True.



This crap about "the power of the blogosphere" you get all the time at Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan's site smacks of delusions of grandeur.

Hey, don't knock their delusions, if delusions keep them working hard for us at little or no pay.



The funniest part of the Patty Murray event was that during the Lott controversy, a prominent black conservative wrote, think of how outraged we'd be if someone in 2057 praised Osama bin Laden; that's how Lott's praise for segregationists made him feel. Well, it wasn't two weeks before Murray praised Osama.



I think people only have so much capacity for outrage. Liberals were never outraged by Lott, they were pleased with him. Conservatives were outraged, because this "leader" was not speaking for us, but against us. It was conservative anger that did Lott in, not liberal anger. It was not the left that dispatched Lott, but a Republican president and 50 Republican senators.



Murray, by contrast, outraged only her political opponents. So nothing will happen to her.



Orrin, this isn't a sign that the blogosphere is weak. The national media could not affect events either. Look how little effect the NY Times has on Augusta's admissions of women. The reality is that changing people's minds is not easy and so there can be immediate impact only when you bring people information they are already disposed to act upon. But the long-run impact of the blogosphere may be great - counted one mind at a time.

Well, when you talk about big media, you mean newspapers, don't you? I mean, if electronic scolding had any effect we'd all be living like Limbaugh wants us to live.



While I think Murray's remarks were outrageous, I also think the reason they don't resonate much with effect eastern liberal newspapermen is that they have barely ever heard of her. They'd heard of Lott, though it appears they had never paid him any close attention until the last few weeks.



pj is right, though, public opinion is disposed to overlook some crimes and pounce on others. The press is way more beholden to public opinion than it is able to move it.



I speak from rueful experience in the last election.

I liked the bit:



But outside of that rather incestuous sphere, it seems likely that such stories will be seized upon and utilized by the real media only when such serve their own ends, which, for most of us, aren't our ends.




I think this is to what Patrick Ruffini is referring when he says that the Blogosphere is a niche demographic, and likely to remain that way. At best, bloggers are the people who influence the people who influence the people who influence the people who make decisions. To say it's a bit removed from actual power is to say that astrology is a bit removed from real science.



In defense of Glenn Reynolds, at least, I think he's a bit tongue in cheek when he refers to the power of the Blogosphere. But maybe I'm misreading him.

I think for Prof. Reynolds, it's a joke, but it's also a dream. If the dream died, would he keep blogging?

Bear with me here, but as one who has been trumpeting the blogosphere, I would merely say that the power of the blogs in l’affaire Lott was in not only representing “the conscience” of the party, and the will of the intellectual rank and file, but in doing so and then clubbing the leadership over the head until they fell into line as they should have from the start (and getting media, who are in fact tuned into blogs much more than the average American, to do same. That is probably the biggest power of the blogs generally). That it took a lot of pounding to get Senators to think about going after one of their own should surprise no one. And, as we know, what killed Lott were Republicans. Democrats and liberals were virtually a non-player in that story, and had they been the only ones angry, Lott would be happily gearing up for another year as Leader.



Thus, the Murray affair illuminates a difference between the two parties more than anything. The blogs DID matter, but they needed a party that was willing to overthrow their leader on a very important principle. When the Dems start overthrowing, or at least condemning, Murray, McDermott, and Sharpton, I’ll sit up and take notice. But that says a lot more about Democrats than it does about blogs.

OTOH, I think that blogs certainly helped spread stories even when the media don't want them spread. Blogs won't force Sen. Murray out-- that's up to the Dems, and they certainy didn't stop Bonior and McDermott.

However, her comments will certainly become more well-known due to blogs, and especially well-known in WA.

Similarly, blogs helped spread the Wellstone funeral story, and I think it had effect even in states besides MN in the midterms. And the liberal media certainly didn't like that story.

Andrew:



I like the idea that blogs help keep the GOP more democratic and grassroots.

I find blogs useful in several ways. Since my prime interest is not politics, it is the offhand remarks, the oddball leads that make their way into my newspaper.



Most recent examplee: Reynolds and a couple others made comments about Christmas shopping. I ended up mining their anecdotes for my local story about Christmas shopping on our remote island, conparing and contrasting with the Mainland.



I also find that following a few good blogs saves me time with certain crank calls. By the time somebody is buzzing me about the latest scandal, I usually have seen half a dozen more or less informed takes on it.

I would not call Lott a "fellow right-winger." He's a tax-and-spend Liberal as far as I can see and how he rolled over on affirmative action (on BET!) when under fire was emblematic of the Imbecile Party. There is no Conservative Party in America, only a frustrated conservative movement. Now we have in Frist a more clever, moderate-liberal Republican leading the Senate Majority. An improvement over Lott, certainly, but he might as well be a gun snatcher. And we'll continue to roll over in the battles and ultimately lose the Culture War. E.g.: seeing Bush pay tribute to a phony Anti-Western holiday in the same week that Lott bowed and scraped on Afirmative Action. I see the majority party chickening out in every fight that awaits it, starting with the Pickering nomination and continuing on with the tax cuts. All will stay the same until we see a mushroom cloud rise over the District and realize our cell phones aren't working -- and then everything will still stay the same once the cell phones are back up. Blogosphere? None of the NPR Zombies and Suicidal Leftists and Death Culters I work with EVER HEARD OF IT.

Irving Kristol once said something to the effect of "there are no cultural problems in America that a Great Depression wouldn't cure".

Isn't the main point here that Trent Lott was Senate Majority Leader, whereas Patty Murray is "just" another senator?



Besides, at this stage of the game, one more wacky Democratic senators might not raise eyebrows--until she's up for re-election, perhaps....

She was head of the Democratic Campaign Committee, which may help explain how they got slaughtered in November.

Kristol, who has always struck me as a nitwit,

but then I have only ever read his op-eds in

the Wall St. Journal, certainly boloed that one.

We had a Great Depression and it didn't cure

many, if any, cultural problems. In particular,

it didn't have any effect on Jim Crow.



But then, the conservatives I grew up with

did not consider Jim Crow to be a problem.



A man is defined by what he regards as wrong.