Comments on: Should we whittle down the field in CD6?

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:41:35 +0000

I heard from my dad (oops, there I go again) that the whole Jeremy Lindman situation got settled and Muse was wrong. But hey, don't just take my word for it:

http://liberalinthelandofconservative.blogspot.co...

Maybe this is an example of what Won't Be Silenced is getting at.

By: Won't Be Silenced

Won't Be Silenced — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:53:43 +0000

Political Muse has since changed his comment forum not to show the number comments but just now lists Comments. Perhaps trying to disguise how little anybody really reacts to what he says.

By: Kerosene Hat

Kerosene Hat — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:55:05 +0000

The whole idea of real grass roots action and "astroturf" within the political parties is a bit strange. It seems similar to trying trying to determine which members and to what degree those in various religions hold and voice their beliefs having come about them naturally verses taking direction from the official entity. Those that choose to belong to either political parties and organized religions have made the decision to join the group because of an affinity to its predefined doctrine. This first act already defines that supporter as a person who is willing to defend and support a set of beliefs that are not natural to them but are instead primarily created by others. At that point all of the advocacy that person does on behalf of the group could be defined as "astroturf". All the campaigning, press releases, commercial advertising, and news appearances are designed to manipulate opinion and direct people into a certain set of beliefs. The entire point to long lasting political parties or religions is antithetical to grass roots action.

By: checatzo

checatzo — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:30:50 +0000

YOu should ask the StonewallDFL board if Maureen Reed won't take a stand on anything. She clearly articulated her stances on GLBT issues and a public option in the healthcare debate, to the SDFL Board, at the October meeting.

By: DantheMan

DantheMan — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:13:44 +0000

There was alot of astroturfing going on last year in the Madia v. Bonoff race, I recall. I don't think you ever get away from it.

It is an ethical fine line. LIke Holly says, if you believe what you are writing, then why hold back? On the other hand, if this was a newspaper, you would no doubt have to fully disclose.

One of the evolving questions of blogosphere, I guess.

By: Holly Cairns

Holly Cairns — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:35:55 +0000

oops, tag prob

By: Holly Cairns

Holly Cairns — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:33:02 +0000

It is better to be an established poster commenting on a variety of subjects, and then be a candidate advocate.

Nice! But not too devious. That is already in motion, I'm seeing.

Roverism team, support! (instead of "attack")

By: Holly Cairns

Holly Cairns — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:21:54 +0000

Maybe you like the term Rovering best. Karl Rove meets Yellow Dog = Roverism.

I know, campaigns can pay into the DFL and the DFL could have a Roverism service!

Speaking of "Minnesota Bulldog". Bark!

By: EagleEyed

EagleEyed — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:19:25 +0000

People who try to "astroturf" for candidates on blogs take a huge risk. If caught, they can hurt the campaign they tried to help. (Like the attacks on Laura Brod, although nobody was clearly linked to them. Yet. ) Those on an opposing side are getting better at identifying "astroturf" posters.
It is better to be an established poster commenting on a variety of subjects, and then be a candidate advocate.

By: Minnesota Bulldog

Minnesota Bulldog — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:44:45 +0000

Holly:

That is total BS.

I've questioned your campaign advice previously, but now I'm convinced: it's terrible.

You are advocating that campaigns do astroturfing without identifying themselves? That is just unbelievably unethical.