.>> The internet kind of screws everything up,
>> because it is an unlimited bandwidth medium.

As long as we have net neutrality.

sPh

Also, the blogging medium is overwhelmed by those who neither practice nor promote free speech rights. Shouting down and intimidation practices are the norm these days. You are labeled a troll if you express dissent.

A bit dramatic here, no?

Dissent Protects Democracy.

The odd thing about the net neutrality debate is that there, government regulation is needed in order to protect the Internet from the free market; with the FEC, we needed to keep the regulators away to allow the free market of ideas to flourish.

Because someone gave him/her a zero once. Still bitter... 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Take it from an old man; Whenever I hear those in power using the word "reform" I hide my wallet and my copy of the Constitution.

Present company excluded of course :)

I find, personally, that the current McCain-Feingold approach -- or rather, the approach to election law that attempts to control the advertising, basically, is more or less completely bogus. Sorry, "reformers." It was noble to try to regulate spending on advertising, but it doesn't matter anymore. We always fight the last war, and we keep on running for office in 1960, when somebody noticed that TV ads were changing the game.

But now, broadcast media is dying, and advertising is a terrible way to run a republic. We need to institute public financing of candidates, federally, and instant disclosure -- like a "bug" on the paid message -- of who is funding what. I'd say you should have to put up a web ad before you could broadcast it, too. Each state has a website of all the ads put on TV? A YouTube of all the ads? Just thinking.

Construct it the right way, and the bulk of candidates would pick public financing and free time, because they would be able to run without getting into bed with gangsters and influence peddlers.

Thanks.  Your comment reminds me of the other part of the tension during 2005-06, which is that we always understood that there were those on our side of the debate who disliked campaign finance reform generally, and who could seek to use the support of the liberal netroots as a Trojan horse to enact more nefarious ends.  But one didn't have to share now-former FEC commissioner Brad Smith's broad libertarian instincts to acknowledge that he was certainly right on this one.  That's why I always made sure to explain that we weren't anti-all-regulation, just anti-dumb-regulation.

But that is the point, afterall.. the 'net, and blogosphere are not appropriate alternatives for campaigns and grassroots activism. It's faceless nature and the inequality of access make it less than democratic.

Nor does the fact that some libraries offer internet access any kind of equalizer. Libraries are underfunded, and are becoming a luxury less accessible in our declining economy. Most do not even offer hours that suit the majority of workers, who would need to access in the evening.

it sounds more central here than it is, because it accords with a Web addict's ideal of a populism that will surely and naturally triumph.

I don't know if it's a "populism." The net was built on open protocols, and works simply because anything can connect to anything. Once you build walls within that, the entire model breaks down.

Is that populism? It's a design principle, it's a philosophy. Maybe it correlates somehow with populism, but I don't think that's the correct way to look at it. And of course it works within capitalism, but the capitalism only "works" because of net neutrality. Companies like google and ebay were once small startups, and would not have been successful if there were tiers of networks to get through.

And it has nothing to do with "web addicts," which seems to be a just a loaded term here.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Having seen mailing lists and moderated forums work for 30-plus years, it is possible to have discussion, not overwhelmed by shouting. Anonymity tends to be incompatible with the assurance of civility, but there are various pseudonymous intermediate possibilities that can help hide identity, for those concerned about retaliation.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Not to pile on, but has anybody commented on this?

But recent history has shown that the netroots do not win elections, and technology hasn't helped.

Huh? Technology has helped win elections. Bush/Cheney '04 had a very sophisticated (or at least effective) "e-campaign," as they called it, and they just beat us.

To say that Dean lost or Kerry lost or Lamont lost, and that this proves that "technology hasn't helped" to win elections, is just plain wrong.

Again, as I stated, technology hasn't helped.. it's far too easy to abuse and misuse.. as in the case of blackbox voting.

What I am trying to get across is that you do not form a grassroots entirely, out of what is essentially a grasstops movement. Not trying to offend, but in all honesty, what has emerged from the blogosphere has been a movement that is at times little different than what the lot of us were rampaging on the internet against initially.

Power, isolated in any confines, becomes less representative and democratic.

I do not wish to squabble about particular candidates, but given that for example, the CT senatorial campaign was going to be decided by the voters of that state, perhaps a blogger, not from Connecticut shouldn't have been involved in the annointing of a particular candidate in that race as "the" one to beat?

If you find the attempts of others to control your rights and freedomsoffensive, please consider that others find the same attempt by some in the netroots to do the same equally offensive.

I don't see how I could be offended by what you're saying, because I really don't understand what you're saying. I am not a "netroots" person or a non-netroots person. I am someone who formerly voted regularly and canvassed in October in November, but did little else, and who has been far more involved with politics in the last few years. Coincidence perhaps, but my greater involvement coincides with the advent of widespread use of the Internet in politics.

More to your points, yes, technology IS easy to abuse and misuse -- just like direct mail is easy to abuse and misuse, and just like election day tactics used for voter suppression purposes make a mockery of grassroots campaigning and ground games, and just like mass media is easy to abuse when attack ads saturate the airwaves, etc. etc.

Internet technology is in that sense just like every other tool. If you want to claim that it is particularly unhelpful or harmful, I don't buy it.

Finally, I don't think any "netroots" supporter would argue against localism or against getting people involved on the ground. That is what Dean did, and what MoveOn does, and what all successful campaigns do now. You're saying none of these have produced a net positive result or been effective?

So as for localism -- yes, it generally makes more sense for a person in Connecticut to pronounce judgment on Connecticut voting. But why is an out-of-state blogger or online donor any more out of place when getting involved in a Connecticut race than, say, a Washington pundit, or a New York Times reporter, or an out-of-state donor that sends a check through the mail?

Again, technology changes things to be sure -- but in many ways it is neither more enabling nor disabling, and neither more prone to abuse nor less, than all other campaigning tools and media.

I did not see the pdf file in question, but after searching throughout the site and not finding anything more revealing than a graph (on the Pew Research site http://pewresearch.org/) that broke down access between racial groups/educational achievement, I called the telephone number at the bottom of the page and left a message. I received a call back and asked a few questions and was informed that the bulk of the polling was conducted online. No mention of whether it was inhouse or sourced out. I also asked whether the polling was conducted to accurately reflect the racial composition of the nation, but she had no details on that. Nor could I get answers specific to the questions that were asked.

The pdf file seems to infer that the question about access encompass any access, ie.. at work, or school, as opposed to having internet access at home that one pays for. It also seems that respondents were asked if "anyone" in the household accessed the internet, even if it the access was limited outside the home. That could reflect low income parents stating that their children accessed the internet at school. Why the vagueness when they state the results being as among adults?

I am also perplexed at the lack of statistics about those who stated that they did not access the internet... it seems to me that they should be curious to reflect the reasons why.

I found it interesting that the graph I had seen earlier reflected that access was dramatically less among those with only a high school diploma and those who didn't graduate high school, which translates to low wages.

I plan on calling back tomorrow to learn more, because the focus seems slanted towards achieving a certain result as opposed to reflecting whether there is truly an increase of access that is consistent. This has been most fascinating.

Irregardless Mr. Bonin, representative democracy is not achieved via sampling percentages.. again, you do not make your case for the internet as any alternative to the current system. I'm sorry if you find that inconvenient, but it's simply the facts.

Power, isolated in any confines, becomes less representative and democratic.

The idea the netroots hold some kind of power right now is such a strawman. If there is any power, it's tenuous, at best. But the netroots are still outsiders.

I'd like more specific examples of how the netroots holds this power over the process of politics (interestingly, you previously told us how technology and the netroots "isn't working," so there seems to be a contradiction here...). 

I'd also like to see some examples of how the our rights and freedoms are being constrained online.

Otherwise, I think you're basing these statements on "What David Brooks Says," rather than actual experience. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Please!

Irregardless is not a word! It is a conflation of two words - irrespective and regardless.

It is only slightly less irritating than the use of "there" as a substitute for "they're," they contraction of "they are." [And I don't blame you for this second sin. I merely provide it as an example of the level of the sin.]

We are a representative democracy, or perhaps you consider the premise of the importance of governmetn representing those who can't afford pay for play as an anachronism? It's not any great technological achievement to understand how to use a computer, nor is it difficult to type. The relevance of the discussion is equal access and equal free speech rights.. the internet provides neither. Also, it is offensive to read someone infer, rather like a right winger, that ignoring those realities is acceptable. That if you can be ganged up on, you should accept being silenced.. again, not democratic.. more it's Bush-like.

But the premise, since leading up to the 2004 campaign was that the "netroots" were the grassroots. Not a part of it, but the sum total. It was stated over and over again on the DFA, later to become the BFA, and of course on Daily Kos.

The DFA was presented as a campaign's blog, to further the discussion of a candidate as being the best one to win the democratic primary. There was no ability however to freely discuss the candidates stands or record on the blog. If one had questions that were inconvenient to the campaign, one was attacked to discredit the questioner, and censored by being banned. Even those supplying examples of their legitimate concerns, links to articles in credible, even overwhelmingly progressive news sources like Vermont alternative media that critiqued his record of supporting corporate farms who polluted the air, water and land of neighboring farms and communities. You were pilloried. The presumption was that if you weren't with the Dean campaign, you were a right wing corporate stooge.

The same can be said for blogs like the Daily Kos. Far too many of his former blog members and supporters have been forced out of the discussion there for daring to speak freely against what they found offensive in the various themes Markos would seek to promote. Attacks against worker's rights, women's rights. Even great democratic candidates or politicians. Long term respected members went from feeling a part of the community to being accused of being the enemy and forced off the blog. They felt betrayed.

Other were blackmailed when they learned of Markos and his friend Jerome Armstrong's unethical business partnership, being hired as consultants to candidates for pay, and then using their blogs and forums, to promote the candidate as well as attacking other candidates. Neither disclosed this until after it was found to have been happening. Bloggers were also concerned about Armstrong previous illegal acivities, which were justifiably felt to be the same sort we'd expect to read Bush supporters to be guilty of. Bloggers were threatened to no longer be able to earn money for their blogs via the Kos controlled liberal blogad network if they dared to discuss the matter on their blogs.

I do believe that these concerns among others helped bring about concerns over FEC laws and rules.

Site's like Talkng Points Memo, blogs and political discussion forums blossomed because of the public's growing sense of the media's corruption and being controlled by corporate interests. Over the past few years, many in the public have become concerned about the corruption of those who have sought to consolidate power and control over the blogging/internet discussion forum medium. More and more the discussion is limited to and framed by a few for personal agenda and profit.

I don't like the idea of internet regulation.. but I do believe the media does need to be regulated in the public interest, basically full financial disclosure of those blogging for profit, especially those who operate what is a monopoly that controls advertising in the medium, and has the ability to exploit that control to influence and suppress discussion. We have the ability to learn who pays FOX news, we should have the ability to learn who pays Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong.

When you get right down to it, whether it's Markos Moulitsas, Jerome Armstrong or Roger Ailes, none of them should be able to seek to control the free speech of others or attempt to subvert elections for their own personal agendas or profits.

No cscs, I'm talking about how the discussion table needs to include the voices of more than just the grasstops who can afford to access regularly and make full use of the medium. I am not attacking blogs, I respect and appreciate the options they provides.. but my concerns are that some in the blogosphere are reducing activism to what you can pay for, as opposed to encouraging getting out there on the ground in their respective communitiees.

I don't believe most people sought to get involved in criticising the corruption of the Bush administration and the right wing because their intent was to adopt the practices of right wing as a standard.

The relevance of the discussion is equal access and equal free speech rights.. the internet provides neither.

Um, if you haven't noticed, real life doesn't provide this fully, either.

But the premise, since leading up to the 2004 campaign was that the "netroots" were the grassroots. Not a part of it, but the sum total.

Completely not true.

There was no ability however to freely discuss the candidates stands or record on the blog.

Ah, we now finally get to the source of all the bitterness. Dissed by DFA.

Other were blackmailed when they learned of Markos and his friend Jerome Armstrong's unethical business partnership, being hired as consultants to candidates for pay, and then using their blogs and forums, to promote the candidate as well as attacking other candidates.

If you haven't noticed, the blogosphere has grown beyond Markos and Jermone. You still keep hanging on, though...

Clue: It's not 2003 anymore. 

More and more the discussion is limited to and framed by a few for personal agenda and profit.

Actually, I do have photos of Markos wiping his ass with 100 dollar bills. Not pretty...

When you get right down to it, whether it's Markos Moulitsas, Jerome Armstrong or Roger Ailes, none of them should be able to seek to control the free speech of others or attempt to subvert elections for their own personal agendas or profits.

You should start your own blog, then. It's easy: blogger.com

Buh bye!!!

Dissent Protects Democracy.

What CSCS writes above is much more descriptive of the situation than your sad rant that you aren't getting the attention you think you deserve.

The fact is, neither Markos Moulitsas, Jerome Armstrong nor Roger Ailes have been able to control my free speech.

OK. So I nearly got banned for disagreeing with Marcos on how bad the use of contract security people (Mercenaries) in Iraq was. So? It's his blog. [By the way, he was right and I was wrong.] I also have my own blog. I also post here, which I find is much more the kind of place my ways of thinking seem to be appreciated. So what would I lose by being banned by Kos?

I also don't walk into a biker bar and begin talking about how great the local police are. Nor do I reverse that and walk into the local police bar and complain about how badly the police treat the bikers. Nor do I go to the Petroleum club and complain about how the oil companies are ripping me off. (Wouldn't want to lose access to the steaks there. Priorities. Always keep your priorities in mind.) It's funny how my biases can get me (at best) kicked out of some of the better places in town. That's if I try to convert people who are there because it is a place they go to avoid that kind of argument.

I don't blame them. I utterly HATE evangelists! If I want to listen to them, I'll search them out. I lie to Jehovas Witnesses, and if they don't leave my door I'll call the cops. They have NO Right to free speech on my doorstep or in my club, if I don't let them.

mm232, you strike me as an evangelist for something that I don't want to listen to. Your priorities are clearly not my priorities, and you are not going to establish any rules that say I have to listen to you. That's what you are trying to do.

There are forums where what you have to say can be presented. [One of those is your own blog.] Another seems to be right here at TPM Cafe.

Unfortunately, all I hear from you is whining about how you aren't allowed to present your ideas. OK. I hear your [very unattractive] whining, but I hear no ideas. You are very much like the evangelist who took advantage of the Free Speech area at a University I was attending and set up a very loud rock band, then played Xtian Rock and chose people walking by to yell "You are going to HELL!" at. I was nice. I did not practice the ancient Xtian practice of picking up a stone and throwing it at him. [The University changed the rules shortly thereafter, thank God.]

I think that I have a manner of analyzing a situation and writing about it that sometimes connects with others, and as I practice it, I hope I am getting better. In there blogosphere there is no one who can set a rule that makes anyone read what I write.

So I (1) have to have something to say that resonates with an audience, (2) I have to have the ability to present it in an interesting way. Then, (3)(a) I have to present it in a forum taht accepts that kind of writing or (3)(b) I can self-publish. That is, I can (3)(a) put up a diary on dKos if they accept it, or (3)(b) I can put it up on my own blog Politics Plus Stuff and if I put it on my own blog, I have to try to attract an audience. That last is just like self-publishing your own book.

As far as I can tell, all you have to say is first, to scold people for not reading what you write and second, nodding in agreement with your words of wisdom. You want someone to enforce a rule that makes your writings mandatory reading to a lot of people.

Frankly, you are going to remain frustrated. That's not our problem, that's yours. In spite of your obvious sincerity in what you write, you have nothing of value to tell me. Or at least I am not willing to try to go past your sad whining to find out if you do have something to say.

So why have I written this long rebuttal to what you wrote? Frankly I saw that what you are doing is irritating a lot of people. But most won't really identify why they are irritatied. They'll just ignore you and go on, having wasted their time reading what you wrote. So my message is to explain to them and to you why you are do very, very wrong. I think I have written it rather clearly and I get to present it right here, at the source of their irritation.

It's a marketeer's dream. So hey, everyone, if you like what I have to say here, go look at my blog, Politics Plus Stuff and see if any of my other writings and interests connect with you.

See, mm232? I have my own blog, I sometimes have something to say, and I work to market my blog.

How would being barred from dKos abridge my freedom of speech?

[And for the rest of you - since my sense of humor is sufficiently - dare I say subtle? arcane? - so that I often have to explain when I am telling something humorous, I just want you to know that right now I have the biggest Sh*t-eating grin you have ever seen!]

Did the Founders have fees attached to pamphlets like Common Sense?

Were the Federalists and Anti Federalists subject to regulation and tariff for printed opinion?

Heritage and AEI don't want oversight breathing down their necks either.

This will be a moot point, like anti abortion crusades. Continually used to extract energy and finance from both sides by their party levers as a way to continue in their quest that is a realm known as "agree to disagree."