Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 25, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

REPUBLICANS ONLINE....Micah Sifry has taken a look at online activism and says that Democratic presidential candidates are way ahead of their Republican counterparts. Part of the reason, he thinks, is that Republicans are clueless about the net:

By and large, none of the Republican presidential candidates appear to be making a serious effort to garner support online through MySpace or Facebook; nor do they appear to have much outreach to blogs going; nor do any of them have a clue about Flickr. In fact, while several of the Democratic sites have front page links to many of those sites (and others), I don't think I saw one on any Republican site. Is entrepreneurial behavior dead in the Republican party?

But even this doesn't explain the massive online imbalance in favor of Democrats. Sifry's conclusion? "The Republican field just isn't generating as much enthusiasm online as the Democrats."

That sounds right to me. Aside from the obvious fact that Democrats are hungrier than Republicans because they've been out of office since 2000, the Republican field is remarkably weak this cycle. Compared to Democrats, who have half a dozen genuinely strong contenders, John McCain is really the only high-profile candidate they've got, and even he's hardly setting the world on fire. It's pretty amazing, really. From being on top of the world a mere two years ago, Republicans are having trouble just treading water these days.

Kevin Drum 6:47 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (67)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Ohio election workers convicted of rigging 2004 election,
HERE.

Anyone taking bets on seeing this in the MSM?

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on January 25, 2007 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

I suspect the LGF crowd makes the right blogosphere think it is all wired up. But once you get past the crackpot egomaniacs at the top, no one on the right enjoys discussing actual ideas or policies. It's all trash talk, 24 hours a day, and that is not the same as promoting new ideas or leaders.

Of course, once we decide who to back (being busy with real and messy lives), they can fill their hatewaves with hysterical reactions, and tell us in increasingly violent tones just how crazy we are.

That's what they do, and it's practically all they do. So let's call 'em on it every turn, and just keep laughing.

Posted by: Kenji on January 25, 2007 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

The problem is ideological: conservatives respond to strong, hierarchical authorities. The Internet, on the other hand, tends to reward those who favor decentralized modes of organization.

Posted by: dj moonbat on January 25, 2007 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

You know how the R's had the GOTV playbook? We have the netroots playbook, and I for one won't forget that. I'm getting ready to do it again in the mayors race. Ask people who have another election coming up - we haven't gone anywhere, and they don't have the traction to catch up.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 25, 2007 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK
The Internet, on the other hand, tends to reward those who favor decentralized modes of organization.

I belong to no organized party. I'm a Democrat. --Will Rogers

C'mon. It had to be said after dj moonbat set it up.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 25, 2007 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl, I wonder if that means we will now know how to throw fake red meat at the wingosphere, watching them go nutbars as we pursue more important agendas.
Is this the electronic version of the old Statue of Liberty play?

Posted by: Kenji on January 25, 2007 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

The GOP also seems to think all this stuff has to be top-down and centralized, instead of bottom-up and distributed.

Posted by: NTodd on January 25, 2007 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

The GOP also seems to think all this stuff has to be top-down and centralized...

For them, that's true. It's hard for an organization without centralized control to lie effectively.

Posted by: dj moonbat on January 25, 2007 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

Kenji: Cliff may just got busted running with a fake "letter from Iraq" about a month ago, so I think the answer is a qualified "yes."

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 25, 2007 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans know all about the internet. We just use it for the purpose God intended.

Posted by: Mark Foley on January 25, 2007 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

Agreed with all the above, plus, the Web2.0 skews toward the young, and the GOP skews toward the old.

If McCain set up a myspace account, he would be immediately flagged as a perv.

Posted by: Disputo on January 25, 2007 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

I think there's a separate dynamic to this. For the left, the internet is filling a glaring void in their ability to mobilize and raise money. For the right, it's more of a redundency of their direct mail and AM radio webs. In short, much of what's available online to repubs has already been tapped by other means. There's not as much to gain, so there's less incentive to invest.

Posted by: JoeW on January 25, 2007 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, I think the answer is simple - the GOP does not bother trying to win the under 25 vote, either in primaries or in the general election. Facebook? MySpace? Please.

Posted by: MikeO on January 25, 2007 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

The Fascists had similar problems -- no heir-apparent -- as did and do many other authoritatian regimes.

There may be something to the theory that too visible an heir undermines the rigid control necessary to authoritarian structures.

Or maybe they're just a bunch of insipid putzes...

Posted by: bleh on January 25, 2007 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

Ohio election workers convicted of rigging 2004 election

Also, I want to know why is a Green candidate being forced to pay the atty fees for the Dems who challenged his sigs and got him kicked off the ballot?

Has anyone heard of this happening before?

Posted by: Disputo on January 25, 2007 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

conservatives = traditional media

progressives = new media

It's not to hard to understand when traditional media outlets so dominated by conservative propaganda don't appeal to progressives. And with the Internet, the user controls what they see and read. Conservatives want to control the message and the Internet undermines that. They can't control the dissemination of information on the Web.

I wish I could say more about this but I've got to, um, get some work done right now.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on January 25, 2007 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

Individualism = Active = Internet.

Authoritarianism = Passive = T.V.

It'll be amusing to watch Republic candidates "embrace" the internet tubes & screens -- for one-way broadcast, not real two-way dialog (much less listening and responsiveness). More likely we can expect vigorous attacks against online free speech, to squelch the next Macacca incident.

Posted by: poliwog on January 25, 2007 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans know all about the internet. We just use it for the purpose God intended.
Posted by: Mark Foley on January 25, 2007 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

And don't forget; they tried to KILL it with their fake Net Neutrality "it's a series of tubes" crap.

And it was also the Republicans who put the net to good use from 1996-2000 with the Matt Drudge/Monicagate thing. I'd say that a good portion of the momentum that led to Clinton's Impeachment came from Drudge watchers.

Of course, the Drudge is obsolete. We have blogs now. And posters can talk back and respond to their lies.

HOWEVER: we must not forget that it is the DEMOCRATS who are beholden to their contributors in the entertainment industry, who are lobbying heavily for content control and copyright abuse (RIAA/MPAA) - and it was Clinton who signed off on the abomination that is the DMCA.

The Democrats may be benefitting from the grassroots movement this election cycle. But don't think that they won't turn around and sell our Internet to the highest bidder.

Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on January 25, 2007 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with Kevin's analysis, and would add that the current Republican presidential candidates are hamstrung by Bush and by Republican voters' feelings toward him. Bush is too unpopular even with the right for appearing as his successor to be an effective strategy, yet no one seems to have figured out a way to make moving explicitly away from Bush viable either.

If Republican voters ever move more solidly away from Bush, that may create an opportunity for some outsider to claim the mantle of anti-Bush. For that reason I still think Mike Huckabee might have a shot at the nomination. Until then, though, the Republicans looks pretty tied up between trying simultaneously to support and to overcome Bushism.

Posted by: Brandon Claycomb on January 25, 2007 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

Then again, there's also this: While not all conservatives are stupid, most stupid people are conservative.

Posted by: expatjourno on January 25, 2007 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

Also, unlike Republicans, we don't have our own TV station.

I mean, most organizations who own the airwaves don't invest a lot in the underground.

Posted by: anonymous on January 25, 2007 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

I pray the Republicans STAY ignorant of the power of the internet.

Shibboleth.

Posted by: TruthProbe on January 25, 2007 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder if the Republicans expect someone else to jump in later this year who will take away the air and the money from the rest of the field. The two that I think could do that is the VP or Bush's brother. Both would have problems but getting attention would not be a problem.

Posted by: Carl on January 25, 2007 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK
Also, I want to know why is a Green candidate being forced to pay the atty fees for the Dems who challenged his sigs and got him kicked off the ballot?

Has anyone heard of this happening before?

The link seems to be broken, but there are certainly cases in the law where the loser of an action can be compelled to pay court costs and attorney's fees.

If the case you are referring to is this one, then yes it has happened before, in fact the same thing also happened to Ralph Nader in PA in regard to the 2004 election, who challenged it, lost, and was recently rebuffed in his attempt to have the award overturned by the Supreme Court, as noted here, though Romanelli (as the latter piece notes) may be positioned better for a challenge.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 25, 2007 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

It's a bit too early. Just wait for the republican internet surge in 2008. Right now they're getting the tubes ready.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on January 25, 2007 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl,
I don't mean we should make shit up. That's what they do. I just mean we should baffle them with too many contradictory opinions. Oh, wait, that's what we (pace Will Rogers) already do.

Posted by: Kenji on January 25, 2007 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

I pray the Republicans STAY ignorant of the power of the internet.
Posted by: TruthProbe on January 25, 2007 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

Be Advised:
Their DONORS (bribers) will make sure they don't.

I wonder if the Republicans expect someone else to jump in later this year who will take away the air and the money from the rest of the field. The two that I think could do that is the VP or Bush's brother.
Posted by: Carl on January 25, 2007 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

I believe Hegel is positioning himself to be the benefactor on the R side, of the failure of the Bush War. I believe he will try to steal credit for opposing the surge from the Dems.

Cheney has repeatedly said he's not running, most recently, yesterday, for Wolfie.

Jeb has also said he's not running. (But then again so did Hillary. Lying bitch.)

And in case you were talking about Neil - I doubt he'd be able to overcome the Silverado fiasco. You know, the whole Republican Culture of Corruption "thing".

Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on January 25, 2007 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

Kenji: I didn't mean that we should. I don't know who forwarded the email to him, but I did enjoy that the arrogant prick got caught with his pants down.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 25, 2007 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

I can't find my links to NE blogs (maybe they are saved to my computer at school?) but the sentiment on those sites, even the "Draft Hagel" themed one, seems to be that he will be retiring from public life; that he will not run for the presidency, nor for re-election to the Senate.

I have no idea whether they are wildly speculating, making inferences, or actually in the know.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 25, 2007 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

There's an Obama group on Facebook right now with almost 100,000 members... that's since January 16th. Their goal is 1 million. I think they'll do it.

http://minnesota.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2231653698

None of the other candidates even have a fraction of that, though probably if you added up their groups they might have a few thousand.

Posted by: Pat Smith on January 25, 2007 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK

Power of the internet? Uh, just what is that, exactly? I remember reading all those stories -- hundreds of them, in fact -- about how Howard Dean revolutionized campaigns by tapping into the Internet. I suspect it was a crucial reason why he won those primaries and was able to snag the Democratic nomination for President. Why, I ... oh ... uh ... nevermind.

Posted by: Pat on January 25, 2007 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

The Republicans are too busy promoting democracy in Iraq to promote democracy in the United States.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on January 25, 2007 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

How many Republican sites have their comments section turned on? That's what gets the juice of the Democratic base flowing. Debate. Discussion. It's why direct mail doesn't work as well with Democratic donors. We need interaction be it the Internet or the Union Hall.

Posted by: DanF on January 25, 2007 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

The Internets are hard work.
And the GOP is working hard.
It's just they are working hard at watching online porn and live sex chats.

Posted by: TiredOfTexas on January 25, 2007 at 10:38 PM | PERMALINK

Power of the internet? Uh, just what is that, exactly? I remember reading all those stories -- hundreds of them, in fact -- about how Howard Dean revolutionized campaigns by tapping into the Internet.

See November 07, 2006.

Thanks for playing.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 25, 2007 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, TiredOfTexas,
Wanna buy some wood?

(BTW, I wonder how many times Laura has been asked that question.)

Posted by: Kenji on January 25, 2007 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

Fact is, most tech weenies are Spinozists at heart, not susceptible to revelatory mummery that's pimped as being superior to reason -- and not big on authoritarianism in general.

Best title I've ever seen on a business card: "Systems Anarchist."

Posted by: Faber on January 26, 2007 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

Using the net is a nice concept, but the willfully ignorant, technically incompetent, or brain dead, do not a vanguard make. Frankly, anyone calling himself republican on-line right now is actually pleading for help. I recommend therapy, reading, and isolation from televangelism. If that fails, let Darwin have them. . .

Posted by: Sparko on January 26, 2007 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINK

You know, I've thought the same thing, except that there are probably some Republicans out there waiting to benefit from the obscurity factor that benefited the Democrats like Nancy Pelosi. The fact that someone like Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina hasn't been in the news as much, at least outside of his state, means he will be able to avoid being tarred with the errors of the Bush administration, at least for the time being. (I mention him because I remember Grover Norquist throwing his name out a few years ago.) Since the Internet changes the ability of candidates to raise money quickly, since the Republicans are usually able to raise more money than the Democrats, and since they have an exception communications network, I wouldn't be entirely shocked to see someone work very hard behind the scenes to people like Norquist, who could help them appear to be an acceptable alternative and then start to raise money. And then, if he's successful in being appealing, he's likely to take off and make a serious play for the nomination. Such a scenario doesn't negate the fact that the Democrats still have a stronger field of candidates, of course.

Posted by: Brian on January 26, 2007 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINK

I think Republicans would rather not have a highly interactive base of support. They'd have to engage these people in a dialogue and demonstrate rational positions concerning the state of the nation.

It would be much easier for them if they went after the lethargic masses come late 2008 through servile, obedient, and ignorant media blowhards who keep repeating the same crap about Republcans "being serious" about national security.

By the way, was King Phillip II considered serious about national security in 16th century Spain?

Posted by: B on January 26, 2007 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

The Republican field just isn't generating as much enthusiasm online as the Democrats.

Earth to Kevin, Earth to Sifry....

Internet be damned....Republicans have a little handicap of a Texas sized albtross welded to their ass.

Posted by: Keith G on January 26, 2007 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

People have some very sophisticated ideas here about the asymmetry of the GOP and the Dems, but let's observe Occam's razor and FOLLOW THE MONEY:

Democratic candidates NEED the blogosphere to raise money, but the GOP doesn't. Obama needs $25 and $50 from people like us, but Giuliani can just ring up Verizon or Halliburton and score a cool 10 grand.

No?

Posted by: Frank Bruno on January 26, 2007 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

most tech weenies are Spinozists at heart

Well, math and science, like Spinioza's God, doesn't love us back.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 26, 2007 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

"Is entrepreneurial behavior dead in the Republican party?"

Leave us not forget: The French don't have a word for entrepreneur!

Posted by: Kenji on January 26, 2007 at 1:42 AM | PERMALINK

They'd have to engage these people in a dialogue and demonstrate rational positions concerning the state of the nation.

That's a valid point. Authoritarians don't like to have to explain themselves or provide evidence and justification. They just want blind fealty.

Engaging in dialogue annoys them. Remember the story last year about the Publican Pol who was doing a live web-chat with his constituents, and having a side conversation with a friend at the same time? He made a comment about "listening to the idiots bloviate" and it posted to the wrong thread?

He obviously lost his bid for re-election.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 26, 2007 at 1:50 AM | PERMALINK

That's good, Kenji. (Wonder how many people don't know that the word is actually Old French for enterprise?)

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 26, 2007 at 1:53 AM | PERMALINK

Republicans are clueless....


.
you could have just stopped right there..

Posted by: mr. irony on January 26, 2007 at 6:01 AM | PERMALINK

I would think the massive online imbalance would be partially explained by the age-gap favoring Democrats; Democratics have more volunteers and advocates that are primarily of college-age, and they utilize the internet the most.

Posted by: ack ack ack ack on January 26, 2007 at 8:06 AM | PERMALINK

"Democratics have more volunteers and advocates that are primarily of college-age, and they utilize the internet the most." - ack


If you're not a liberal in your twenties, you haven't a heart, if you're not a conservative in your forties, you haven't a brain (or bank account).

Posted by: Jay on January 26, 2007 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: the thing about we Democrats is that at 40, we get conservative--and stay Democrats.
We start wanting to keep things stable for our kids--but those things include healt care and social security. We want to keep the good things about America--like the right to privacy, and religious tolerance. We want to see traditions preserved, like the United Nations and being part of a community of nations.
And we like balancing the federal budget.

Yeah, jay, when we get to our forties we turn conservative--but because we've got brains, we stay Democrats.

Posted by: pbg on January 26, 2007 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

Disputo - if you're talking about Romanelli in PA, it's because he was funded by Republicans, his signitures were collected by Santorum's volunteers, and over 40,000 of the 100,000 submitted signitures were disqualified. http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/mt/mt-search.cgi?search=Romanelli&SearchCutoff=9999999

B - the concept of national security didn't even exist when Philip of Spain was around. he started a lot of wars, but they were all for territorial gains or to "protect" the catholic faith.

Posted by: Hillary on January 26, 2007 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

Regarding youth and netroots-

the Republicans are probably thinking it's not worth going after the internet because they think everyone on social networking sites is still too young to have money or influence. They're not thinking straight - high schoolers are still on the sites, but college graduates haven't left the sites. The young end 25-35 demographic is participating just as much, and we have a lot more money than the under 25s.

Posted by: Hillary on January 26, 2007 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

Compared to Democrats, who have half a dozen genuinely strong contenders, John McCain is really the only high-profile candidate they've got, and even he's hardly setting the world on fire/

Please, Great Pasta in th Sky, could you let McCain get the nomination in 2008? There's some baggage associated with this clown.

Posted by: (: Tom :) on January 26, 2007 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

And, here, I thought their best and "brighest" trooled here. At least woot, fauxlib, jay, orwell and charlie provide laughs.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 26, 2007 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

McCain has oodles and scads of baggage. The S&L scandal of the 80's...Never forget he was one of the so-called "Keating Five" and we - you and me - paid for that fiasco.

Then there is that bit about the wife stealing narcotics (okay, I'd have to be medicated to crawl into bed with that creature, too) and the divorce and remarriage so he could use Cindy's family money to launch his political career.

he is a crass opportunist and his own self-interest is paramount.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 26, 2007 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Notwithstanding Crooked Talk hiring, as his campaign manager, the former fellow who ran the racist ads in Tennessee. Interesting that Senator Toady, the newly elected Senator from that state, spoke up in the committee meeting yesterday to second Crooked Talk - Two peas in a pod.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 26, 2007 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

we have a lot more money than the under 25s.

I have three kids between the ages of 20 and 23, and they are all the antithesis of the "College Republican" crowd. They are all college grads and they are all wired and active.

We were talking about this a while back - the left is way better at utilizing the new technology and they have no intention of ceding that edge.

What they lack in dollars they make up for in passion, dedication, motivation and energy.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 26, 2007 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

That because the republicans look stupid in print.
They are embarrassed to put their ideas down, and have them scrutinized.
They also look stupid on video, and with You Tube around they will no longer be able to use "The Code" and get away with it. When people really see the republican as they really are - It make us sick!!

"The Code" is racial, Gay, Religious, Wealth Stealing, Poor bashing

Posted by: skibumlee on January 26, 2007 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl - I'm not trying to say that 25-35s aren't still democrats, I think the republicans are making assumptions that only the under-25 demo is on the internet, and that's going to hurt them.

Posted by: Hillary on January 26, 2007 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

What foolish drivel from so called "netroots". The stuff you blog on, the computers you rant with, the tubes you mock are all either invented by, run by or owned by republicans. Think I'm full of it? Take a poll at any tech conference and you'll find the people that run the IT world are conservatives, libertarians or republican leaning. Bob Novak was "blogging" on prodigy and compuserve long before half of the people claiming internet superiority were even born.

Posted by: geekgod on January 26, 2007 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin lives in a bubble. He thinks the democrats have "half a dozen genuinely strong contenders," and the republicans have only McCain. If true, of course, this would work to the republican's advantage, since McCain would get the nomination without being damaged in primaries, while the democrat survisor would be bloodied.

But the bubble part is the view that half a dozen genuinely strong contenders. "Contender" is an odd word choice and he probably meant to say 'qualified." But objectively, after reviewing the backgrounds and abilities of the top democrat contenders, why would anyone consider them strong? The wife of a former president with lots of baggage. A two year senator with no significant accomplishments. A fast talking plaintff's lawyer with no military experience and one term as a senator. Joe Biden? Chris Dodd? Bill Richardson actually could emerge as strong and qualified, but he is not there today.

One of these candidates could be elected president. It may shape up as a good year for the democate nominee. But please, by any objective standard, not of these folks at this point are strong in terms of life story, experience, leadership and other qualifications.

Posted by: Brian on January 26, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

It is very simple and obvious. Republicans are not capable of critical thought. It is all a matter of buzzwords coined by the so-called "architect" (now proved to be an idiot) Rove. Look at the so-called think tanks (Cato, AEI, Heritage, etc.). Practically every single one of them cannot get tenure in a respectable university. Why? they are bereft of analysis, synthesis, and serious scholarly work. I have seen this time and again for the last 20 years. All they do is peddle some idiotic crap like PNAC's New American Century, personal responsibility, etc. The list goes on. It is all rhetoric.
Finally, intelligence=democrats
bullshit rhetoric=rethuglicans

Posted by: RajanV on January 26, 2007 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

This sounds like something from the Washington Post, you know like when they gush that someone who texts someone is so "technologically savvy".

Come on, nobody, Democrat or Republican, is going to win an election through MySpace or Facebook.

Posted by: Jenna's Bush on January 26, 2007 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

maf54... where are you??

Posted by: Nicolae Dica on January 26, 2007 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

The wingnuts get all their "information" from Pox News and right-wing radio programs like Lim-bahs.

On the other hand, liberal Democrats (like myself) realized several years ago that whatever "information" was being "reported" via the MSM should be taken with a grain of salt (maybe a bucket of salt would be a better qualifier?).

More and more of the "corporate" MSM outlets sounded like an echo chamber for the latest Republican "talking points" dreamt up by that crack(ed) team of Republicans in the White House that spewed forth one lie after another through their puppets in the MSM.

I simply got fed up with all the Republican lies. Therefore, I turned to the internet for a broader range of opinions and information...and FACTS.

This is why I believe the internet is more of a Democratic Party phenomenon and meeting place.

And the Republican Party and their MSM lapdogs are feeling the pinch. Of course, this may also explain why they are trying so desperately to torpedo net neutrality while trying one trick after another to assert their corporate dominion over both internet content and traffic.

Which actually makes things worse for the Republicans and their MSM corporate lapdogs because they just end up looking like a bunch of Communists, as they try to establish the same level of "corporate/conservative" control over the internet as the ?leftist? Communist leaders in Red China have already established over their internet.

Which makes one wonder when the Republicans became Communist totalitarian control-freaks?

Posted by: The Oracle on January 26, 2007 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

Since dextros have gotten such a good handle on other altenative media (especially radio) I don't really get this claim. The whole question is vital and interesting in any case.

Posted by: Neil B. on January 27, 2007 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe its just that the R base (rural) is not as well wired for conectivetiy as the D base (urban). The Rs do dominate in AM radio though were the Ds cannot seem to gain a foothold.

Posted by: dave on January 27, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly