Comments on: No Love For ODub

By: Matt Margolis

Matt Margolis — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 01:07:57 +0000

I don’t really consider b4b to have received institutional support. A couple of times even the official George W Bush site referenced blogs in one of their blog entries, but not B4B. I think the Bush brand made them reluctant to have any association with us. we be we weren’t a part of the campaign.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 00:24:56 +0000

Because I think there are other sites, even on the right, who have done much better without institutional support.

By: The General

The General — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:23:20 +0000

You got that right.

By: Matt Margolis

Matt Margolis — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:18:00 +0000

“‘legitimization’ by the RNC?” not quite sure what you’re talking about, but if you think we got traffic because Ed Gillespie posted a comment one time in the first month or so of the site you’re delusional.

I don’t claim B4B was the most influential site, but for a site to get as far as it did in less than a year i think is pretty good.

Funny how you didn’t want to get into a “Traffic pissing match” then sought to make excused for B4B’s success.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:33:35 +0000

I’m not into traffic pissing matches, but I’d like to note that Blogs 4 Bush had to have a ton of bloggers and “legitimization” by the RNC to get the traffic it did. OW.com is just me.

By: Matt Margolis

Matt Margolis — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:48:54 +0000

Sorry Marcus.. it soundsd as if I was the subject of your comment, not the person you were speaking to. On that note, I have no idea how much email Oliver gets, he’d have to explain himself on that one.

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 14:35:14 +0000

Matt:

The liberals are under control at your sites now alright. Just like the liberals are under control at all the Bush speeches. Out of sight, out of mind. Just smile, and say, “Man, how these people love us and support Bush!” I haven’t seen more than a few liberal commenters over there in ages. It’s not because we don’t show face. Your team banned us all for disagreeing and you know it. This isn’t the first time you’ve been accused either. Everybody knows your sites don’t resemble “reasoned political discourse.” Why would you even try to pretend that Oliver is the bad guy here?

You are not wasting time trying to have a debate with people who have no use for opposing viewpoints? You make me laugh again. Oliver was right. The kettle wants his pot back.

I’m already banned from GOP Bloggers after one comment where I asked for information on the Washington election problems, since all you guys say is, “Oh those Donks just steal everything!” Of course, your glorious band of readers told me that asking for facts to back up their writing was just me pretending to not be liberal, but of course they’d all seen my website, so they knew the truth. I was really just a sneaky liberal trying to start a fight. They also said that liberal and criminal is the same thing. So I had to go.

You accuse Oliver of having some sort of ADD for bloggers (which really doesn’t make sense as far as real ADD goes) while he has no “reasoned political discourse.” The only difference is that you have a million readers, and no “reasoned political discourse.” What’s different?

I agree with what marcus said about the echo chamber. It’s just the nature of people who are passionate about the things they believe. Just don’t act like you aren’t a victim of that curse. Don’t pretend like having a million readers makes your pack patting and high fiving anything better than Oliver’s.

By: marcus

marcus — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:19:03 +0000

MATT!!
Read my post again. I’m on YOUR side, dude!

“Matt, I tried engaging HIM (Oliver) in a civil debate via email, but he never would respond.”
I know your busy, but please read more carefully.

By: todd (seattle)

todd (seattle) — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 07:41:30 +0000

Oh for God’s sake, Matt. Read Adam’s post again. He says nothing about liberals being censored. He’s simply pointing out the predominant discourse of these blogs – namely, smug backslapping. The response I typically get when I, invariably, disagree with you, or Kahn, or whomever is commenting, falls along the line of “Sore loser!” or simply changing the subject. Blech. If I want reasoned, intelligent debate from the right, I read the Economist. I only come here for easy targets.

By: Matt Margolis

Matt Margolis — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 05:07:59 +0000

Adam, it’s hard for me to even humor you when I get complaints from people that the liberals aren’t kept under control. So don’t try to pull this crap that liberals are censored or whatever you’ve brought yourself to believe.