Those newfangled blog thingies

by

The New York Times, always on the bleeding edge, has recognized the influence of blogs on the election this year:

Every four years, by journalistic if not political tradition, the presidential election must be accompanied by a “revolution.” So what transformed politics this time around? The rise of the Web log, or blog. The commentary of bloggers – individuals or groups posting daily, hourly or second-by-second observations of and opinions on the campaign on their own Web sites – helped shape the 2004 race. The Op-Ed page asked bloggers from all points on the political spectrum to say what they thought was the most important event or moment of the campaign that, we hope, comes to an end today.

The usual suspects are quoted (including favorites Drum, DeLong, and Renoylds) and while Wonkette, as usual, is funny and spirited, it’s Tom Burka who IMO had the most original answer to the question:

Even before he started his campaign in earnest this year, President Bush made a crucial and perhaps fatal misstep when he announced a manned mission to Mars in January – and then abandoned the initiative as hastily as he had adopted it. In doing so, the president alienated the increasingly important group of voters who have given up and “just want to get off Earth.”

“Bush misunderestimated the importance of the ‘Get me out of here’ bloc,” said Dr. Herb Flaggellum, a former thyroid doctor-turned-pundit.

Exit polling will almost certainly show that in a sea of issues baffling undecided voters, Mr. Bush’s lack of commitment to expensive space exploration was a deciding factor in the election today. That, and his failure to wear a receiver and earpiece in the first debate.

7 thoughts on “Those newfangled blog thingies”

  1. Atrios (how come the NYTimes didn’t query him or Kos?)had an excellent point the other night:

    Whatever happens tomorrow, we should all remember that it definitely didn’t have to be this way. I suppose us liberals should be thankful, in some ways, that the Bush administration was unable to overcome its natural instinct to be divisive and cruel. With a bit of a softer edge, and even a smidgen of competence about Iraq , the Bush administration could have, policy wise, about 99.9999% of what they achieved and still be sitting at 60% approval ratings. They could have had their tax cuts and their war and whatever else and still be riding high on the post-9/11 support. Actually, they probably could’ve managed to achieve even more of their domestic agenda if they’d bothered to try very hard.

    Less than two years ago, Bush was unbeatable. High approval numbers, the Dems consigned to a ‘me too’ role.
    What happened?
    First, the flight suit photo op of “Mission Accomplished.” I think this really took a lot of people who might have otherwise supported the invasion of Iraq aback. I think this made many folks realize Bush was at least capable of exploiting 9/11 and war for political gain.
    Second, no WMDs.
    Third, Abu Ghraib. A massive sea change in the way many viewed the war.
    Fourth, Bush’s poor debate performances; Bush didn’t have to win, he just needed to stay somewhat close. He didn’t.

  2. Moe offered a very funny poem back in the pre-ObWi days on Tacitus. I can’t recall exactly how it went (and have no idea how to access those archives [Tac…are they lost forever?]), but I had offered a counter-poem that echoed your number one point Jadegold.

    The tragedy
    That dooms the left
    Is that they claim
    A White House theft.
    The comedy
    That dooms the right
    Is 43’s
    Post-Mission flight.

    Moe, if you’re out there, and can recall your original, please share…it was brilliant as I recall.
    We’ll see (hopefully by this time tomorrow) which is more damning: comedy or tragedy.

  5. The award for most ridiculous comment in the NYT article goes, no surprise, to Glenn Reynolds, for his reference to an “attempted late hit based on alleged missing explosives.”
    Explain again why this guy is taken seriously.

Comments are closed.