Reply #132: No, you've got it wrong. I am not led by the opinions of bloggers [View All]

[sabrina 1]

If you are asking do I think Dems should have shut down the government, if want MY opinion, they should do whatever it takes to defeat a party that they surely knew was never going to play nice. They should have forced a filibuster, forced them to threaten to shut down the government, expose them for what they are. Iow, they should have recognized that to beat that party you have to be as willing or more, to play by the rules Republicans even in the minority, are making.

If this blogger is of that opinion, then it would be more correct to say that he agrees with me since I have never read his opinions before today.

You seem to be inferring that I might be interested in hiding my opinion, I can assure you that is not the case. I am very open about what I think. But your inference that I 'agree with the blogger' tells me you give these bloggers far more deference than I do. Their opinions are no more informed or worthwhile than any commenter on this forum, so I hope I have myself clear. YOU asked me to read the OP, I obliged you otherwise I would have little interest in reading anything from any of those affiliated blogs.

As for Hamsher, you seem to know a lot more about her than I do. I never was a 'fan' and have rarely visited her blog. So I know her only because of the numerous threads here and elsewhere whining about the latest utterance from her. Her opinions as far as I am concerned are worth no more and no less than any commenter on any blog.

And no, bloggers are not influential because they are well-known. They are well-known because many of them sold out to be on the inside at a time when politicians began to realize that the Internet might have an effect on how they were viewed. So they sought out people who were were willing to represent them on the internet. Better to hire people already known to the online community. They did not reveal their alliances with politicians until they were forced to do so.

Iow, some people who were on the internet decided they wanted to make a career of it. Most of us simply wanted more information than was available on the MSM and to discuss issues with other people.

Those are the bloggers whose opinions I do not care about as they are constrained by not wanting to harm their 'access'.

As for Norquist and Hamsher, since she is from that circle of bloggers who gained access, it should never have surprised anyone that she or any of the others, might one day form alliances with people the rest of us viewed as the enemy. You know I'm sure that Democrats have been known to attend the same parties as Karl Rove eg. So why would anyone, except for those of us who maintain some principles and don't mix in the Cocktail Party circuit where they all 'respect' each other, be surprised when they are seen in public together. It's 'bi-partisanship' and it's all the rage in DC. Like Bush and Clinton. Or Obama and Lindsey Graham or Judd Gregg. It's a club and most of us don't belong to it. But some bloggers have sneaked inside the door.

And that is why I am outraged by Grover Norquist being given the chance to address the President's commission. That to me is far more outrageous than a blogger collaborating with him. I do not think they have any power that is not given to them by the party. I do know of one blogger who was not willing to hold back and was basically tossed out of the club.

I thought all this was pretty common knowledge. It is the reason why the 'liberal bloggers' were yelled at by Rahm, they were not SUPPOSED to go after Blue Dogs and replace them with progressives. And they fell in line. What kind of influence is that?