"Democrat-controlled government"

Democratic-controlled government. Be careful not to accidentally perpetuate right-wing linguistic childishness.

Linguistic childishness aside, this is a very interesting question.

When there last was Democratic control of government, in 1992, the people spoke loudly in 1994. But part of that was due to Clintons' (both her him and her) mistakes. Obama may well learn from their mistakes.

Regarding the GOP, I think they can learn many good things from the Democrats and how they energized their community (and the nation) via the internet and the blogosphere. But they need more than to unite around a common enemy, they need to provide ideas and answers that resonate with a big section of the population.

The litmus test will be obvious:

If a Republican/conservative blog says "here's a proposal..." as BO has sometimes done, and opens up comments to all who register or otherwise use the blog, they are serious about winning over people who didn't vote a straight Republican ticket.

If, however, bloggers scream RINO because Jakc Roberts or St.Sen Frank Morse or some other Republican public figure speaks common sense which doesn't match party orthodoxy, they will cause more problems than they solve.

I concur with Carla. The philosophical relationship to power and how to keep it, the "understanding" of where it comes from, what it currently looks like and what it "should" look like govern. In addition, beliefs around winning - the process is what matters? Typically left of center. Any means to the end? Typically a right of center approach. Winning at what cost? A typically lefty question. Win at whatever cost - a rightwing sentiment.

At this point, economic dynamics are so radically disturbed as to demand shift - either by the members of this nation and their elected officials paying attention and suspending their beliefs, or by force of the juggernaut rolling over our rigid belief systems.

Obama is not wreaking change, folks: he is aware of the shift and potentially responsive to it. McCain and his ilk are old school, and are not.

That's my read on it.

Can someone explain the Democrat/Democratic thing to me? I don't see the implied insult in "Democrat".

Explain to me just what does the right blogosphere stand for? Unless they change their message I believe they will be lost in the wilderness for a long, long time.

Republicans Hoping to Re-Brand Themselves As thinking, caring humans. – Ironic Times

Steven, in the interests of precision, it is not "tribal identities", a real thing, existing, but, rather, "tribalism", which is a social construct with attendant behaviours.

I think you are refering to tribalism?

Thanks.

OK I don't mean this as a snarky thing...well sort of I do...but honestly, did you see their convention? I have serious doubts about the Republican party's ability to organize on the internet simply because a large amount of them are a little pre-internet. Their last nominee admitted he didn't really e-mail or know how it all worked. Their convention was full of grey-hairs. I know I seem like a jerk because I'm calling the Republican Party they party of old people, but I have a feeling I'm not totally off. I don't doubt they can do some organizing, but for it to be meaningful and effective they'll need to find a more traditional way.

I think the right is generally structured differently..with a much more top-down way of doing things. That's why they've had success on talk radio. They've been handed a list of talking points and a microphone-and disseminated those talking points to a willing audience.

Conservative talk radio, as represented by Limbaugh, has succeeded so profoundly not because he parroted a list of party talking points but because he has consistently reflected the beliefs of a large segment of American society. He gave these people a voice that they lacked in all other media.

That added to a bombastically optimistic style delivered with the intelligence and wit that epitomizes all great entertainers, explains his phenomenal success.

I don't think the right wing bloggers will have as much effect as the democrats themselves. You are your own worst enemy. With serious problems on the horizon, all the right has to do is sit back and watch the fireworks - and then campaign for change in 2012.

Can they do it? Maybe.

The standard tactic will be to sow division and isolation. In Oregon, it will be between rural and urban. In the legislature, we need to communicate that we care for every county. Consider funding an economic development position in every county and back it up with studies by universities on demographics and resources. In the short term, we have many rural opportunities for wind and geothermal, to say nothing of still high agricultural commodities prices and the movement for local food sources.

Progressives we need to reframe "moral issues" which will be back with a vengeance with Republican Palinism. Like Obama we need to articulate real family values, and that each of us needs to focus on living our own beliefs and not worry about others. We need and elegant way to say that about abortion and gay rights to prevent them from becoming wedges.

The other wedge will be elitism. We are all the same and we are all Oregonians.

Finally we need to build an unbiased communication channel to all Oregonians to overcome the biased narrowcasting perfected by the opposition.

On a side note, examine what is going on in Thailand. The 'democrats' are trying to overthrow the 'republican' government, known for corruption and run by billionaires, with the support of the rural poor.

Can they do it? Just take a look at the "Conservative Majority Project" to see if a blog created by elected Republicans can succeed. In other words, they have tried it but it has not taken off quite yet compared to the Left's use of the Internet.

The Internet and blogging is just the next evolution from talk radio in disseminating political information and fund raising.

The problem is that Republican bloggers are seemingly incapable of differentiating their blogging style from talk radio.

Republican bloggers are very narcissistic and are incessant on being right to the extent that they take comments against them as affronts and overreact in their reply or resort to the "comment has been deleted by blog administrator" resulting in less commentators on their blog.

So as long as Republicans insist on being "right", then they will not attract that ground up following to make their blog a major newsbreaker and fund raiser for the right.

After all, the only legitimacy a blog has is its ability to break news that the Mainstream Media has not and the ability to raise funds for candidates.

The rest is just details.

I think linguistic childishness is the core question. Only treason isn't childish. I'm to the point anymore that I would agree with Castro's dictum (though certainly not his implementation) that free speech doesn't mean freedom to tear down administrations with facts that should be known to be false, rumor and innuendo, when it is all calculated to cause public alarm. It is no different than shouting "fire" in an auditorium and ought to be equally prohibited.

Can "the right" blog? Depends if they can get to real factual rhetoric, in part. I am sick to the teeth of their position being nothing but saying some stupid name over and over ad nauseam. 8 years of Billory this and that, 12 years of pronouncing Saddam like an Arab insult, and 10 years of not one American I can think of using three syllables in Al-Quaeda! Yesterday I was looking at Mick's blog that was referenced on BO and in 10,000 words of gibberish he never refers to the President-elect as anything other than "Barry". Enough is enough. Casual talk of terror is against the law; casual talk like this should be too. Or neither, I could go for that, but you'll have to include the auditorium to make me happy!

More to the point, I'm skeptical that it is possible for them to blog, given what it means to be conservative. They represent the status quo, those that like things just as they are. They've come out of a purple patch where their only job was to make everyone scared of any change, which is a lot easier than critiquing a real, opposing administration. As this administration does progressive things, the traditional conservative POV would be to say, "slow down, we need to go back to the way things were". Only most conservatives already don't want to go back to this! If they propose their own agenda, conservative money will desert them. I think they're screwed.

The conservative part of the GOP seems intent on exorcising from the party those folks that they lable "RINOs". As long as they disdain the moderate/social liberal folks from being part of the party and the party strucuture, they are positioning themselves to be a permanent minority party. Look at what happened in our own state. We can claim Oregon as one of the precursors of this trend. Look at how moderate Republicans revolted against Lynn Snodgrass years ago. Look at our rejection of OCA and right-wing social conservatives. These were the beginnings of the fall of conservative Republicans.

Now the Freepers say people in their own ranks, like Colin Powell and Condi Rice as, thosew who should not be able to claim the Republican brand. Even Bush is their new-found enemy.

So let them run some one like JC Watts or Alan Keyse against Obama in 2012 and learn how poorly the American people accept that anti-progressive Republican brand.

"i'm not sure that's accurate. i think Rush took people's anger & fear, which were rather vague, and pointed them in directions that felt good."

I think this is an excellent observation. Rush has the same appeal as professional wrestling and roller derby. To be sure, liberal Keith Olbermann has the same kind of draw.

Likewise the daytime courtroom fare on TV also draws a large audience, as vieweers like to see people get their comeuppance.

An then there is Jerry Springer! :)

The question posed, is can conservative bloggers best represented at the moment by Townhall grow to have a similar level of influence on the GOP as liberal bloggers have under the guise of Daily Kos, BlueOregon, and others.

Too many commentators are dining on the red herring that is talk radio at the moment.

I will agree that talk radio is and has been influential.

I will agree that talk radio reflects both the fears and beliefs of a large segment of the US population.

For the sake of being true to the original post, I will not delve into all the existential questions of why conservative talk radio has flourished while liberal talk radio has consistently tanked, why Rush is so popular, blah, blah, blah and blah.

As for the original matter, I stand by my earlier comment and will add that here in the Pacific NW, there will need to be a combining of Victoria Taft, The Oregon Catalyst and NW Republican for conservative bloggers to take it to the next level.

Those 3 blogs alone are good reads and provide a forum for Kevin Mannix and others, but have very little influence due to their inability in breaking political news and raising funds for candidates.

Re. Limbaugh: frankly, only those of us who think Limbaugh is an empty windbag will equate his verbalistics to roller derby, wwf, etc.

Those who listen take him very, very seriously.

Judging from some right-wing bloggers, I'd say that they're actually helping the Democratic Party more than the G.O.P.

For example, look at the local right-wingers in C.O.B.R.A. (The Conservative Oregon Blog-Rolling Alliance). Their primary mode of expressing themselves seems to be calling other people names, then banning people who call them on it.

I imagine that folks in the middle who stumble across these folks say to themselves "why would I want to vote for a party dominated by juveniles?"

Rush has the same appeal as professional wrestling and roller derby. To be sure, liberal Keith Olbermann has the same kind of draw.

Political pundits like Rush, Olberman, Brooks and Shields on PBS, and all the rest are entertainers first and foremost. The very good ones challenge the dominant political paradigm of the day causing their audience to think and consider alternative points of view.

A measure of their individual success is reflected in the amount of effort put into silencing them. The Fairness Doctrine isn’t called the “Hush Rush Bill” for nothing.

The Fairness Doctrine isn’t called the “Hush Rush Bill” for nothing.

Actually, yes it is. The Fairness Doctrine wouldn't silence Limbaugh. It would require that the other side be given equal time.

On the topic at hand, Steve Benen offers a little insight into the problems for the righties when it comes to creating their version of the netroots.

"A measure of their individual success is reflected in the amount of effort put into silencing them. The Fairness Doctrine isn’t called the “Hush Rush Bill” for nothing."

But if the MSM is "in the tank" for us liberals/progressives it would seem that neocons would support the fairness doctrine, either that or their contention about the MSM is false spin.