Sunday, December 31, 2006
|
|
The Globe on Romney and New Media
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:34 AM
|
|
Last week I posted on the lead Mitt Romney has established in outreach to new media over the other two top-tier GOP candidates for the presidency, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Today the Boston Globe dutifully reports the story and even mentions the post in which I gave them their lede.
The piece is the first of many from old media on new media's impact on the contest for the GOP nomination in 2008 and is generally well-reported, but four things deserve criticism in the Scot Helman article.
First, only two hyperlinks are included, to the Drudge Report and to John McCain's hired blogging gun, Patrick Hynes' AnkleBitingPundits. Given that the Globe cites other bloggers, why not make it easy for the readers and provide the links?
Next, as the article notes, Mr. Hynes is a paid consultant to the McCain campaign. Of course he routinely slams Romney and praises McCain on his blog. Does the Globe really think this is news, or signifies anything of importance to the reader?
Third, after wrongly reporting a few months ago that I was a Mitt Romney supporter, today's account includes this graph:
Hugh Hewitt, a popular conservative radio host and blogger friendly to Romney, lauded him last week for trying to seize the power of the Internet. Hewitt wrote, "Romney is setting the standard, and this is a crucial precedent for him to set: The GOP must have a standard bearer willing and ready to use the new media environment to push not just his candidacy but the ideas that bind the party together."
Again the Globe is trying to push me into the Romney camp, for reasons I cannot understand. Imagine my writing that "Scott Helman, a Boston Globe reporter favorable to John Kerry, has written last week that Kerry was well-received at the desk of Syrian dicator Bashir Assad." My guess is that Helman would object that he was just reporting and that his views on Kerry are irrelevant, and he would be correct. I am friendly to Romney, but I am also friendly to Mayor Giuliani, Senator Brownback, Newt Gingrich and every other candidate for the presidency on the Republican side, including Senator McCain, except Tom Tancredo, whom I like personally but view as at best a distraction and at worse a party splitting, single issue fanatic. Helman simply cannot accept that reporters in new media are just like reporters in old media: We have our likes and dislikes, but our reporting and analysis is done in exactly the same way as that produced by old dying media. New Media's work product is butressed by a transparency as to our ideological beliefs that old media resists because it would reveal that nearly everyone on the Globe's reporting team is much more than "friendly" to Hillary and Obama, they are smitten by them and desperate to see Democrats back in the White House.
Finally, and this is the most serious criticism, there are these paragraphs:
But if Romney is seeing the promise of the blogosphere, he's also experiencing its perils. A number of bloggers have attacked him for his recent shift to more conservative positions on social issues such as abortion and gay rights. On Friday, for example, a blogger in Washington circulated a Christian Broadcasting Network report that several Romney supporters in Michigan were reconsidering their endorsement.
Romney's rivals are in similar positions, though. McCain has long faced hostility from some conservative bloggers, many of whom also blast the relatively liberal social views of former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who is considered another top-tier presidential prospect.
Where are the specifics? Which "blogger" circulated the CBN report? Was it by chance Patrick Hynes, which would be a story in itself? And which "conservative bloggers," exactly, have shown hostility to Senator McCain and why? Which have blasted Rudy?
Scot Helman is a nice guy and I have enjoyed speaking with him in the course of reseraching my book about Romney and the impact of Romney's Mormon faith on his pesidential bid.
But Helman, like all other old media reporters, can't seem to get their arms around the new media environment in which specificty and detail matter a great deal. If the "many bloggers" hostile to Rudy were cited, we could evaluate whether their "hostility" was of much consequence, and from there reason as to whether the conservative bloggers impressed with Rudy far outweigh the unnamed (and perhaps non-existant) blogger(s)' criticisms.
And if Helman had dug around, it would have been interesting to discover if he could have found any well-trafficked conservative blog enthusiastic about Senator McCain's bid. The major story of early 2008 will be the unexpectedly thin support for Senator McCain among the GOP base, a reality that is hinted at by the very thin support and enthusiasm he generates in the new media.
Helman missed the lede again. I can't keep doing all his work for him.
Be the ball, Scot. Be the ball.
UPDATE: Patrick Hynes posts that he's not running black blog ops for Senator McCain.
|
|
If the Stupid Party nominates Mitt I'm voting for him. I'm an evangelical follower of Christ. They still have time to pull it out by nominating another governor from a bigger state. Of course, that would be smart so I don't expect them to do that. They have a tin ear when it comes to the constituents' tune.
|
|
"1. God is uncreated, the primary cause, creator of all that is, seen and unseen?
2. Jesus is unique, the only begotten son of God, born of a virgin?
3. Jesus suffered on the cross, died, was buried, and was resurrected?"
Yes, yes, and yes. |
|
It really doesn't matter if you include Jesus Christ in the name of your religion, believe in his atonement, or believe in baptism. Those are all secondary issues to orthodox Christianity. Do you also believe that:
1. God is uncreated, the primary cause, creator of all that is, seen and unseen?
2. Jesus is unique, the only begotten son of God, born of a virgin?
3. Jesus suffered on the cross, died, was buried, and was resurrected?
When you say that you believe in his atonement, I suspect that your definition would be somewhat different from mine.
Do you also believe that your works, your behavior on earth and following in his footsteps will enable you to become a god like him? That's not orthodox Christianity. That's not biblical.
Lincoln once asked, If I call a sheep's tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have? The answer is, four. Because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so.
And calling a church Christian doesn't make it so, either.
I'm sure you are a very good person. But Christianity is defined by a particular set of core beliefs, backed by the Bible. I may be a very poor Christian. But I believe what the Bible says about Jesus Christ. |
|
|
For all you evangelical Christians who say Mormons are not Christian, you show a great deal of ignorance of the beliefs of the Mormon Church. First of all, the official name of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. All LDS (Mormon) believe in Christ and his atonement. All LDS believe that you must be baptized to benefit from the atonement. Mormons are Christians and practice that belief in their daily lives. How do I know this? Because I am a Mormon. I follow Christ and try to walk in his footsteps every day of my life. We Mormons believe in modesty, chastity, humility, loving one another, treating everyone with love, kindness, and respect, and being tolerant of other's beliefs. Before you bash Mormonism and accuse us of not being Christians, take the time to learn about what we believe. Maybe you will learn something about being a true Christian! |
|
Tancredo is a party-splitting single issue fanatic? That's the nuttiest thing I have heard in weeks. Tom Tancredo is the voice of millions of Americans who are being ignored and trampled because they do not believe that the USA should merge with a rathole like Mexico. Bush and the other "globalists" have only one thing in mind--The New World Order a.k.a. one world government. If they have to ruin America to get it they will do it!
And what other issue might be more important than that? |
|
Before I get to my Romney comments, I'll actually stick with your topic! You would be right to label Scot as "a Boston Globe reporter favorable to John Kerry..." That would be relevant and helpful information. Similarly, you are friendly to Romney, as you've admitted. So where's the beef? Don't be so sensitive. Otherwise, you're right on as usual.
With respect to Romney, the objections to him from both right and left are actually his strengths. I mean, what are the odds a Conservative Mormon could get elected in Massachussetts to begin with, and then reelected? No doubt, to appeal to the GOP masses thirsting for an accomplished, articulate, intelligent, scandal free candidate, Romney surely appreciates not having to satisfy the forces in the country's most liberal state. Ironically, if Romney actually gets through the gauntlet of evangelicals on the Mormon issue and gets the nomination, he will have been largely innoculated from criticism from the left and the media on the same score. At presently, the media is looking for evangelicals to do their dirty work for them. As noted, the other two candidates have much more real issues to deal with. McCain, aside from his pro tax, pro regulation stands, is really a little scary when it comes to his desire to persecute those who dissent on his issues. Giuliani, if so inclined, could make a determined to articulate his views on social issues that might ameliorate a good number of the social right. Arguing against Roe and other court decisions on constitutional, not moral grounds, for example. But so far we haven't seen the outreach, in new media or old. So... Hugh and K Lo are on to something here. Romney is the one guy who has what it takes to not only win the presidency, but do it in a way that can keep the Reagan coalition intact and thriving while reaching out to independents. |
|
I notice it it seems to be the same small group who repeatedly stands in self-appointed judgment of those consevative voters who would in their personal lives dare to wear the name "Christian". I don't know (or care) how many people will be turned off by Romney's religious affiliation. Personally, I'm turned off by his state affiliation. Governor of Massachusetts would rank about #2 on my list of people to vote *AGAINST* in a given presidential election, being surpassed only by Mayor of San Francisco.
Furthermore, unless and until the GOP stops running candidates that, if elected, will govern in a manner indistinguishable from the Democrat party they will continue to lose, not that it will make any difference who loses, as the outcome will be about 85-90 percent the same.
I took the time to vote in the midterms (against my initial intentions), but it is unlikely that I'll bother much about it in the future. With the GOP abandoning principles of smaller government, and embracing the same power-mad spending schemes that broke Democrat control in the first place, the country is past the point where voting will do any good, and into the realm of praying. |
|
|
The problem for Evangelicals with Mormonism does not turn on values, or on tolerance for other religions. Evangelicals don't believe in tolerance since there is only one way to salvation and that is through Christ. If you are not born again, you are, by definition, damned. Mormons are not Christians, by Evangelical standards, and if your religion is not Christian, again, by definition, it is demonic, Satanic. There are only two possibilities, good or evil. Mormonism falls into the evil realm. In addition, they believe that America is a Christian nation, selected by God as an example. How could they in good conscience vote to put a practicing member of a Satanic cult in the White House? |
|
Romeny and right-wing "new media" will be ignored until they can demonstrate their ability to move money and votes- you know, the things any entity has to do to be considered relevant in American politics.
Before Romney became Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, the legislature had 27 Republicans in the State House and seven in the State Senate. Now, nineteen and five. Obviously, Mitt wasn't much help to the Bay State GOP.
(http://www.ncsl.org/ncsldb/elect98/profile.cfm?yearsel=2000&statesel=MA for pre-2002 results)
As for right-wing new media, how did you spend your 2006? Getting Ben Domenech fired within a day of being hired by the Washington Post, making false claims of AP malfeasance, and oh yeah, watching the Pubbies take their worst beating in a generation and not lifting a finger to help them.
Liberal blogs didn't become parts of the landscape until 2004, when Howard Dean almost rode them to victory. A lot of skepticism remained until 2006, when they demonstrated that they could get candidates elected at all levels. Right-wing blogs are now a good 10 years behind their liberal counterparts and moving backward if anything.
And no GOP presidential nomination since 1964 has been won by the guy whose turn it was.
I'm sure your hagiography of Romney will be amusing, but you know how it's going to end. |
|
I really don't get the Evangelical backlash against him. I do think the anti-Mormons in the GOP are limited (and the left wants to overplay it so they can describe conservatives as Theocons).
Still, while Mitt is a good man, I just don't think his time to run for POTUS has arrived. I just don't see him winning a general election. Maybe I am wrong, but many Republicans I speak to have misgivings about McCain but say if the GOP nominates anyone else it is doomed to lose. |
|
|
As Americans, we are supposed to be tolerant of people of other faiths because we believe men of faith are more likely to be men of virtue. As a Catholic, I understand why the founding Protestants were leary of us because of the intrusive nature of the Vatican in Europe. Still, we have separation of church and state here which means: "just show us the virtue and leave the "my god can beat up your god" crap at home." Why can't evangelicals get that? It makes me ashamed of being a conservative. BTW, I'm originally from Boston and lived in Arlington which is near Belmont where the new Mormon Temple was built. I defy anyone to come up with a single instance where its construction did harm. It's a beautiful building and it's a shame what the bigoted locals put them through to build it. |
|
Every time I see a Romney post I keep coming back to that Survey USA poll showing that he's going out as the third least-popular governor in America (ahead of Taft in Ohio and a dude in Alaska who lost his own party's primary).
I really don't get the Romney thing, though I'd be thrilled if you nominated him. If the Democrats were talking about nominating a governor as unpopular as Romney (there *are* no Dem governors as unpopular as Romney, but you see my point), you'd quite rightly be laughing hysterically.
If Romney had run for re-election and won, even barely, I could see him as a viable candidate. But he didn't run for re-election, because he knew he couldn't win. (His lieutenant gov ran instead and got crushed by Deval Patrick.) I mean, I have my doubts about the hype around one-term Democratic Senators -- but a failed one-term governor? You'd be better off pinning your hopes on Sonny Perdue or somebody who actually didn't wind up with his constituents loathing him. |
|
Isn't it funny how the Dems -- not particularly religious -- have no issues with Harry Reid, their Morman, pro-life, soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader? No objections from gays, blacks, pro-choicers. Nothing.
But the Evangelical wing of the Reps will not stomach Mitt Romney as the Republican '08 Presidential nominee. Just wait. They will sit out the election if Romney is the nominee. According to them, the Mormans are a cult. (Unlike the Christian Scientists, the Amish, the Hassidim, etc.) He is on record as favoring an increase of civil rights for homosexuals. He's dead man walking.
In an earlier generation, Romney's father's candidacy was short-circuited by his unfortunate "brainwashing" remark. His Morman religion was never an issue.
On the Democratic side, Morris Udall, a Morman, was a primary contender for the Dems in the '76 campaign. His religion was never an issue (as it should not be for any American candidate under the U.S. Constitution).
Why is being a Morman an issue today, when it wasn't 30 years ago?
People have phoned into Hugh's show, saying they can't support Romney because he is a "cultist." It's funny that 46 years ago JFK had to assure religious bigots that his first loyalty as President would be to the country, not to the Pope -- and in 2006 the Republicans are wrestling with the same issue.
Most conservative Republicans dispise John McCain. He's popular with mainstream media, so he obviously must have something wrong with him. (I think some are resentful of the fact that McCain actually fought for his country, rather than cheerlead while hiding behind a college deferment.)
That leaves Rudy Guiliani. Pro choice, pro gay, no way.
What's left? Sam Brownback? Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich?
Anybody?
|
|
I know Dean is very much so. Hugh rarely has anything good to say about McCain and seems to despise him. Guiliani is liked by many conservatives but not liked as a presidential candidate because he is moderate to liberal on many social issues.
I personally like Rudy a lot, but I do not think he would be a shoe in to win the general election (although he would be a powerful candidate). I don't dislike Romney, but he does not seem to have the legs to win the big game. McCain seems the strongest candidate. Yes he is not perfect, but he is as good (perhaps even better) than Rudy on the GWOT, knows how the federal government works, and is better than Rudy on social issues. |
|
reynoldssu and VJay are right on target to make parallels between The Boston Globe & The Twilight Zone.
Hugh hit it out of the park when he stated that the Globe reporter would throw a hissy fit if he was characterized as being "in John Kerry's camp," simply on account of having written some positive articles about him.
I would also add that it sounds like Rod Serling is behind some of the lefty commenters who lob cheap comments at Hewitt, elicited by their failure to delineate between news reporting, commentary, and campaigning.
And commenter benb, who is so obsessed with abortion that he cannot see Islamo-fascism for what it is---my good man, sometimes in life, one must choose to fight the greater of two evils.
In this case, Islamo-fascism trumps abortion, and in the '08 presidential election, that is what our focus is on.
Rudy Giuliani may be pro-choice, but if he turns out to be the GOP nominee, he is an infinitely better candidate that whomever the terrorist-appeasing Democrats throw out there.
|
|
"there are two things we can be doing today that are similar in nature. One is to watch the "Twilight Zone" marathon on the SciFi Channel, and the other is to read the Boston Globe."
The "Talking Tina" episode just concluded. Take THAT, Telly Savalas! |
|
I'm still trying to process “I think the best definition of journalism is history as refracted through the prism of the unfolding present.”
At one point I had to cover my ears I felt so sorry for the lad... but he's in a good place to grow... and he did vote for Bush.
Life is So Grand!!
|
|
Ain't THAT the truth!
Poor kid.
I'm still trying to process “I think the best definition of journalism is history as refracted through the prism of the unfolding present.”
A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment. METAPHYSICS not "Journalism." |
|
Hugh is a lousy debater...
Mr. Rago is still trying to climb back through his lookinglass window... from the outside. |
|
|
Weeeeeeeeeell, (as President Reagan use to say), there are two things we can be doing today that are similar in nature. One is to watch the "Twilight Zone" marathon on the SciFi Channel, and the other is to read the Boston Globe. Both focus on the imaginary, but at least the Twilight Zone is entertaining. |
|
Carl Spackler: So I jump ship in Hong Kong and make my way over to Tibet, and I get on as a looper at a course over in the Himalayas. A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper, a jock. So, I tell them I'm a pro jock, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald... striking. So, I'm on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one - big hitter, the Lama - long, into a ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-galunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.
When I read the Globe, or NYT, all I ever "hear" is Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-galunga.
And yes; we have a lot more going for us than that, I'd hope. |
|
|
Let's not split hairs, Hugh. You never met a rightwinger you didn't like. But it did sound a little like you were falling all over the "go everywhere", "precedent-setting" Mitt. But, let him blow his own horn, or in this case, blog his heart out. These things have a way of taking on a life of their own, especially for Governors who hardly governed, and even then didn't do it well. I've heard that the big gold statue blowing its horn high above the Mormon church in Arlington, Massachusetts is called the Angel Mitt Romney. Blow your blog horn, Mitt. |
|
|
|