E.J. Dionne Defends Kos

Greg Richards
In a remarkable column in the Washington Post yesterday, E.J. Dionne defends Daily Kos and by extension the Yearly Kos convention this weekend to which the Democratic presidential candidates, with the noble exception of Joe Biden, are progressing to pledge solidarity.

Dionne compares the Daily Kos to Rush, missing the essential ingredient in Rush’s show: that it is about argument – entertainingly made – and not about invective. When Tony Snow had a relapse of his cancer, there was a post on the Daily Kos stating indifference as to whether Snow died or not. That has not and would never happen either with Rush, nor with any prominent conservative blog. Of course, making claims for blogs is dangerous since there are an infinite number of them and if one goes far enough into the swamp, one can find an example of anything. Let me just say that no conservative blog with the equivalent prominence of the Daily Kos has in any way the nastiness displayed on Daily Kos.

The Left has a problem. Its view of life does not conform to reality. So it is continually receiving hard blows when its worldview collides with facts. One of the important polemical consequences of both talk radio and the Web is that the Left can no longer massage the news to suit its predilections as it could when there was a monopoly, or at least an oligopoly, in mass media.

The limited ability of the Left to actually make an argument leads it to treat all opposition as ipso facto “hate.” We saw this with the formulation “Clinton haters” directed at anybody who disagreed with the Clintons on policy or thought that they should not be exempted from the legal process, at least while holding high office.

To a conservative, the Daily Kos is simply not an interesting venue. As Rush says about the NY Times, we don’t need to read Daily Kos postings, we can write them. On important issues, they don’t make arguments, they offer attitude, and very unpleasant attitude at that.

E.J., I am amazed that you are, by implication, associating yourself with this website. Have you actually read it?
In a remarkable column in the Washington Post yesterday, E.J. Dionne defends Daily Kos and by extension the Yearly Kos convention this weekend to which the Democratic presidential candidates, with the noble exception of Joe Biden, are progressing to pledge solidarity.

Dionne compares the Daily Kos to Rush, missing the essential ingredient in Rush’s show: that it is about argument – entertainingly made – and not about invective. When Tony Snow had a relapse of his cancer, there was a post on the Daily Kos stating indifference as to whether Snow died or not. That has not and would never happen either with Rush, nor with any prominent conservative blog. Of course, making claims for blogs is dangerous since there are an infinite number of them and if one goes far enough into the swamp, one can find an example of anything. Let me just say that no conservative blog with the equivalent prominence of the Daily Kos has in any way the nastiness displayed on Daily Kos.

The Left has a problem. Its view of life does not conform to reality. So it is continually receiving hard blows when its worldview collides with facts. One of the important polemical consequences of both talk radio and the Web is that the Left can no longer massage the news to suit its predilections as it could when there was a monopoly, or at least an oligopoly, in mass media.

The limited ability of the Left to actually make an argument leads it to treat all opposition as ipso facto “hate.” We saw this with the formulation “Clinton haters” directed at anybody who disagreed with the Clintons on policy or thought that they should not be exempted from the legal process, at least while holding high office.

To a conservative, the Daily Kos is simply not an interesting venue. As Rush says about the NY Times, we don’t need to read Daily Kos postings, we can write them. On important issues, they don’t make arguments, they offer attitude, and very unpleasant attitude at that.

E.J., I am amazed that you are, by implication, associating yourself with this website. Have you actually read it?