kausfiles.com
Weigel v. Kaus Detwitterfied (August 8, 2010 12:25 AM)
Jack Shafer twitters:
"Is there a roadmap to the @ and @ bickering? I can't follow it."
As an experimental public service, here is an attempt to make the bickering in question comprehensible.
Background: Republicans have been warning that Democrats might try to pass big legislation (including "cap and trade," "card check," "immigration reform") in a "lame duck" (post-election) session of Congress. On Thursday Weigel wrote "This just isn't going to happen," arguing that Republicans have "repackaged unresolved questions about congressional schedules into an imaginary Democratic "power grab."" A couple of days earlier I'd argued that it was Democrats themselves (including Senate Majority Leader Reid) who raised the prospect of an ambitious lame duck session when they were trying to pump up their interest group base--and that it was a possibility that had to be taken seriously.
Here's the subsequent twitter exchange in rough order as best I remember. Some responses may have not have been read immediately, some took a while to compose, and we didn't take turns, making precise reconstruction difficult. Update: I reordered it into exact chronological order as indicated by time stamp. Perversely this made it harder to follow, so I moved one entry (marked by ***) down to where it immediately precedes the response.
*********************************
MK: Sez @: Lame duck notgonnahappen, sneers at GOP fuss. Er, maybe fuss is what will prevent it happening about 10 hours ago via web
DW: @ But it can't! Castle and probably Kirk kick them down to 57 seats right away.
MK: @ that assumes Dems have no reconciliation-like way around 60 vote barrier. Remember: Dems brought it up (evidence you downplay!) about 10 hours ago via web in reply to daveweigel
DW: Downplayed bc Senate GOP aides told me they weren't worried. If they were worried, different story. about 10 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to kausmickey
MK: 2 @-On immig. reform are LOTS of GOPs who might defect in lame duck--Kyl, McCain & Graham included. So Dems might easily get 60 about 10 hours ago via web
MK: @ Senate GOP aides aren't the people who worry about immig. amnesty! They are the people who supported amnesty. about 10 hours ago via web in reply to daveweigel
DW: @ Good point, altho oppo is focused on doomed card check/energy tax. Senate sources doubted anything would come up. Reid pandered. about 10 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to kausmickey
DW: @ GOP response falls under the "what else are they going to say" heading. Very good at staging process fights no one expected. about 9 hours ago via Twittelator in reply to kausmickey
MK: er, he could say "we have work to do. If we're going to get this done we have to keep electing Democrats. So GOTV." about 9 hours ago via web in reply to daveweigel
DW: If I found evidence that this was possible, I'd have written that. Reporting indicated that it was a mirage. about 9 hours ago via Twittelator in reply to kausmickey
MK: So everyones doing what they're expected to. But you only mock one side. In fact you barely mention Dem pandering. about 9 hours ago via web in reply to daveweigel
MK: Contra @-Lame duck fuss isn't just GOP base-rousing. If U oppose immig. amnesty U worry abt lame duck--it's amnesty's last chance. about 9 hours ago via web
MK: Yo @ You found no "evidence" because as you admit you ignored immigration. And my anti "card check" source worries--sez not mirage about 9 hours ago via web
***DW: @ More derision of the Democrats on this is definitely called for, we agree. about 9 hours ago via Twittelator in reply to kausmickey
MK: Don't do that! You get hits by sneering at GOPS .... about 9 hours ago via web
DW: @ Nonsense. More sneering, more hits. Way of the future. about 9 hours ago via Twittelator in reply to kausmickey
MK: @ good answer. So wrong, alas. There are sites where U get hits by sneering at Dems. Slate is not one of them. I claim u know this about 8 hours ago via web in reply to daveweigel
****************
Off-twitter P.S.: In that last entry, I'm not suggesting that Weigel fails (by his own admission) to give Democrats the sneers they deserve because he not-too-subconsciously knows that the way to get hits and thereby boost his standing at a liberal site like Slate is to mock GOPs. Oh wait, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.
Update: Althouse pronounces the detwitterfication a failure: "tedious tangle of terseness." And here I thought it was riveting and clarifying! If anyone out there agrees with me, please let me know ... fast. ...
__________
**NN = Netroots Nation
1:16.A.M.
___________________________
Comments
August 9, 2010 1:00 PM
From: TW Andrews
Subject: re: Weigel v. Kaus Detwitterfied
I liked it. I'd never try to follow the whole exchange on twitter, but the back and forth was a moderately interesting diversion.
August 9, 2010 1:00 PM
From: CJS (Bacchus44@aol.com)
Subject: re: Weigel v. Kaus Detwitterfied
Twitter-type/text-type is evil incarnate.
August 9, 2010 12:00 PM
From: Richard (richard1976@me.com)
Subject: re: Weigel v. Kaus Detwitterfied
If you want a recent piece that nails Weigel, try this: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/07/john-lott-dave-weigel-journalist-washington-post-cnn-journalism-drudge-career/
The way that Weigel was willing to tailor articles to help Democrats is troublesome.
August 9, 2010 12:00 PM
From: kieth nissen (kietharch@comcast.net)
Subject: re: Weigel v. Kaus Detwitterfied
Most boring thing you've posted in a long time, maybe forever. Don't waste you time on twits.
Do your regular stuff.
August 9, 2010 11:00 AM
From: Ron (wworldtree@yahoo.com)
Subject: re: Weigel v. Kaus Detwitterfied
I think it's great....and Althouse is wrong.
August 9, 2010 10:00 AM
From: Buford Gooch
Subject: re: Weigel v. Kaus Detwitterfied
Helped me. I wasn't even aware of the twitterfight. Interesting exchange.
August 9, 2010 7:00 AM
From: Beej (gotcoffeewillpost@gmail.com)
Subject: re: Weigel v. Kaus Detwitterfied
And here I thought it was riveting and clarifying! If anyone out there agrees with me, please let me know ... fast. ...
Definitely riveting and clarifying. Wish I had more time for elaboration but your riveting and clarifying exchange has already held me up in my "quick look at what's going on on the web."
August 9, 2010 7:00 AM
From: M.L.Johnson (leecay@gmail.com)
Subject: re: Weigel v. Kaus Detwitterfied
Aidan, Mickey was the exception that proves the rule.
August 9, 2010 6:00 AM
From: kidneystones
Subject: re: Weigel v. Kaus Detwitterfied
Weigel has zero credibility with anyone sensible. Is this charity work on your part to resurrect a fellow contrarian? If so, you're mistaken. Weigel might once have been capable of thinking for himself, but he cares far too deeply about his 'friends', like Ezra and Megan.
Kaus, on the other hand, is always willing and even eager to offend. You're slumming.
August 9, 2010 6:00 AM
From: Bugz
Subject: re: Weigel v. Kaus Detwitterfied
Seemed like a pretty straight forward expostion to me. Not sure why Althouse says it's teh FAIL. But then again, I'm pretty much spring loaded and safety wired to the Weigel-is-a-dishonest-self-serving-jerk position.
August 9, 2010 4:00 AM
From: Mike (mmce1@verizon.net)
Subject: re: Weigel v. Kaus Detwitterfied
The monumental self-absorption of the democrta is always a marvel. Did you ever consider that both if you, for the mere fact that you are democrats, are gslsctic jackasses and we don't care about your twitter boy fight?
August 8, 2010 5:00 PM
From: Paul Kirchner (pkirchner@comcast.net)
Subject: re: Weigel v. Kaus Detwitterfied
Funny thing--on Politico, August 8, we see:
"Browner said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that President Barack Obama is still committed to pushing the [climate change] bill through the Senate, and that there was "potential" for the bill to come up in a post-election, lame-duck session of Congress."
August 8, 2010 3:00 PM
From: Brian (kryon77@hotmail.com)
Subject: re: Weigel v. Kaus Detwitterfied
Re: "resigned in disgrace"
The term "disgrace" used in this kind of context is usually bullshit, used by a partisan to try to fix his version of history in concrete. Recently, Conrad Black was railroaded by the uber-sanctimonious prick Patrick Fitzgerald, sent to prison, and delighted lefties started applying to Black their favorite term, "disgraced." When the Supreme Court held that the "honest services" statute was used by Fitz in a manner that denied due process, and Black was released on bail pending a new hearing in district court, those who hated Black still couldn't let go of their favorite word, reporting that "disgraced" Black was released from prison...
It's not about the facts; its about the narrative.
Years after the trump-up charges, the IRS made a finding that Newt Gingrich did nothing wrong in that case that caused him to pay a fine. And Gingrich seems to be doing pretty well today, earning the the esteem of intelligent people. And people remember that in Congress, Gingrich accomplished substantial things, such as welfare reform.
But that will not stop the Aidans of the world from using "disgraced," primarily because it feels good to say it, I guess.
August 8, 2010 1:00 PM
From: Ted Naron
Subject: re: Weigel v. Kaus Detwitterfied
I guess your P.S. gets at the reason you haven't returned to Slate--a state of affairs I regret. (Although I am following you here.)
August 8, 2010 1:00 PM
From: John Tabin
Subject: re: Weigel v. Kaus Detwitterfied
You can't get hits at Slate by mocking Democrats? Really? Because I feel like I spent much of 2004 going to Slate mainly to read Kausfiles for the 'Kerry Haters for Kerry' perspective. Surely that earned some hits for the site unless I'm very, very unusual.
August 8, 2010 8:00 AM
From: Aidan
Subject: re: Weigel v. Kaus Detwitterfied
Mickey, your entire blogging career is based around trying to out-do the counterintuitive thought mill at Slate, usually by attacking the left as loudly as possible whether deserved or not. Even if it means lending an air of credibility to a man who made impeachment of the sitting president the sole focus of the 1998 midterms, saw his party's impeachment platform go down in humiliating fashion, had his party and his successor decide to pursue impeachment anyway in the lame duck session after he resigned in disgrace.
Click here to leave a comment. Back to Blog.
|
