"How do you manage to attract so many readers who don’t align with you politically? My theory is that right-wingers want to hear what non-doctrinaire Democrats (for instance you and Mickey Kaus) have to say and will listen to them just because they appear to be so sane when compared to the lefty flamethrowers. I wonder if David Brooks (if he didn’t have the NYT bullhorn) and similar non-doctrinaire Republicans attract the same attention from hardcore Obama supporters? If so, why are there not more mainstream voices and if not, why the difference between the leftys and rightys?"
Email from a reader. (He was referring to the poll in this post, where 38% of you answered the question "Should Althouse go to the Michelle Obama rally?" with the option "No, because Michelle Obama hates America.")
I said I'd ask you.
My instinctive response, which may say more about me than about you, is that "No, because Michelle Obama hates America" is funny, and that's a natural vote-getter that doesn't reflect true opinion. Look at any poll on Television Without Pity or Go Fug Yourself, and you'll see.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७३ टिप्पण्या:
For the record though, I'm very, very opposed to Obama, and also very much reading you and Mickey both, so maybe your reader has a point there too.
Hrm, that should have said "very much enjoy readying you and MIckey..."
I voted just that way, and see it mostly as a joke reply...mostly. I think Michelle Obama, like so many liberals, has been "educated" to think that virtues like patriotism are for the bitterclingers, not intellectual giants such as herself.
I think some of your readers actually do think Michelle Obama hates America. And they therefore hate her.
My opinion is that if you hate something/someone, it's much easier to coast along thinking that your own opinions are the right ones. Because of course someone/something you hate couldn't be right, now could they/it?
I didn't vote because you left the only obvious choice off: No, because who over the age of 14 could possibly care what Michelle has to say about anything?
Of course it was a joke reply. On goofy questions I usually pick your funniest answer.
Michelle Obama hates America is a joke. It is funny. It has just a grain a truth, with that crazy comment she made about never being proud of America until her husband's campaign to make it a fair joke too.
My wife finds Michelle Obama obnoxious. And she is a Democrat and pro choice. I really don't care much for Michelle Obama one way or the other.
Well I think the 38% is a goof but I also like that you (and Mickey) put intellectual honesty above pure partisanship. Although I generally vote republican and in most ways consider myself conservative, I hardly ever look at partisan stuff.
I think some readers see in you a Democrat that they would like to see be the mainstream, and not the Democrats that now call themselves the mainstream.
I think Althouse answered this a long time ago. Far left blogs tend to link to her to attack her; righty blogs tend to link her to agree with her.
I don't think Democratic ideas are repulsive to right wing readers. I think that attacking right wing readers is what puts them off. As long as a blog doesn't call a particular group bad names, it's more likely to be read.
It's hard to be a conservative and read blogs that demonize you as a person. As long as it's ideas, that's different.
Althouse attracts bitter right wing folks.
This is news?
"Go Fug Yourself."
I love it when you talk dirty to me.
Seriously, I like this blog because you're so much more different than myself. If I wanted only right wingnut opinions, I'd just talk to myself.
Well I think the 38% is a goof but I also like that you (and Mickey) put intellectual honesty above pure partisanship.
Ditto. It's not fun to argue with people who agree with you (what's to argue about!) and it's not fun to argue with people who don't listen (rabids on either side). So I enjoy the back and forth, middle of the road blogs.
1. I voted for that one because it was funny. But it is funny because there is some truth to it.
I do believe Michelle hates America now. Or at least dislikes it quite a bit. She hates the way it is in her view -which is cynical and racist and all messed-up. But that is the case with many liberals. They can't separate the nation they want to love from the government/leaders they hate so much. It's this whole "If only they would do things my way America would be great" mindset.
2. I read Althouse because even when she presents a point of view that I disagree with she does it in a rational, respectful way. I enjoy listening to left-wingers who debate points rationally and with respect. Too few do and that is why Ann stands out.
Plus it's always a trip to see what downtownlad is gonna say.
1jpb said...
"Althouse attracts bitter right wing folks.
Bitter, you say? We cling to her - is that what you had in mind?
That's funny-- I thought about picking the joke response, but then I thought that I'd just be contributing to the nutroots idea that all of Althouse's readers are rabid right-wingers. So I picked the better things to do option. Judging from the picture that was posted, it looks like much of Madison had more important things to do also.
I got my shots up to date, thank you.
Calling Ann a "non-doctrinaire Democrat" is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer a "non-doctrinaire vegetarian."
I was one of that 38% that said No because Michelle hates America but I'm a recovering Democrat so I suspect our views are NOT all that far off.
Obama lost me last January when his campaign chair made sexist and race baiting comments about Clinton. But over the remainder of the primary, I've been so disgusted by the treatment of Hillary that I withdrew my name from the party's contact lists when she suspended her campaign.
When the Dems didn't have the basic decency to give Hillary a full roll call so I decided then and there to vote for McCain. Palin being added to the ticket was just icing on the cake.
Althouse and Kaus represent whites who simply have to play passive-aggressive games and pretend to be democrats when in fact they are older people that turned republican. They can do far more damage this way and get added hits from the naive folks who are easily conned.
Old lesbians Paglia and Tammy Bruce are pulling the same stunts. They voice opinions that represent the right-wing wackjob, then proceed to try to con their audience into the idea that the democratic party left them. No, you are a republican dear, and should find the balls to admit it and be willing to be held accountable for it. Such frauds, and it's legal to defraud like this. Awful. Luckily, nobody in their respective communities buys a word that either of these miserable right-wing lesbians say. They are a joke.
The things that Ann tries to ascribe to satire(like the Limbaugh comments on mexicans, which was not meant satirically) are not satire. This is how the right-wing whites communicate-through codes invoked through supposed humor because they do not have the balls to own their real attitides and accept the resultant penalties society ascribes to these attitudes.
I have no problem with racial attitides that do not mirror mine, but for christ's sake at least have the balls to own it.
But that may cost them money, so the lies and passive-aggressive bulshit continues.
"Calling Ann a "non-doctrinaire Democrat" is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer a "non-doctrinaire vegetarian.""
I'm sure that would be a simply hilarious joke if it meant anything. Or are you going to that one-drop rule again, the way you folks do on seemingly all racial and political matters? PURITY MUST BE MAINTAINED! HAVE YOU EVER HAD A CONSERATIVE THOUGHT, AND WHEN DID YOU HAVE IT?
integrity, what is that foam around your mouth?
Or are you going to that one-drop rule again, the way you folks do on seemingly all racial and political matters?
Obviously it's my contention Ann has more than "one drop" of metaphorical wingnut blood. She doesn't attract the kind of crowd she does by writing like a liberal. She does it by writing like a former liberal who has seen the error of her ways. It's her whole schtick. Kaus too.
This is how the right-wing whites communicate-through codes invoked through supposed humor because they do not have the balls to own their real attitides and accept the resultant penalties society ascribes to these attitudes.
Hear hear.
Bitter, you say? We cling to her - is that what you had in mind?
Simon, I suggest you cling to her not out of bitterness.
Madison Man don't tease Simon, he can't help himself.
I voted "Michelle Hates America" because it was too funny not to vote that way.
Kaus-
He's obsessed-I find that boring.
Plus he's literally a mess to read.
An obsessed mess.
Yeah he really lost his mind when immigration was front and center. Hard to know if he's genuinely afraid of the reconquista or was just desperate for an issue where he wasn't a Bush apologist.
Does rabid mean 'has rabies'?
Foaming at the mouth, snarling, irrationally aggressive, diseased?
Here now, that goes too far. Why the hyperbole?
I'd like to have the Obama's over for coffee and shortbread. There's lots of things here for their kids to get up to. We could make paper pop-up cards.
But president and first lady, eh, not so much. The earlier comparisons with John and Jacqueline were a bit too much. I should say, the evocations of John Kennedy, apparently ceaseless, and references to the American myth of Camelot are annoying, itself a reference to another British myth. Yeah, I said it. Look, no foam, no snarls.
Phobe suffix means fear, and annoyance is not fear. So, I reject this crap about "seem to be rabid Obama-phobes." Douchenozzle. <-- my new favorite defamation.
Also, I'm fairly certain that people who bounce over from HotAir links and Instapundit links, were they too look at the last 100 posts, would probably be of the mind that she is a doctrinaire conservative.
I would put money on that bet, considering the last poll Althouse did was asking readers wether they thought she was voting for Obama or McCain and more than half thought she was somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun.
"Obviously it's my contention Ann has more than "one drop" of metaphorical wingnut blood. She doesn't attract the kind of crowd she does by writing like a liberal. She does it by writing like a former liberal who has seen the error of her ways. It's her whole schtick. Kaus too."
What do people like Doyle call someone who votes Republican 80% of the time? A Republican. (Among other things.) What does he call somebody who votes Democrat 80% of the time. A Republican.
integrity said...Old lesbians Paglia and Tammy Bruce are pulling the same stunts. They voice opinions that represent the right-wing wackjob,
What can you expect to get from an old lesbian other than a wackjob?
I didn't vote because there wasn't a who cares option.
In regards to this blog, I like the eclectic topics that Ann puts up for us to think about and discuss. It isn't a one note song; lots of diversity in postings and in the people who respond. By and large, most comments are thoughtful and well presented, with some exceptions. Some commentors make me laugh, like Palladian's photoshopped Michelle rally and Trooper York's Yogi and Boo Boo political satires. Others are fun to argue with and others deserve to be /ignored. What I appreciate is the level of intelligence, literacy and that people rarely resort to the gutter slime comments that are prevalent on other blogs (cough Kos cough). Perusing this blog is a nice break during my working day.
Ken -
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Ditto what Dusty Bunny Queen said.
Didn't vote on the Michelle Obama rally because it didn't include a "who cares?" option.
I read this blog because it's open-minded and attracts comments from a diverse group of people. It isn't all down one idealogical line like a lot of blogs. The commens are sometimes the best part. Is there any other blog with the equivalent of Sir Archy?
"integrity said...Old lesbians Paglia and Tammy Bruce are pulling the same stunts. They voice opinions that represent the right-wing wackjob"
Underneath the PC mask, the left really does have nothing but contempt for gay people. For any who dare stray from "progressive" dogma on any issue, the PC platitudes vanish, and off come the gloves.
Downtownlad, are you paying attention?
I was tempted to vote "No, because Michelle Obama hates America.", Mostly because it is funny and partly because it is (partly) true,but I didn't, because I wanted you to go to the rally and then blog about it.
Just because Michelle doesn't think America is worthy of her, that doesn't mean she hates it.
This calls for another poll, does it not?
A vote for "No, because Michelle Obama hates America" is
a) Funny
b) Bitter
c) Funny and bitter
d) Salty and sweet
Tjl said: "Underneath the PC mask, the left really does have nothing but contempt for gay people."
It's like opposite day, except this has lasted all month.
McCain is the candidate of change!
Obama is a segregationist and using race against white people!
Obama is the washington insider!
Christian Conservatives love working mothers and prefer that the father stay home with the kids!
They should have a word for this. It's not like Bill Clintons "triangulation" because he was actually co-opting the positions of the republicans (welfare reform)...this is something sillier and dare I say it? Palpatinian.
If liberals have contempt for gays (and with mickey kaus you might have an argument there...) what do you call bigots who are trying to strip the rights of gays to marry in california? Ultra-Liberals?
If today is opposite day...
As an Economic Liberatarian and Social Conservative, I like to hear arguments that are presented in the spirit of trying to "create a more perfect union". Then, we can have a hell of a conversation or even argument.
But when a partisan comes up with BS because s/he puts party above country, or worse yet, socialism above the constitution(while lying about it), then there is nothing of value to be gained from an exhange.
Defending Carter for example, should exclude anyone from any forum of ideas, because such a person is clearly either willfully dishonest or so profoundly stupid that they must wear a helmet and mittens 24/7.
The same goes for those on the right who still call Bush a true conservative.
Socialism/capitalism has nothing to do with the Constitution that canard was captioned during the cold war.
I hate conservatives conflating market theory with the bill of rights.
I think one of the reasons those on the right come here is to attempt to find some common ground.
Unlike many here, I feel her vote is still up for grabs, although it leans towards Obama. I like to think that if we can work and reason with Anne despite our differences, rather than condemn and attacking her for un-group-think, she may change. If not her, than other lurkers may change.
I am very old school, and like Sir Archy, I believe in courting, not hectoring. I occasionally slip but, when I do slip, I feel bad about it; not smug that I have made a childish point.
I am also a Steven-Den-Beste like engineer. I don't get to hope that things will work; I have to make things work. I can't talk the laws of physics out of their stubborn intransigence; I have to deal with them. Facts are facts and are not subject to debate. From what I see at work, there are a lot of engineers on the right. At work, we learn to "do the numbers" and try to let the math speak for itself. Brow-beating and name calling do not make the product work any better. If you didn't design it right, it fails in testing. Brow-beating and name calling do not make your argument any better.
I honestly find Obama to be very naive and sometimes dishonest. I find his stated belief that you tax for fairness rather than to maximize the income to the government unappealing class envy. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. "Punishing" the rich and lowering the government revenues helps no one. The insistence on universal health care when we hear what it has wrought in Canada worries me. His stated goal of slowing down defense developments, shows a lack of understanding about the way to deal with potential threats. The "somewhat dishonest" comes from his statements on NAFTA, the surge, his church, Ayers, and the explanation of pig joke.
Before this is over everyone is going to have a meltdown....
I get regular emails from two people (one a friend another a business owner) that rant, rant, rant about fascism, telling me to "Wake up! Wake up!" (Then again I live in a neighborhood where I see bumper stickers that say things like "I'd Rather Be Smashing Imperialism."
Yesterday a friend told me that at work a woman totally lost it in a rant about Palin.
Ah, for the days when FDR could go on TV and calm us all down.
This is how the right-wing whites communicate-through codes invoked through supposed humor because they do not have the balls to own their real attitides and accept the resultant penalties society ascribes to these attitudes.
So when Ferraro said: “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
Is that liberal Democrat codespeak for 'Obama only got to this point because he's a darkie and a lucky AA mo-fo at that.'
Oh and Bill Clinton isn't a racist cause he has his offices in Harlem.
How you people on the left continually try to play the race card on conservatives is laughable.
UWS guy said...
If liberals have contempt for gays (and with mickey kaus you might have an argument there...) what do you call bigots who are trying to strip the rights of gays to marry in california? Ultra-Liberals?
If today is opposite day...
12:04 PM
African-Americans?
tjl said...
"integrity said...Old lesbians Paglia and Tammy Bruce are pulling the same stunts. They voice opinions that represent the right-wing wackjob"
Underneath the PC mask, the left really does have nothing but contempt for gay people. For any who dare stray from "progressive" dogma on any issue, the PC platitudes vanish, and off come the gloves.
These women use their lesbianism to advance their fraudulent right-wing narratives(I am a democratic lesbian, but the party has left me). One must point out the tricks these women use, the lesbian card is one of them. Such a dumb thing for you to say, not well thought out.
It is also important to point out they are older, as white folks tend to turn conservative as they age. These factors(age and sexual orientation) contribute to the fraud they are perpetrating. Pay attention to how these people are operating and you will understand the post.
They are older right-wing lesbians perpetraing fraud on any sucker willing to listen. Should they be exempt from scrutiny because they are old lesbians? No.
Would I refer to an older left-wing lesbian in the same manner? No, she is not perpetrating fraud using her lesbianism for left or right-wing cred. There is a big difference.
Yet the Democrat party leadership has swung far to the left. Its concept of social liberalism is distinctly Marxist and depends on identity politics, class warfare and victimhood to keep themselves in power.
In response the Republican party leadership swung to the right and embraced the Christian conservatives, leaving libertarian leaning Hamiltonians such as myself stranded. Despite all their problems, we end up going with Republicans because at least it makes the pretense of Federalism and, more importantly, the Marxist-government-is-your-friend viewpoint of the Democrats is nakedly absurd.
Integrity writes, "These women use their lesbianism to advance their fraudulent right-wing narratives"
Integrity makes the following transparently circular argument:
"1) these women are older lesbians who advocate positions not sanctioned by th eleft;
2) any position not sanctioned by the left is inherently fraudulent; therefore
3) these women are fraudulent old lesbians."
Stunning logic. What a perfect demonstration of the left's reflexive response to disagreement -- don't engage with those who disagree with you and attempt to persuade them, just call them names and demand their total destruction.
Althouse is my blog homebase for the same reason Instapundit would be, if he allowed comments.
They are good atmospheres for those who hold my world view. Note, I didn't say politics.
Both Glenn and Ann are lawyers and Liberatarians who were once Democrats and voted for Bush in '04. They rarely blog about religion, or hold the topic much in esteem. The people who are drawn to their blogs seem to be intelligent, well-spoken and mostly non-doctrinaire. Profanity and hysteria are the exceptions, not the rule.
I've been to many blogs, both right and left, in my life. Everyone here has too, no doubt.
I challenge you to find another blog like Althouse's, which covers such a wide swath of daily subjects, in a neutral voice with very little agenda, which has such a commentariat to answer them.
Even Megan McCardle's or PrawfBlog's aren't as eclectic.
Cheers,
Victoria
integrity -
You are so steeped in your liberal dogma, you can't even see that every post you make only illustrates the point further.
"Using her lesbianism for cred"?
"perpetrating fraud"?
Is there a book somewhere that requires lesbians to agree with you politically? Is your complaint that these women aren't "licensed lesbians"?
For someone who complains about Republicans stereotyping, literally every sentence of your post contains stereotypes of whites (and by correlation, non-whites), lesbians, heterosexuals, conservatives, liberals. Is there anybody who you left out of bigotry? If so, I'm sure you'll correct it with the next glimpse you provide into the blackness of hate and prejudice that is your narrow-minded worldview.
You base your entire worldview on your preconceived notions of who should believe what based on what your Leftist superiors have told you their proper "identity" should allow and disallow, and you have the gall to complain about anybody else for...pretty much anything?
You don't need anyone to discredit your arguments: your words and your bigotry do that for you....
I wonder if David Brooks (if he didn’t have the NYT bullhorn) and similar non-doctrinaire Republicans attract the same attention from hardcore Obama supporters?
Well, look at the results of polls on Instapundiit, the domain of someone on the right who is clearly not a doctrinaire Republican (pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage).
Althouse attracts voters who don't align with her politically because politics is just a small part of the blog. (Sometimes it's too much, and some of us drop out until it calms down again.) The commenters who stand out (in a bad way) are the ones who have no identity other than their politics (or pet issue).
I hate conservatives conflating market theory with the bill of rights.
It seems to me that the Fourth Amendment works against the concept of wealth redistribution. I can say with certainty that more of the Founding Fathers were familiar with Smith than with Marx. (Heh.)
Then again I live in a neighborhood where I see bumper stickers that say things like "I'd Rather Be Smashing Imperialism."
Hey, from Madison Man's posts today, I think he's part of the Rebel Alliance.
integrity said...
"I am a democratic lesbian, but the party has left me"
Given the attitude you demonstrate here, I'm sure you're used to people leaving you by now.
hi- love your site/ check it out often/ like the comments/- a pleasure- easy on the eyes
Jim said...
integrity -
You are so steeped in your liberal dogma, you can't even see that every post you make only illustrates the point further.
"Using her lesbianism for cred"?
"perpetrating fraud"?
Is there a book somewhere that requires lesbians to agree with you politically? Is your complaint that these women aren't "licensed lesbians"?
For someone who complains about Republicans stereotyping, literally every sentence of your post contains stereotypes of whites (and by correlation, non-whites), lesbians, heterosexuals, conservatives, liberals. Is there anybody who you left out of bigotry? If so, I'm sure you'll correct it with the next glimpse you provide into the blackness of hate and prejudice that is your narrow-minded worldview.
You base your entire worldview on your preconceived notions of who should believe what based on what your Leftist superiors have told you their proper "identity" should allow and disallow, and you have the gall to complain about anybody else for...pretty much anything?
You don't need anyone to discredit your arguments: your words and your bigotry do that for you....
Read the post. These women use their lesbianism as a talking point to build up their own credibility in right-wing circles.
Are you suggesting that the republican party has been gay friendly. These are self-loathing homosexuals. I'm sorry if you don't like the facts, but it is a fact. Sane human beings do not vote for or support a party that is against them. Got it.
It's kind of like calling Palin a feminist. This is the biggest lie I have ever heard or read. Women who are out to hurt other woman(like trying to dictate her reproductive rights) are not feminists. Ever. Got it. You think if you keep repeating these lies and frauds it will stick and it doesn't.
Apparently you have not paid attention to what your party has been up to for at least the last 28 years and are now trying to pretend you are not the party of homophobes, racists and misogynists. Bullsh_t, and everyone who is not YOU knows it.
Keep lying, it will never sell.
Althouse is definitely a moderate conservative, regardless of how she classifies herself.
Anyone who voted for GW in 2004 cannot considered a true Democrat. Obstain from voting, okay. I wasn't in love with Kerry either. But GW?
Why wouldn't the righties listen to her? Especially during this election where she's (again) leaned right.
Wow! Obama-phobes are now playing the "funny card".
It was a bait folks.
Now we know who you are. :p
To the extent that many of us thougt it funny--rather than true and therefore an outrage--is the extent to which we are a pretty easy-going lot.
Masterasia said...
Wow! Obama-phobes are now playing the "funny card".
It was a bait folks.
Now we know who you are. :p
3:06 PM
So, is this a veiled threat? "We know who you are, and when we get to power, you will be the first ones against the wall in front of a firing squad"?
I am an Obamaphobe, I don't like the guy. So what?
How about another poll.
A moderate is:
a) Someone who votes the straight Democratic party line because the Green candidates aren't competitive enough.
b) There is no b.
You know, conservative who reads Althouse and Kaus all the time totally pegs me. I had no idea I was part of such a large, peggable cohort. It's a little discomfiting.
I like sane, insightful commentary. From anybody. I tend to agree with what is sane or, at least, I can't get too upset about it. Doctrinaire people are only sometimes sane and they are never insightful. The trolls here -- always from the left, it seems -- illustrate that perfectly. They speak in silly platitudes.
Also, while I will occasionally look at places like democraticunderground for amusement, I cannot bear to visit the right-wing hothouses. Too embarrassing.
Our constitution enshrines private property rights and individualism. Socialism is at odds with both ideas. Therefore socialism is not compatable with our constitution. Socialists should at least try to have their way by discussing the merits of pro-socialist amendments, not by hiding their true agenda and resorting to obfuscation, lies, censorship and name calling to have their way. Most liberal blogs go that route 500ms after being created.
Our constitution enshrines private property rights and individualism.
I'm not sure that's the case. I used to argue it, actually, but then a cagey old law professor asked me to prove it one day and, well, it's a tough case to make.
However, the Declaration of Independence definitively does enshrine private property rights and individualism. That's important because it is our founding document, set in stone and not amendable.
"How do you manage to attract so many readers who don’t align with you politically?"
And now, I shall attempt to answer the stupidest question posed in the history of the internet. Dear reader: It's because Althouse blogs about the same things that right-wingers believe, over and over again. They visit, because they like what they're reading.
Question answered.
It seems to me that people have a choice.
They can chose "integrity" or they can chose to abuse their beliefs and reason in order to properly align their politics according to their race, orientation, or gender.
When Ann more or less got kicked out of "liberalism" for her sins of apostasy, she had a choice. Try to win back liberal love... or be true to her own ideas and tolerant of ours.
It's because Althouse blogs about the same things that right-wingers believe, over and over again.
Things like humor, skepticism, individualism.
I guess that makes me Spartacus too.
I want to know what Althouse has blogged that makes her a right winger?
I mean, let's talk about specifics here. Gross generalization is what always gets you lefty loons in trouble. Look at socialism, for example. How'd that work out for you?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा