Via Instapundit, Danny Glover goes over Karl Rove’s statements on blogs:
“People on the fringe are no longer voiceless,” noted Rove. Blogs have the unintended effect of giving “angry kooks” an “inexpensive soapbox” and a sense of “pseudo-anonymity” that “brings forth the worst angels of our nature.” He trashed Daily Kos and the liberal blogosphere for using more “dirty words” than conservative blogs like Townhall and RedState.”The netroots, he said, “argue from anger rather than reason.” Many, he believes, blog for “personal release” and not “political persuasion.” He argued that the netroots have been largely ineffective and said MoveOn.org’s inability to end the war proves his point.
It’s true that blogging gives voice to the angry and disaffected, but I agree with Danny Glover that “like too much of official Washington, still doesn’t appreciate the medium”. Â Rove also stated:
“Every word, public utterance, and public appearance can be captured and put on the web. “If you don’t believe me, just ask Senator James Webb or former Senator George Allen.”
I don’t think this is a bad thing. While new media does offer the possibility of damaging a candidate, like it did with George “Macaca” Allen, it also offers the possibility for candidates to talk to readers in an entirely different way then they do now. That we’ve yet to have a candidate that really gets new media, and knows how to use it to effect, doesn’t mean it has nothing to offer them.
