October 07, 2003
Bush has a Blog (Not Really)
At first glance it appeared to be just like all the other candidate blogs, but upon closer inspection, one will notice one stark contrast. The Bush/Cheney ‘04 Reelection blog doesn’t have comments. Now, I could conjecture or speculate why the Bush campaign blog doesn’t have comments (the software is the same MovableType used here on WatchBlog). I could say that the liberals would undoubtedly flood the comments with anti-Bush statements, which couldn’t be proved either way, after all, there are no comments. Or I could pretend that the amount of support posts would break the blog, even though blogs have handled thousands of comments without skipping a beat.
But I think it’s pretty clear what the truth is: they don’t care about what you have to say.
And before someone gets on my case, I extend this prolific piece of wisdom to all blogs that intentionally turn off comments. It’s no longer a blog when the comments are off, it’s simply press releases.
Posted by Stephen VanDyke at October 7, 2003 05:51 PMA writer for the Dean blog had this to say about the lack of comments and personal information on the Bush site.
“Mr. President, I’m a blogger. I know blogs. Bloggers are friends of mine. And your site, sir, is not a blog.”
Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at October 7, 2003 06:23 PMFrankly, what a bunch of leftists think of the Bush blog means very little Bush supporters or the ones running the blog.
Instapundit doesn’t have comments, Wil Wheaton doesn’t have comments. Our comments sections genearlly de-evolve into childish taunts. Maybe blogs without comments are better off.
A blog is a web log, an online journal. Comments are not necessary.
Sometimes the attacks on Bush just sound petty, but expected.
Posted by: CJ at October 7, 2003 07:17 PMCJ, Not to call you a liar or anything, but: WilWheaton.net
I stand by my assertion that a blog without comments is not a blog. Remove the personal touch and it’s plainly press release software.
InstaPundit is newswire regurgitation without the community side.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at October 7, 2003 07:35 PMThat’s basically it, I mean — either a blog has some form of public feedback, or it’s for irrelevant details of personal life. I certainly wouldn’t expect the latter of my president, but I’d at least hope to have a bit of the former.
Posted by: np at October 7, 2003 08:17 PMWell.. if you check Wil’s archives, he generally does not include comments.
There are plenty of blogs that don’t include comments, and not just Instapundit. I could list them all here, but that’s not the point.
The point is that this claim is stupid. It’s a blog. What’s the big deal?
Posted by: CJ at October 8, 2003 12:24 AMWil Wheaton had comments and he still has Trackbacks. Bush does not even have that.
No it is not a blog it is online publication that uses blogging tools but it is not a blog.
InstaPundit and Drudge are not a blogs either.
Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at October 8, 2003 02:10 AMOnce again, I let myself get sidetracked away from the meat of my point:
they don’t care about what you have to say
You can’t refute this, you know I’m right. I don’t see the Dem candidates acting like total dorks in regards to comments. Bush’s PR team is a total pussycat and is afraid of people talking. It’s pandering and trying to appear hip in the face of the technology savvy opposition and it comes across as pathetic. Bush doesn’t even know how to use email for god’s sake!
And no, it’s still not a blog. But hey, you’re entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong and out of touch with reality.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at October 8, 2003 02:13 AMdorks?
dorks?
Are 12-year olds contributing now?
What’s left unstated is that the Democrats don’t care what you say either.
Look at the Clark campaign. The top man already stepped down for just that reason.
Dean plays a good game, but he’s just got a bunch of College Democrat lackeys running his blog. There’s not real involvement from the candidate there. None of them care about what you say.
Of course, maybe you’re one of those naive types that believes Dean checks in on the blogs to see what’s up. Sounds a bit “dorky” to me.
Posted by: CJ at October 8, 2003 11:04 AMGo post something negative about Dean on his blog comments. I bet it stays up.
Go post something negative about Bush on his blog comments. You can’t. Even trackbacks are disabled.
That sounds dorky to me.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at October 8, 2003 01:07 PMReading Andrew Dimn this morning, and came across this link to Comments 4W, which mirrors the Bush “blog” with comments. Not the same, I know, but something.
He also quotes the Bush site’s definition of “blog” for what it’s worth:
“A blog is a free-flowing online journal that’s constantly updated with the latest news from throughout the Web. This blog will serve as your personal guide to the campaign to re-elect President Bush, with breaking news, grassroots updates, and posts from campaign leadership.”
Posted by: Frederick T. Courtright at October 10, 2003 09:46 AMTime to google-wash this link folks: GeorgeWBush.com :: Official Blog Comments
The Bush team f**ked up on this one, now they either have to add comments or live with a parallel system that they have no control over. This is what happens when you try to take to censor the Internet.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at October 10, 2003 12:06 PM
Comment 4 W: The missing comments for Bush’s blog
http://comments4w.blogspot.com
Verbatim posts from Bush’s blog, comments enabled.
Posted by: comments4W at October 10, 2003 12:36 PMdeja vu all over again
Posted by: Frederick T. Courtright at October 10, 2003 07:24 PMIs Josh Marshall now not a blog? What about Eric Alterman?
At least Bush’s blog has *some* discussion of issues. Dean’s is all organizational rara, and doesn’t give you any specifics on where he stands on anything. Based on the posts to his blog, what would a Dean Administration offer the American people besides Meetups on the South Lawn?
In contrast to Dean, the majority of Bush’s blog posts are policy-related.
There are at least some of us who are attracted to blogs because they’re substantive and focus on issues. Dean’s troll-driven blog is just noise.
Posted by: Jake at October 11, 2003 04:10 PM
Jake:
“In contrast to Dean, the majority of Bush’s blog posts are policy-related. “
Actually, most of Bush-blog’s posts are who-is-speaking-where posts, e.g., where are Ralph Reed, Ken Mehlman, Dick Cheney and Mary Matalin speaking.
After that you get economy happy-talk like: “Good Signs on the Job Front,” and “Economists Predict 5% Growth”
Then the Iraqi sunshine: “US training of Iraqi solders creates more than just military bonds,” and “Saddam banknotes go up in flames,” and “Andrew Sullivan on What We Have Achieved in Iraq”
Bush’s blog is it’s own lampoon; it almost reads like The Onion
Post your own critique at:
http://comments4w.blogspot.com
CommentTroll,
Name me one substantive policy related post on Dean’s blog in the last 15 days? You can’t.
Which platform is it that Dean is running on, again? He can run a teenage chatroom, so he can run America?
Posted by: Jake at October 13, 2003 11:10 PMWhat blog were you looking at, Jake?
From Dean’s blog today, on prescription drugs: http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001867.html
From Monday, on Iraq:
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001861.html
Or any of these press releases:
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/cat_press_releases.html
Did you think nobody would check your assertion?
Posted by: David in AK at October 15, 2003 02:15 AM
