A-list netroots getting played
This strikes me as extremely relevant to all the FISA-and-other-alleged-flip-flops whining, and comes from what seems like a real credible source.
Quite frankly, some of the major bloggers who have “access” to consultants (DC or not in DC), campaign staffers or Congressional staffers, have been getting played….
…A smart, savvy politico might curry favor with a major blogger who is considered to be a trusted source for the rest of the blogosphere, by giving undue credit to some bloggers for a House or Senate win.
…Or a savvy staffer might leak stuff to a blogger about legislation to prevent his/her boss from taking the heat on bad legislation or to help his/her boss get undue credit for getting good legislation passed.
…Or a savvy staffer knows that his/her boss wants to raise some money for his/her political organization and needs a little netroots cash and some of the attention that the netroots can provide… so the outreach starts in one form or another.
…Or a savvy staffer knows that his/her boss needs some rehabilitation back home and wants to look like he/she stood up strongly on an issue, so the savvy staffer will use the netroots to grab credit for standing up on an issue.
…The netroots “lose” on legislation a lot of times because the handwriting was on the wall weeks and sometimes months before people started posting about it.
I’ve been saying one version or another of this since I started blogging in 2004. The A-list bloggers are not pure, never have been, and they can and do get played. All the time. With ease. What makes them easy to play is that they are literally amateurs at this game, sitting ducks for being used by pros. Most of the A-list bloggers have only luck and timing to thank for their A-list status, not skill, talent, or experience. They happened to be around when loudly blogging got you to the front of the pack, and punched their ticket right then and there.
The A-list bloggers’ “loss” on FISA is a narrative which the A-list bloggers wrote themselves. They took a losing issue, destined to lose, without seeing the “handwriting on the wall”, and set themselves and their readers up for total disappointment. Largely because they got played by the pros who wanted to make sure one person or another got the blame or the hero status.
So when A-list bloggers take their readers down a road into certain defeat, it’s important for readers to remember that they, too, are being used, by the A-list blogger, as his/her only leverage into whatever the A-list blogger wants for themselves - more access, more media appearances, more cred, more mojo, more ad money.
It’s not hard to understand at all. No, Virginia, there isn’t a Santa Claus.
Popularity: 6% [?]
July 13th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Very interesting post, and spot on.
I think that a lot of it has to do when them having a real tin ear when it comes to how the political game is played. They’re great at “blogging” but clueless to the real world that doesn’t exist in the light of day.
You could just feel that there was more to the FISA story than what was being talked about and that there was no way in hell that it would get shot down. Too many bodies buried under that house… and many of them are Democrats.
To me to biggest con is that good vote on the losing side. Bragging about a vote when you lose is meaningless. When an issue is decided people position themselves where they need to be politically. Thus Hillary Clinton is now the progressive champion on FISA even though it’s obvious that there’s no way she would vote against it if she was the candidate. It’s a ways to raise cash to pay off her debt.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Obama on the FISA bill —
On 10/18/07:
“”It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal — with an unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity — is not the place to start.”
On 10/24/07 (via campaign spokesperson):
“To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”
On 12/17/07 (via campaign statement):
“Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd’s efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same. It’s not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote for not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster.”
On 01/28/08 (via campaign statement):
“I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.
Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.
The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.
No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people — not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.
That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd’s amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens - and set an example to the world - that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.”
********************
The issue isn’t just about giving retroactive & prospective immunity to those who blatantly break the law. Nor is it about giving government additional & almost unfettered ability to monitor millions of Americans in the future.
It’s about a national political figure who told us he wasn’t the same as candidates who came before him. A person who said we could trust him to do what’s right - not what’s politically expedient.
But now he’s been exposed for all to see what he really is — just another politician who will do & say just about anything to get elected.
FISA’s only the latest. Before that it was mental health expections for late-term abortions, NAFTA, public financing for campaigns & who knows what else.
How many more positions can Obama change, twist & disown before November? I guess we’ll see.