The blogroll on Russ Feingold's website, (Authorized and paid for by the Feingold Senate Committee Daniel D. Hannula, Superior, WI, Treasurer), is very revealing.
It includes liberal sites containing some of the most extreme and vile writings on the Internet.
Wisconsin Blogs
(Click here to see Feingold's Wisconsin blogs.)
Political Blogs
Crooks and Liars
Daily Kos
FireDogLake
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Obviously, I'm not familiar with all the content on all of these sites, but I'm familiar with enough of the content on some of them to know that they do not represent the mainstream.
Under both the categories, "Wisconsin Blogs" and "Political Blogs," you'll find some of the ugliest of the ugly when it comes to attacks and lies and smears.
The fact that Feingold is willing to cozy up to these bloggers should concern Wisconsinites.
Feingold might want to reconsider that blogroll, especially if he wants to pass himself off as being on the same page politically as most of the people in the state.
19 comments:
Exactly which blogs contain "the ugliest of the ugly when it comes to attacks and lies and smears"?
Do you read most or some of the blogs on Feingold's blogroll? If you do, then you already know.
I'm not going to put a target on my back and name names.
In my opinion, Feingold is using very poor judgment by associating himself with some of those sites.
I do actually read some of the blogs listed above and find your comments in regards to them surprising. Especially given the fact that they are fairer in the political spectrum than those who lean to the right.
Just because the ideas presented at these sites conflict with your views does not make them "the ugliest of the ugly when it comes to attacks and lies and smears".
Or do you forget texas hold'em/underground conservative?
I'm not familiar with "texas hold'em/underground conservative."
I assume the blog contained attacks and lies and smears from a conservative. Correct?
If so, it would have been a really bad idea for a Republican candidate to include such a site on a campaign blogroll.
Conflicts with my political views don't play into my assessment of Feingold's band of blogs.
How many of the blogs listed are you familiar with? I would be careful to paint all the sites with a broad brush simply because some of them aren't balanced.
You're not real big on irony, huh?
Please reread my post.
I did NOT paint all the sites with a broad brush. My language is clear.
I was very careful not to point to all the sites on Feingold's blogroll as being problematic for the sitting U.S. Senator and candidate for the U.S. Senate.
Don't twist my words and project some meaning that isn't in my post.
Bottom line:
It's appropriate to scrutinize the blogroll of an official campaign site for the incumbent Sen. Feingold.
There are sites on the blogroll that reflect poorly on Feingold.
That's the point of my post.
Here's what's kinda funny about this post. One of the blogs listed above belongs to me. Just me. (See if you can guess which one.) I just went through my traffic statistics. I only find one incoming page view from this blog since this post went up. Going back for a few weeks I found exactly one inbound view from the link on the senator's campaign site.
Non-issue.
You say that, but you don't say which ones or why. So it kinda seems like you are painting with a broad brush. How can anyone be concerned when you don't explain why?
I'm very curious about which Wisconsin blogs you think are over the line, we seem like a pretty well-behaved bunch.
I mean, for some of the national blogs, they are more open forums, so it's entirely possible there might be a handful of bad apples out of a huge community...but that's just the way the internet works.
But you're not identifying which sites those are. I'm not sure you get to claim to have a point if you aren't willing to state clearly what blogs you are referring to.
Furthermore, by failing to identify which specific blogs on the blogroll you take issue with, you have in fact painted all the blogs with a broad brush. By refusing to name names, you have cast suspicion on all of them.
You're not addressing the point of my post.
It's about Feingold associating himself with websites that host content that I'm sure would shock some voters. I don't know why he would take that risk.
It doesn't help him to make a convincing case that he's mainstream.
You're hung up on the broad brush thing. I can only repeat that I'm not using a broad brush. I'm not casting suspicion on all of the blogs. As I've reiterated, they aren't all objectionable. However, some are very objectionable.
You're quick to say that I'm casting suspicion on all of the blogs included in Feingold's list. Why take the negative angle? Why don't you focus on the fact that I'm saying NOT all of the sites are problematic for Feingold?
Enough with the broad brush stuff. It's a silly complaint and diverts attention from the real issue: the fact that Feingold is willing to court the liberal fringe, the ruthless, and the foul-mouthed.
The blogs speak for themselves. If a blog isn't a Leftist radical, profanity-laced cesspool, then that blog is not a problem for Feingold.
Interesting that no one commenting here has addressed the actual topic of my post.
You don't have any specifics, what is there to disagree with? Do you expect people to defend all the content on (potentially) over 20 blogs? And you don't even say how the blogs are vile and extreme.
If you could maybe cite just one example, I'm sure there could be dialog. Assuming you aren't just trying to drive traffic to your site with a pile of links...
Mary, it's simple. If you want people to focus on what you claim is the real issue, you bear the burden of identifying which blogs are the ruthless, foul-mouthed liberal fringe. Until you are willing to clearly state that point, I maintain there is no point to this post.
We can hardly refute or agree with your claim that Feingold is willing to associate himself with the lunatic liberal fringe until we know who you consider to be that lunatic liberal fringe.
I get the sense, though, that even if you did specify your point, disagreeing with you would prove as pointless as the above dialogue.
Once again, all hat no cattle for Freedom Eden.
What do you think would happen if I specified a Wisconsin blog that I consider to be vile and extreme? I don't think it would be pretty at all. I won't engage in a blog war. I wasn't trying to pick a fight with a blogger.
As far as my post being an attempt to drive traffic to my site, that's a false charge. In fact, I cordially invite you not to return.
There's no burden on me to say anymore than I have or provide any additional detail. I didn't ask anyone to refute or agree with my post. I simply expressed my opinion and alerted readers to one more indication of Feingold's extremism, the blogroll, something I discovered while working on a different post. My intent is to put Feingold under scrutiny, not any given blog.
I've set up no hurdles for the reader. The proof is a click away. The links are there. Again, the blogs speak for themselves. I suggest that readers go to the sites and make their own determinations. They might learn something about Feingold.
Yeah, Mary wasn't trying to pick a fight, she was just posting this as a community service message.
C'mon Mary, you don't honestly expect us to sit here and believe you didn't think anyone would raise concern about what you've written, did you? The minute you linked to my blog I knew it, and to be honest, I can think of only one blog on Sen. Feingold's list that might be considered a little questionable.
"I can think of only one blog on Sen. Feingold's list that might be considered a little questionable."
Only one? Obviously, we have different standards.
That aside, name it. Name that one blog you think "might be considered a little questionable."
Since you didn't name it, you're painting all the blogs on Feingold's list as questionable. Right? (Get ready to be attacked by your Leftist colleagues. Just kidding. You won't be.)
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that some liberal bloggers lashed out the way they did rather than be confident in what they write.
You know, I sat here without responding to the false and not very nice things that were said about me, such as being called a "wingnut," "factually challenged," "crass," and eligible for Medicare.
And yeah, Goodnight Moon is my favorite book.
Anyway, I wouldn't call my post a "community service message," but I believe Feingold's blogroll is worth examining.
It's worth noting that Feingold himself writes on Daily Kos, one of the sites that contains content I consider to be extreme and vile.
Mary, I don't agree with the things that were written about you, but getting back to the point you were making, I'll certainly agree there's plenty of vile stuff on Daily Kos, but there's also plenty of stuff that's extremely well written and thought-provoking, without resorting to bomb-throwing.
Certainly not every word on Daily Kos is offensive or extreme, but as you said, there's plenty of vile stuff.
I question why Feingold would give it his stamp of approval.
Post a Comment