That's a fair round-up. It may or may not have a big impact on credibility. DOJ stonewalled information requests from Congress and resisted FOIA requests. Closed immigration hearings. All in the name of national security. There's a post 9-11 DOJ memo on this that I don't have in front of me. Those claims of nat'l security (which already seem dubious) will seem even more so. It's more of a hit on the civil liberties/USA PATRIOT/secrecy side of things. And depending on where voters pan out on that issue that's where it will be felt in '04.
It won't have a big impact. They'll push out and punish the person directly responsible. It will be (mostly / sufficiently) accepted by all but the committed Bush haters that the rest of the administration a) was not involved, and b) is genuinely upset about what happened. Maybe Rove is guilty and just safe behind plausible deniability. But maybe's not really good enough to convict him anyway...
So, it's not good, but it won't be a big political issue for Bush. I think you're exaggerating this because you're in the middle of this blogosphere tempest.
You really really want to disagree with me, don't you? I agree with everything you wrote. In fact, if you look at the post again, I wrote everything you wrote.
This is a serious blow, no doubt about it. But it's not fatal. There will be no impeachment and it won't even guarantee that Bush can't be reelected. But it will be a factor in 2004.
I don't think it's a serious blow. That's exaggeration.
I think it's an exaggerated gesture to contemplate that it could guarantee that Bush can't be reelected.
And I don't think this issue will be a factor in 2004.
You mention most of my sub-points, but you knit it together quite differently. You tell a story about this continue to cast a shadow on Bush during the next election. I tell a story about this having no impact on the election.
I also disagree with your willingness to judge various members of the administration guilty -- when I said the evidence isn't enough to convict Rove I meant that you have convicted him -- your post takes as a given that he was responsible for this. That's a material difference I was trying to highlight.
So. I disagree with your ultimate conclusion about the impact on public perception. And I disagree with you intermediate conclusion as to the guilt of certain parties. That's what I meant to say. My apologies if it was unclear. However, I stand by what I wrote. I don't accept that it was content-free disagreement for its own sake (as charged).
I haven't convicted Rove at all. You don't see me calling for his resignation or an apology. I was making a prediction. We have good reasons to believe that Rove was--not responsible, I didn't say that--involved after the fact.
And I think you're just plain wrong about 2004. It will be a factor, at the very least, insofar as Democrats will bring it up. It will also be a factor because every time George Bush says "honor and dignity," people will hear "Scooter." We'll see, of course, but I think you're underestimating where this could lead.
What I don't understand is your certainty about my reasons for "exaggerating." Could it be that we just read the situation differently? Or do you attribute unsavory motives to anyone who disagrees with you?
If you're calling getting caught up in the swirl of the blogosphere "unsavory", that's purely your call. I think it's human nature. As you get involved more deeply with your blog (evidence: increased rate of posting -- willing to stake $$ here), and with others' blogs, it is natural to get caught up in the local eddys.
This is a purely positive desciption, not normative. It just happens & is an interesting characteristic of this new medium. In the case of the Trent Lott uprising, I personally deem it to have been a social good. But it was not a good because it thus sprang forth originally, fully realized, awash in goodness. It was good because it fit the occasion.
The same obsessiveness can lead the blogosphere awry as well. The blogosphere is insular. Not just from the "outside" world, but also from the kind of detached elements of the "inside" world that can lend perspective. E.g., editors.
A good example of this Andrew Sullivan. He was a good writer of articles. But his own blog fairly quickly became shrill and self- and blogosphere-obsessed. It descended into unreasonableness. The lack of broader community and perspective are fundamental drivers here. Now, to the extent that this frees one to pursue the right without the harassment of the needless compromisers, that's great. But is can also free one to pursue the excessive without the needed tempering influence of those with other perspectives.
I don't want you to be offended. But this is a serious comment offered as one who has watched a number of early blogs wobble off track. I like your blog -- I just liked it a little bit better when it was younger and more pure. I think this is a struggle facing anyone who wants to write a good blog that stays so over time.
At the heart of your comment is the the simple disagreement about whether this is a very big deal or not If I'm right, we don't need to resort to group psychology to explain the Plame posts, my response is appropriate. You still feel the need to explain away the emphasis I'm putting on the affair because you think it doesn't deserve that emphasis.
The point about perspective lending elements is downright ironic given your comment. In fact, I'd say this blog is unusual in how often the commenters disagree with me.
Finally, I'll make one concession. With the election coming up, I'm less concerned with fine and precise fairness than I am with "getting the message out," so to speak. I don't want to be wrong or unfair, but I am less worried about nuance.
That's a fair round-up. It may or may not have a big impact on credibility. DOJ stonewalled information requests from Congress and resisted FOIA requests. Closed immigration hearings. All in the name of national security. There's a post 9-11 DOJ memo on this that I don't have in front of me. Those claims of nat'l security (which already seem dubious) will seem even more so. It's more of a hit on the civil liberties/USA PATRIOT/secrecy side of things. And depending on where voters pan out on that issue that's where it will be felt in '04.
Posted by Balasubramani | Link to this comment | 10- 2-03 1:49 AM
It won't have a big impact. They'll push out and punish the person directly responsible. It will be (mostly / sufficiently) accepted by all but the committed Bush haters that the rest of the administration a) was not involved, and b) is genuinely upset about what happened. Maybe Rove is guilty and just safe behind plausible deniability. But maybe's not really good enough to convict him anyway...
So, it's not good, but it won't be a big political issue for Bush. I think you're exaggerating this because you're in the middle of this blogosphere tempest.
-Magik
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 10- 2-03 9:09 PM
You really really want to disagree with me, don't you? I agree with everything you wrote. In fact, if you look at the post again, I wrote everything you wrote.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 2-03 10:59 PM
I disagree with this:
This is a serious blow, no doubt about it. But it's not fatal. There will be no impeachment and it won't even guarantee that Bush can't be reelected. But it will be a factor in 2004.
I don't think it's a serious blow. That's exaggeration.
I think it's an exaggerated gesture to contemplate that it could guarantee that Bush can't be reelected.
And I don't think this issue will be a factor in 2004.
You mention most of my sub-points, but you knit it together quite differently. You tell a story about this continue to cast a shadow on Bush during the next election. I tell a story about this having no impact on the election.
I also disagree with your willingness to judge various members of the administration guilty -- when I said the evidence isn't enough to convict Rove I meant that you have convicted him -- your post takes as a given that he was responsible for this. That's a material difference I was trying to highlight.
So. I disagree with your ultimate conclusion about the impact on public perception. And I disagree with you intermediate conclusion as to the guilt of certain parties. That's what I meant to say. My apologies if it was unclear. However, I stand by what I wrote. I don't accept that it was content-free disagreement for its own sake (as charged).
What do you think?
-Magik
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 10- 3-03 7:16 PM
Fair enough, kinda.
I haven't convicted Rove at all. You don't see me calling for his resignation or an apology. I was making a prediction. We have good reasons to believe that Rove was--not responsible, I didn't say that--involved after the fact.
And I think you're just plain wrong about 2004. It will be a factor, at the very least, insofar as Democrats will bring it up. It will also be a factor because every time George Bush says "honor and dignity," people will hear "Scooter." We'll see, of course, but I think you're underestimating where this could lead.
What I don't understand is your certainty about my reasons for "exaggerating." Could it be that we just read the situation differently? Or do you attribute unsavory motives to anyone who disagrees with you?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-03 8:04 PM
If you're calling getting caught up in the swirl of the blogosphere "unsavory", that's purely your call. I think it's human nature. As you get involved more deeply with your blog (evidence: increased rate of posting -- willing to stake $$ here), and with others' blogs, it is natural to get caught up in the local eddys.
This is a purely positive desciption, not normative. It just happens & is an interesting characteristic of this new medium. In the case of the Trent Lott uprising, I personally deem it to have been a social good. But it was not a good because it thus sprang forth originally, fully realized, awash in goodness. It was good because it fit the occasion.
The same obsessiveness can lead the blogosphere awry as well. The blogosphere is insular. Not just from the "outside" world, but also from the kind of detached elements of the "inside" world that can lend perspective. E.g., editors.
A good example of this Andrew Sullivan. He was a good writer of articles. But his own blog fairly quickly became shrill and self- and blogosphere-obsessed. It descended into unreasonableness. The lack of broader community and perspective are fundamental drivers here. Now, to the extent that this frees one to pursue the right without the harassment of the needless compromisers, that's great. But is can also free one to pursue the excessive without the needed tempering influence of those with other perspectives.
I don't want you to be offended. But this is a serious comment offered as one who has watched a number of early blogs wobble off track. I like your blog -- I just liked it a little bit better when it was younger and more pure. I think this is a struggle facing anyone who wants to write a good blog that stays so over time.
-Magik
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 10- 4-03 3:02 AM
At the heart of your comment is the the simple disagreement about whether this is a very big deal or not If I'm right, we don't need to resort to group psychology to explain the Plame posts, my response is appropriate. You still feel the need to explain away the emphasis I'm putting on the affair because you think it doesn't deserve that emphasis.
The point about perspective lending elements is downright ironic given your comment. In fact, I'd say this blog is unusual in how often the commenters disagree with me.
Finally, I'll make one concession. With the election coming up, I'm less concerned with fine and precise fairness than I am with "getting the message out," so to speak. I don't want to be wrong or unfair, but I am less worried about nuance.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 4-03 10:03 AM
Very good site, congratulations!
Posted by Nick | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 2:28 PM