best.
And I find RedState has become the bionic arm of the establishment Republicans.
Yeesh. Don Surber, The Other McCain, Insty. There's lots of good to be had without those posers.
All well summed, like usual. RedState started downhill when they banned commenters from including links, thereby telling everyone "Sorry, but you're not part of the narrative here." Surber is okay when he sticks with what he knows, and he gets at least one kudo for putting partisan politics aside in the 2010 election by promoting the West Virginia Dem candidate who was actually more conservative than the nutcase Republican who was running. I never paid any attention to The Other McCain after he started pushing titty pics as a means of garnering readers, a philosophy a few of the bloggers here adhere to. Glenn has kind of lost his way. He used to be the essence of 'egalitarian', always linking to the little guy, but these days it's like a big club. If I don't see an article by Megan McArdle or Ann Althouse or his new flame, Walter Mead, it just doesn't feel like a visit to Instapundit.
I think I'll stick with Fark. :)
Well, I don't know Doc, I regularly check in at Hot Air (when I am not looking at BD's pics of his awesome vacations) and I don't think the site is "defeatist" at all.
I believe the point of it all is to let conservatives see the babble coming out of the mouths of the kool aid drinkers - possibly in order to prep our counter arguments and also to help incite our foaming rage....
Over time, there are many conservative bent links at Hot Air and certainly links to conservative websites within the stories.
Personally, I like seeing these links posted on a conservative site so I can see what the kooks are on about as I really find it distasteful to visit their sites. I don't want to encourage them with traffic first off and secondly - I find the many of the ads and headline links on "their" sites are personally insulting. Kind of like visiting a cheap hooker...
Not that I know about that...
"and I don't think the site is "defeatist" at all."
Those look like 'positive' headlines to you up above? Remember, that's just from one week. This isn't a story of content, but of volume.
"So, it is not the headline or even the text that so much misinforms you but your own preconceptions?"
I think Bruce has put my thoughts into words here.
Don't be so cranky Doc.... (on the other hand if you have been paying attention to the crap coming out of our president's mouth while he is on his current campaign tour - well, you have a right to be cranky)!!
Well, at least you could figure out what he was talking about. The last thing I remember, he had, um, accidentally overlooked the most common reason people don't read every damn article on a blog site, lack of time. I.e., people with families to tend to.
As to the subject, I'm trying to figure out how an article titled "Romney Can't Beat Obama in 2012" could be construed as a "preconception". Do you guys mean I already had a preconceived idea of what the words "can't beat" mean? If so, that's true. I have to admit I'm guilty of preconception.
No, wait -- you were referring to my Belefonte example? The impact from headlines is something many people have written about, and James Taranto occasionally mentions it, usually in regards to the NYT. He did so just the other day. So I'm not sure where the word "preconception" enters the picture. Maybe the very first line of the "Romney Can't Beat" article started off with, "Just kidding! He's gonna cream him!" But still, the impression has been made by the person just glancing over the links. Headlines are powerful things.
So are you saying that the tentacles of MSM are moving in on the Blogasphere, under the surface so to speak?
I don't know, a quick check of the Hot Air site and it looks even-steven. There are some stories that seem to bash conservatives and many that would give Obama supporters kittens. I hadn't been aware that Hot Air is now separate from Michelle Malkin, that's interesting. How did that happen? But, Hot Air is still on her Blogroll and links to stories on Hot Air are still being published.
Maybe the problem is that the GOP field of candidates is truly causing consternation and confusion among the conservatives. Hell, personally I think we had a better slate of candidates, at this same point, in 2008.
"and it looks even-steven."
Sure, at any given moment, the headlines are right-slanted, but look at the sheer number of negative links up above, then consider that's just for one week. As I just said to Mike, this story isn't about content, but of volume. That's a pretty decent list up there for just one week.
"How did that happen?"
Dunno any details. It was a good two or three years ago, right around the 2008 election. They just mentioned it briefly and that was that. Given how their parent company is based in CA (southern CA, no less), and how they love jumping on the let's-bash-California bandwagon, it's no wonder they're a bit mum on the subject.
Blame Mark Steyn. Witty, defeatist banter with some apocalyptic stats sell.
DocMerc, for someone who complains that MF isn't as "centrist" as you say it once was, your point is confusing as you place yourself as centrist for blasting both right and left. -- There are few blogs as effective as Hot Air in naturally disinfecting right and left memes through the sunlight of exposure. And, the left memes are so much more prevalent and spread that Hot Air exposes and disinfects many more of them. Hot Air is as honestly "centrist", yes honest "conservative", as one could wish for.
There's a big difference between linking directly to some screed in the New York Times, and interjecting a little "Look what these morons are saying now" before it. If you want to 'expose' what the morons on the left are saying, then you have to let people know you're doing so. A straight link in the blog world is akin to an 'endorsement'.
As far as Hot Air goes, if they want to claim they're "politically centrist", then all of those above links are perfectly acceptable. But they're self-defined as being a "conservative" site, so one would think they'd be promoting the Republican candidates, not going overboard to show how much the Left disapproves of them.
Interesting news this morning about next week's debate in Nevada. Cain and Huntsman are boycotting it, maybe others? So wild rumor has it.
Hot Air does not claim to be "centrist" but is sane conservative, which has to mean calling the shots as seen not wished.
You may wish for an intro that is negative about a link to a liberal or leftist piece but that is not necessary, either for a sane conservative or for whatever within the piece is not worthy to be self-exposed to the sunlight of reading it.
Methinks, DocMerc, you are painting yourself into an illogical and ill-supported corner.
Furthermore, these people have to know the power of a headline, right? That one about Belefonte is by Ed, I think, and is decidedly in support of Cain, but look at the headline -- Herman Cain is a "bad apple". If I don't have time to read the article, and don't know Mr. Belefonte's particular politics, I might very well assume the blogger is using it in support of his post. Rather than giving Mr. Belefonte the honor of splashing his defamatory quote all over the place, why not "Harry Belefonte - A Left-Wing Tool Checks In", or "Harry Belefonte: Racism Laid Bare?" Something, anything, other than giving Mr. Belefonte his moment in the spotlight.
As far as 'centrist' goes, you don't become a "politically centrist" site by posting positive things about conservatives and then linking to bad things liberals say about them. That's just silly.
Full disclosure: I don't look at Hot Air unless I have to, but that goes for 99% of available blogs.
That said, "The kicker is that Hot Air is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the California-based Salem Communications Corporation, owner of over 1,650 sites, and the "bloggers" are actually compensated writers."
I hear enough SRN talk radio to get the point. And they DO have one...
I think you are taking this way out of context. Two examples before I got any further: Texas is another country and The lesson of Perry’s candidacy: Think before you run.
In the first case, Texas is a whole different country. Anybody who has lived there can tell you that. And the article is a good and fair evaluation of why Texans aren't upset about the tuition issue, The second is a fair and balanced look at Perry's decision to run and why his rankings fell so quickly. And ways he can recover.
You can read anything you want into a headline - doesn't mean that the accompanying article is worthless.
Nothing's being "taken out of context". The headlines are the context. If a few of the articles aren't the hit pieces they appear to be, more power to 'em. The title of the post uses the word "Headlines", not "Content".
It most certainly is and you know it. I just read every damn one of those articles there and there is nothing "defeatist' - genuine concern that we (Republicans) are not fielding the best cancidates, yes. Opinion pieces about what is wrong - yes. Defeatist - no. Its not anything that hasn't been said here and other venues before.
You're very brave. I didn't read a single one of them. Why should I? Nothing new is being said. I've got better things to do than read dribble.
Besides, if I'd read all those articles, then my own posts would just echo what I'd read and I'd cease to be the opinionated bastard you look forward to arguing with.
And then where would you be? :)
This was an article about headlines, nothing more. It was an article about a poor confused blogger who mixed up a bunch of scathing, belittling Wonkette headlines with the Hot Air headlines. An innocent mistake, to be sure, given how closely the two lists resemble each other, so you might cut the poor bastard a little slack. He meant well. That's what counts.
Not that negative IMO unless you count Allah Pundit who has gone negative to balance Ed Morrissey(sp).
Yeah, and with Maggie's pushing 'ol twofaced Romney of the Green, where's a conservative to go?
Is Maggie's pushing Romney? I hadn't noticed. I've thought Perry's had the best chance of beating Obama since day one, and Bruce seemed partial to Bachmann the last time he wrote on the subject. Barrie and News Junkie have been busy digging up videos bashing poor people because that's what affluent, white, middle-aged professionals in tenured or union positions like to do in their spare time. If the morning links have been pushing Romney, that's Bird Dog.
On the other hand, it is a New England site, so...
You should read with better discernment, DocMerc. I wrote a post comparing Romney with Bachmann, that actually leaned Romney, and in later posts have leaned moreso. That lean is due to the more conservative candidates blowing their chances through lack of knowledge, sense, or appeal, recognizing clearly that Romney has many faults and is not by any means conservative nirvana. In short, I wrote with conservative-"centrism" in that I kept my eyes open in order to reach a realistic goal, replacing President Obama.
On another note, you say that a Headline is the context. For lazy or too-fast or ignorant scanners that may be so. However, both Hot Air and MF readers are better informed than that and prove time and time again they respect themselves and others enough to dig deeper.
Ah, sorry. I guess I took from that post that you were leaning toward Bachmann. Between her and Romney, I'd take her any day of the week. She's one tough firebrand.
"For lazy or too-fast or ignorant scanners that may be so."
You forgot "people short on time."
So, it is not the headline or even the text that so much misinforms you but your own preconceptions?
Wow, the lions are scrapping now.
My thought is that if Romney is such a wishy-washy guy, he would be perfect in the WH, while the Tea Party types take over both houses of Congress and start doing right things.
And how 'bout Gingrich for VP? The anti-Biden . . . .
"Wow, the lions are scrapping now."
Really? Jeez, this has sure been a heckuva day. First, I learn about the concept of conceptualizing preconception from Bruce and Mike, then I find out Maggie's is "pushing" Romney, and now this. If you're referring to Bruce, he never has anything nice to say in my posts. Some people only show up to complain. Seems to be a lot more of that lately. Not just here, but there's more animosity is most of the comment areas these days. The gang at Hot Air is particularly quick on the trigger. You just dare to disagree with the blogger over there and "troll" is immediately stamped on your forehead. Could be a number of reasons.
"And how 'bout Gingrich for VP?"
Doc (hearts) Newt. Debate after debate, he's the only one who answers every question in that Big Picture way. He makes everyone else's answers sound exactly like what they are -- answers coming from someone used to politics on a state level. Newt's answers sound like they're coming from someone who's been a top dog in D.C. and looks at things on a national level.
I wonder if anyone will ask Ron Paul at the next debate about that business of his wanting to eliminate the entire cabinet. Isn't that how most dictatorships start?