Well now, Bill had a certain, shall we say, rapport with the MSM. But as Mr. Simberg helpfully points out, Kerry had it too...
Despite Evan Thomas' estimate that MSM support was worth fifteen points in the election, the MSM failed in their efforts to drag the rotting carcass of the Kerry presidential campaign across the goal line last November (in part, I suspect, because of the huge blowback from some of their more egregious attempts to do so, including Rathergate in particular).
I actually still think that it's possible that they got their fifteen percent, which means that had the media played it straight down the line (e.g., actually investigating the Swift Boat controversy, and demanding that Kerry sign the Form 180 before the election, instead of afterward), it would have been a true fifty-state Bush blowout....
Surely not California or Massachusetts? But still, I think he's on the right track.
You should read the whole thing, but if you're link averse, here are a few more paragraphs.
How much of the spin in Whitewater, Filegate (who hired Craig Livingstone?), the Travel Office firings (a serious abuse of power), the Foster "suicide note" (indeed, the mystery of his "suicide" altogether), the Ron Brown death, the Indonesian connection, the Chinese campaign donations, et al would have been chewed up and spit out by a vigorously masticating network of highly read blogs?
As it was, the major news outlets were simply White House stenographers, and the only place one could get an alternative viewpoint was from so-called right-wing publications, like the Washington Times and Insight Magazine, and the Pittsburgh paper where Chris Ruddy worked. So rather than having access to all the facts in these scandals, and thoughtful analysis and dissection of the White House spin, the public, absurdly, actually believed that the media was picking on Bill Clinton when it was in fact his greatest enabler.
There was also right wing radio of course, but in support of Mr. Simberg's argument, that was a medium with limitations the blogosphere lacks. It was temporally circumscribed, and very much driven by immediacy. If you missed a show in 1996, it was no easy thing to get a tape or transcript. Nor were internet radio archives widely available.
Blogs have archives, and staying power, and can be accessed at the reader's convenience. Best of all, blogs don't need advertising revenue to stay on the air.
It would be very interesting to go back and analyze the myriad wrongdoings of the Clinton administration, of which it was only held to account for a few (and even then, with the equivalent of a quickly forgotten slap on the wrist), and try to imagine how the blogosphere (indeed, specific blogs, such as Hugh Hewitt, Instapundit, Powerline, or even a pre-911 Roger Simon (after all, there were some Democrats who got fed up with Bill Clinton, and the breezy acceptance (and spinning denial) of his corruption, such as Pat Caddell, and David Schippers), et al) might have prevented the master politician from being elected once, let alone twice. Could their voices have made a difference?
I guess we'll all find out.
posted by Justin on 02.10.05 at 06:34 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1991
Comments
Could the blogosphere have prevented the election of Bill Clinton? Very likely. Clinton is 1992 won for one reason and one reason only: the presence on the ballot of billionaire nutjob H. Ross Perot. Perot attacked George Herbert Walker unmercifully. He split the conservative vote and allowed a Democrat who could barely hold his base to win with a low plurality (a mere 43% of the popular vote). I think a focused blogosphere could have quickly reduced Perot to the figure of ridicule he is now today. Drop Perot's support from 19% down to the single digits and the incumbent (Bush) wins re-election.
Could the blogosphere have negatively affected Clinton passing his agenda? What agenda? After the failure of Hillarycare, Clinton co-opted the Republican agenda through artful Dick Morris-directed triangulation. Perhaps a focused blogosphere would have broken the story of Dick Morris's toe-sucking proclivities sooner and Clinton would not have been as skillful in stealing Republican thunder (i.e., welfare reform). Hillarycare failed of its own volition. And Clinton's little mini-issues (e.g., school uniforms, his big issue in 1996 re-election campaign) would not have been affected due to their sheer weightlessness.
Could the blogosphere have negatively affected Clinton's re-election? Doubtful. The presence of H. Ross Perot caused a different dynamic. Those distured by Clinton's performance could vote against Clinton without having to vote for a Republican. And I doubt the blogosphere could have done anything to get the Republicans to put up a stronger candidate (Dick Lugar!) in 1996, rather than a retread whose only justification was that it was his time.
I like H. Ross Perot. I think he was better than either of those two. He had _style_. The media hated him, they were the ones who called him a nutjob. Independent thinkers in the blogosphere might have defended Perot.
"Toe-sucking proclivities"? Is that a sin? Can you find me a verse in the Bible that condemns toe-sucking? I don't even recall any laws against it, and if there were any, they were struck down by Lawrence & Garner vs. Texas (June 26, 2003). Why is toe-sucking more perverted than nipple-sucking? Why shouldn't feet be as sexy as breasts? The whole body is sexy, is it not? Is it wrong because it's a minority preference? Deviant? A lot of gynosexual men are turned on by redheads. Yet redheads are a minority even among Nordics. Deviant. I'm proud to be deviant. Myself, I'm turned on by a beautiful woman's shoulders, neck, hair, and face. Thighs, too. And beautiful hands.
If Clinton couldn't be impeached for adultery, why should a man be fired or ostracized for having a preference for feet?
Bill won his elections while getting less than 50% of the vote because the Republicans ran 2 big government liberals who they tried to disguise as conservatives. The MSM does not deserve much credit for Bill's wins the Republicans gave the Presidency away. To see how popular Bill is check out how few are visiting his "library".
Rod Stanton · February 12, 2005 08:29 AM
I've been convinced for a long time that Clinton certainly would not have survived impeachment if the blogosphere had been operational. The MSM was repressing way too much stuff, that would have gotten far more play with blogs.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Could the blogosphere have prevented the election of Bill Clinton? Very likely. Clinton is 1992 won for one reason and one reason only: the presence on the ballot of billionaire nutjob H. Ross Perot. Perot attacked George Herbert Walker unmercifully. He split the conservative vote and allowed a Democrat who could barely hold his base to win with a low plurality (a mere 43% of the popular vote). I think a focused blogosphere could have quickly reduced Perot to the figure of ridicule he is now today. Drop Perot's support from 19% down to the single digits and the incumbent (Bush) wins re-election.
Could the blogosphere have negatively affected Clinton passing his agenda? What agenda? After the failure of Hillarycare, Clinton co-opted the Republican agenda through artful Dick Morris-directed triangulation. Perhaps a focused blogosphere would have broken the story of Dick Morris's toe-sucking proclivities sooner and Clinton would not have been as skillful in stealing Republican thunder (i.e., welfare reform). Hillarycare failed of its own volition. And Clinton's little mini-issues (e.g., school uniforms, his big issue in 1996 re-election campaign) would not have been affected due to their sheer weightlessness.
Could the blogosphere have negatively affected Clinton's re-election? Doubtful. The presence of H. Ross Perot caused a different dynamic. Those distured by Clinton's performance could vote against Clinton without having to vote for a Republican. And I doubt the blogosphere could have done anything to get the Republicans to put up a stronger candidate (Dick Lugar!) in 1996, rather than a retread whose only justification was that it was his time.