Home CT Elections: Local, State & Federal CT Maps Links Help About CT Research CT History

!!! Connecticut Local Politics has moved! Please go to http://www.ctlocalpolitics.net for new content!

Sunday, July 16, 2006

Is it me?

Or does Ray Hackett, who last week labeled the activities of bloggers "vigilante politics," seem a little angry about something? Again?
As expected, the bloggers threw an Internet temper tantrum in response to criticism leveled at them in last week's column.

My favorite came from the one who calls himself Ctkeith, who dismissed any criticism by suggesting 18 years as the political reporter for the Norwich Bulletin wasn't that impressive. He said that "town drunk is a more honorable gig."

A classic example of the intellectual depth one can expect from this particular group.
...
I understand the nature of blogging is to allow individuals a forum to freely express their views and opinions. I was suggesting it serves no useful purpose if it's used as a weapon of hate.(Hackett)

Right back at ya.

Source

Hackett, Ray. "Column: Political bloggers' strongest suit is self-indulgence." Norwich Bulletin 16 July, 2006.

26 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

he's got enough snark to be a blogger himself. heh.. but he does ask an interesting question. how many people will support lieberman if he wins the primary?

7/16/2006 10:25:00 PM  
Blogger BRubenstein said...

GC...poor Ray is jealous...after all he bellyaches and whines as if he is a 5th rate reporter for a 6th rate newspaper....if he truely was a 1st rate cracker jack ace reporter he wouldnt have the time to dis the bloggers.

Here is what we know...any candidate now must have a multi-level media strategy, which would include blogging.Daily newspapers reigned supreme in 1940....but its now 2006 and poor Ray is seeing his audience dwindle.

7/16/2006 10:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree. Bloggers need a new hobby!!

7/16/2006 10:52:00 PM  
Blogger ctblogger said...

You're killing me with that graphic!!

7/16/2006 10:53:00 PM  
Blogger ctblogger said...

anon 10:25

How many times do people who support Lamont have to say that they'll support whooever wins the primary?

Personally, I stated this on my blog and here on several occasions. Again, Ray misses the point.

The "simple question" isn't about Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman, it's about the Democratic Party and respecting the will of the voters who will vote in August.

It's that simple. If an elected official won't respect the outcome of the primary (if it doesn't go in their way), wouldn't you want to know who they are?

The question is fair, Hackett's unhinged rant is dishonest (as well as his unwillingness to tell his readers about his relationship with Lieberman).

7/16/2006 11:05:00 PM  
Blogger Chris MC said...

It isn't you, GC.

I didn't really pay attention to this last week. In fact, I didn't read Hackett's column last week. But I did read the one linked in tonight's post. And so I had to go back and read last week's.

I'd say that Hackett has a point, but that doesn't seem to cover it. Hackett is completely right.

He's talking specifically about the vituperation of CTKeith and others. He singles Keith out and cites an example that Keith, utterly predictably, provides him:
"town drunk is a more honorable gig."
Really? Think about it that remark. In what room of sober people would you attempt to make that kind of statement to someone's face and not be immediately ostracized, or worse? Is it that some individuals in the blogosphere do not even know what Hackett's talking about?

Try it on for size, fellas:
"You're a $500 an hour lawyer? Town drunk is a more honorable gig."
"You're on disability? Town drunk is a more honorable gig."

I'm sure we'd all receive that kind of remark with the aplomb that Hackett did Keith's.

I must say that Hackett does paint a bit too broadly by mentioning ctblogger however, who does do real work (and if memory serves actually was a professional journalist).

You certainly have your opinions GC, but you don't do what he's writing about, IMO.

I don't read his columns as criticizing you, GC. I'd venture to say his criticism doesn't apply to CTLP, now that comments are moderated. In fact, I'd say that his columns are eloquent and succint summaries of the complaints, criticisms, and pleas - of any number of people - that led you to moderate comments.

My view is, if anyone deserves the title of "citizen journalist", or maybe "citizen columnist" you do.

Hackett isn't talking about you, GC. He's agreeing with you.

7/16/2006 11:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He also accused bloggers of “extortion tactics and vigilante style attacks.” This means asking Democratic politicians if they will support the winner of the primary. I suppose reporters must ask the question more politely. Waddya say we rough up dis punk and teach him some manners?

7/16/2006 11:44:00 PM  
Blogger ctblogger said...

Chric MC,

Come on man, you're better than this.

Hackett was focusing his energy on the "simple question" and calling those who DARE ask any politician the "simple question" dishonest. His quote on keith is b.s. since it was Hackett who thew the first insult in his post last week. Also, Keith knows plenty on Hackett but that's not for me to get into but could explain Hackett's response.

He labeled all blogs in his rant and his points are again, dishonest. Go back to his original post and show me where ANY blog used vigilante style attacks.

What's wrong with asking a "simple question?" It's obvious that Hackett sees a problem with this which was the basis of his original smear against the blogs.


Basially, he's pissed because he's a HUGE fan of Lieberman and the blogs are holding Joe accountable for his record.Lieberman...

7/17/2006 12:09:00 AM  
Blogger Patricia Rice said...

The blogs are not holding Lieberman accountable they are being used by the Left wings nuts to destroy the Democratic party. They think the only people that belong in the party are the liberals and everyone else who doesn't agree should become a Republican. I say they should leave and join the Green party because thats where they belong!

7/17/2006 12:16:00 AM  
Blogger ctkeith said...

Chris McC,

Go back and do your homework by reading the entire diary and comments on MLN last Sunday which is where this little access whore found my words.

If Hackett had even a single testicle he would have signed up a user account on MLN and went at it.

Bottom line is he's a coward.He is obviously reading the Blogs but is to scared to create an account and have a go at it.One way conversations are his forte and I expect he'll continue it that way.

7/17/2006 12:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat Rice--
I'm not a "nut". The nuts are the "Democrats" who support the Iraq Occupation, the war-monger Joe Lieberman, and his corporate lobbyist wife.

The rest of us join the majority of Americans, safely in the middle. Thank you.

7/17/2006 01:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What kind of "Reporter" writes a column announcing his decision to enroll in the Democratic Party, only so he can vote in this "important election"? (7/2/06.)

And I'd have more respect for Ray if he'd just come out and say he's a Lieberman backer. It was very clear in his column who he'd be voting for, even if he didn't come out and say it.

Instead, he pretends to be a responsible journalist. He's about as "fair and balanced" as FoxNews, and it would be better for him if he just came forward as a Liebercrat.

And his editors should force him to be either a commentator/columnist, or an unbiased reporter in the traditional sense.

7/17/2006 01:35:00 AM  
Blogger Chris MC said...

ctblogger -
As I think I've made clear in my immediately preceeding post and otherwise, I think he erred in naming you. He probably doesn't follow your work as closely as I do.

Out of respect for your effort and product, and your opinion, I'll go point by point with you:
How many times do people who support Lamont have to say that they'll support whooever wins the primary?
True. But Hackett does raise a very valid point by asking how individuals who have devoted so much time and effort to assailing Lieberman can turn around in good conscience (my term) and support him if he wins on August 8. It is not much of a stretch to imagine that there might be some disingenuity to such promises; the question has even crossed my mind from time to time.

Then there is this Sunday afternoon's email, which perhaps some of you also received:
what happens IF Joe does win the primary? Democracy for America supports Ned Lamont. If on the morning of August 9th Joe Lieberman is the winner, what should DFA members do?

That was the question posed to me by a staffer for Diana Urban who is my (43 District) State Rep. Diana is staunchly anti-war, a progressive in Republican clothing against whom the town Dems have not run a candidate in some time. They respect and like what she does in Hartford and the gumption and innovation she shows on issues. Diana has served in the State Assembly since 2001. She is an economics professor by profession.

It is my contention that we, who do not want to see Joe Lieberman win another term, should have an ace in the hole. I have signed Diana’s petition to put her on the November ballot. If Ned wins, will Diana still run is a question one must pose to her BUT I personally want that ace in the hole.


Now, are you all prepared to attack the sender of that email, a rather prominent and hard-working grassroots activist, for disloyalty to the party? I'll be surpirsed if the efforts are more than something between non-existent and tepid.

And one Lamont supporter who has been known to reveal extensively his resume and boast of his political acumen around here has vowed that in fact he will not support Lieberman in the event Lamont is unsuccessful. Where is the outrage over this heresy? Again, one might reasonably speculate that the lack of outrage indicates that it is not considered heresy at all.

Hackett was focusing his energy on the "simple question" and calling those who DARE ask any politician the "simple question" dishonest.
Inaccurate. Go read the original post. Exactly one paragraph made reference to the issue you have focused in the form of that question. What apparently got Hackett engaged was the attack on Amman.

He labeled all blogs in his rant
No, he didn't.
He said:
"Bloggers in Connecticut engaged in what they like to term the battle for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.
then,
self-appointed guardians of the Democratic Party
then,
The blogger who goes by the name of BrandfordBoy, and others,
then,
These bloggers like to refer to themselves as "citizen journalists."
then,
They operate under a cloak of anonymity, dishing up their self-serving opinions under made up names like "MyLeftNutmeg," "ctpublius," "Ctblogger" and other self-important titles. Their true identities are known only to their close circle of like-minded friends.
Only the reference to MLN is off, and that appears to be an error, not a generalization. But nobody can seriously argue that MLN is anything but uniformly critical of Lieberman and almost perfectly supportive of Lamont.
And let's be clear, I kind of know who you are, and Keith, and kind of several others, but there is no denying that his observation about people posting psuedononymously is merely accurate. And just recently TrueBlue/DF84 promised to answer any question I wanted to ask. Now, I think I know his name, but I asked him to post it. He declined to do so. Hackett's point here is valid, ctblogger.
Those are the relevant citations from last week's column.
In this week's column:
the bloggers
then,
the one who calls himself Ctkeith
then,
this particular group
then,
Another blogger
then,
this particular group of bloggers
And that's it.

It's that simple. [..] The "simple question" isn't about Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman, it's about the Democratic Party and respecting the will of the voters who will vote in August.
He's not accepting your premise, ctblogger. He's explaining, by way of defending Amman, that it really isn't that simple. And, as the behavior of individuals like myself (and a much more illustrious individual than I [wink, nudge] who frequents this blog) can attest, it isn't.

This - in addition to questioning the scorched earth approach to building party unity and strength espoused by the individuals in question - is a serious weakness in your campaign to bring the Connecticut Democratic Party to heel.

show me where ANY blog used vigilante style attacks.
Two words: Bill Finch.

We can discuss that some more, but that is just one example, and I mention it because you got so personally invested in it.

Here's another word: turfgrrl

Here's a third phrase: Chris MC

Now, if anybody who has been around here for awhile genuinely cannot recognize what I am talking about, you actually do need to take a break and get some perspective. I am not going to rehash the second and the third.

Finally and briefly for Keith -
I've said here and recently that you deserve full credit for your grassroots activism when pretty much all most people would do was talk and complain. But perhaps this has now outstripped your ability to substantively contribute to it. Your post of 12:30 AM is just the latest in months of almost substance free ranting. I don't know what you should be doing with your time, but not this.

Both of you are better than this.

7/17/2006 02:21:00 AM  
Blogger Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Patricia Rice said... "
they are being used by the Left wings nuts to destroy the Democratic party."


Shhhh!

Talk like that could ruin Republican chances.

7/17/2006 07:38:00 AM  
Blogger ctblogger said...

Chris MC,

1. I've attacked Bill Finch? I strongly encourage wveryone to go back to my post and show me where this happened.

2. Trufgrrl is a blombthrower who not only failed to back up for facts when challenged. If you want to defend her, please be my guest.

3. I find it strange that you would find it strange that those bloggers who are unhappy with Lieberman would not support him if he wins the primary seeing that having a Democratic majority is the ultimate goal. Remember, this is a primary.

I'm not going to waste any more time debating this issue as it will only bring more attention to a person I wish to ignore. Your defense of him, and you assult on my posts on Finch, is very troubling and disappointing.

7/17/2006 09:41:00 AM  
Blogger BRubenstein said...

AT least THIS $500 an hour lawyer gives and raises money for candidates while Chris Mc ( who says he is a DEM) has NEVER given a democratic candidate a dime according to CFIS...

BTW..i never said i would support Lieberman in case he wins the primary...

7/17/2006 10:17:00 AM  
Blogger Chris MC said...

ctblogger -
Go and read the comments in the thread on Finch's blog. Again, if you can't see the threats posted there (and elsewhere) as such, a bit of distance is advisable.

The "outing" of turfgrrl and demands that she disclose all manner of her relationships crossed the line and the fact that comments on this blog are now moderated is testament to that.

Months ago a similar attempt was made to "out" me, which was funny since I wasn't making any effort to hide my identity. More recently (as recently as about 10:15 this morning) similar efforts have been made to embarass and intimidate me - albeit not by you, ctblogger. Again, while this is creepy, it is completely ineffective. But not everyone is willing to risk it.

Feel the chill, ctblogger.

I was genuinely looking forward to a real discussion and debate eight months ago. For the most part, it hasn't happened.

Hackett's point is unfortunately illustrated in the response to his column. He is expressing a cogent view, but one that differs from the individuals he is criticizing. Rather than look at the substance of what he said, individuals insult and dismiss him. That is indeed disappointing.

The opportunity of the blogs is for a conversation to develop, where space and access are not at the premium that they are in the MSM, where debate cannot be squelched.

7/17/2006 10:28:00 AM  
Blogger ctkeith said...

Chris McC,

Does it hurt bad being a victim.LOL

Theres an old saying that says something about it being to hot in a kitchen you should research.

Hacketts failure to create an account and post was proof he new beforehand the heat was to much for him .

Your claim of victimhood only shows you weren't as self aware of your limits.

7/17/2006 10:32:00 AM  
Blogger BRubenstein said...

How can someone call themselves a Democrat but yet when you check CFIS...have never given a DIME to a candidate?

I am merely stating FACTS, something Chris doesnt understand by his lame attempt to say im trying to intimidate or embarras him...

7/17/2006 10:49:00 AM  
Blogger BRubenstein said...

Pat Rice..Is the best you can do is accuse us of being traitors and left wing nuts? Primaries have been created by statute for a reason Pat..so voters can actually have a conversation and a vote about important issues like the Iraq War...something you wouldnt understand.

7/17/2006 11:12:00 AM  
Blogger ctblogger said...

Chris MC,

If you want to further this discussion, you know how to reach me.

7/17/2006 11:15:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone who supports Ned Lamont is left wing and anti war. if they(Lamont Supporters) could engage in a serious conversation instead of insulting anyone who supports Lieberman on this blog.

But they think they have the right to insult anyone who has a different opinion other than pro Lamont.

That is so why i will support anyone but Lamont.This bad behavior of The Lamont Supporters started at The State Convention and has grown worse ever since.

I also blame DFA for this pompous behavior Because I blame the organizers of the Connecticut Chapter of being the Primary Cause of all of the bitterness in the ranks of The Democratic Party.

i am so rooting for a Lamont Loss on August 8th so this group of losers led by Keith Crain will go away.DFA to me is about as popular as Ned Lamont.

7/17/2006 08:12:00 PM  
Blogger ctkeith said...

Hey Anon,

Please spell my name right.It's

K-E-I T-H C-R-A-N-E

If you grow up you may have the guts to put your name on any activism you choose to do I hope you're as proud to have your name connected to it as I am of mine.

7/17/2006 09:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I choose to stay Anonymous Because there are too many Lamont supporters and all they want to do is bash anyone connected or supporting Lieberman.

if this is the way The Democratic Party is going to end up If Lamont wins then maybe I will have become Unaffiliated or a Republican after November.

I dont agree with the pull our troops out of Iraq stuff I have many friends and family members who have fought for this country and this is a slap in the face to them and me.I am having it out with other people on my DTC about this same issue I agree about the wiretapping that Bush is doing illegal.

7/18/2006 06:59:00 AM  
Blogger ctkeith said...

If you are a DTC member and you are afraid to defend your position PUBLICLY I suggest you resign.

The last thing any DTC needs is weak and timid people who need to hide behind anonominity.

PS Your boy Lieberman said he also knows "beyond any doubt" were his words that W broke the law by wiretapping without a warrent.When ask what should be done he said "change the law".

I wonder how many other criminals Lieberman thinks we should do that for?

7/18/2006 09:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You think I am going to go away because you dont like my support of Lieberman guess again. You Left Wingers want us Conservative Dems to get pissed off and walk away so you can destroy the party in Connecticut further.

Well I am not going away unless i decide to on my own and why Should you Lamont Supporters get to call the shots anyway Your Boy Ned isnt the nominee yet while Lieberman is the endorsed Candidate i am supporting the endorsed Candidate and if you left wingers some how get Ned in there Dont count on me supporting him Because he is anti american and anti war and I love my country and my family members who defended our Country in previous wars so we agree to disagree and we are at a stalemate.

7/18/2006 05:47:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home