Dateline: Begun Somewhere in the Air between Denver International Airport and LaGuardia–8/29/08 Mid-Afternoon; finished back at home in Brooklyn USA 9/1/08
At the end of the first chapter of this epic journey, one may recall that I was awaken from a sound sleep and a fine dream by that eternal harbinger of unnecessary calamity, Rockwell Hermon Hackshaw.
The chapter ended with Rock explaining that because the Residence Inn had no two-bedrooms units for us at $199 (the DNC rate) they had given us each a one-bedroom for $99 instead, and that therefore he would have no need to awaken me like he just had. This was one of the few pieces of good news Rock managed to deliver during the week’s course, although those pieces of news were still greater in number than his efforts at political commentary (but why was everyone complaining?)
Of course, when I checked out, the bill for five days was over a thousand, even though I knew Rock had already paid his own bill for half that amount. Gatey managed to suppress his legendary temper, but not his New York sarcasm and the error was rectified, although I must admit that charging someone 500 extra dollars to minimize their contact with Hackshaw was not per se unreasonable. And, I won’t hold my breathe waiting for Rock to return the New York Press badge he persuaded me to surrender as part of his hair-brained scheme to get a few extra friends into Invesco.
I must say, the trip to Denver would have been worth twice the price, although my lack of preparation and convention savvy did diminish both my fun and my caloric intake. (Although, sometimes, as was the case with my missing Steve Israel’s “Wines Of Long Island” event, which I blew off to watch the roll-call of the states, this was a conscious decision).
For example, it wasn’t until Wednesday that I noticed the daily convention paper put out by Congressional Quarterly and distributed at the Downtown hotels (but not mine out in the sticks). Moreover, it wasn’t until Thursday, that I actually cracked open a copy while waiting for the festivities to begin at Invesco. It was then I learned that every edition contained a near complete list of the day’s events sponsored by nearly everyone.
Not only had I missed many chances to feed my body, but also my mind. Searching in vein for a convention event sponsored by the Democratic Leadership Council, where I hoped to pitch someone on helping to start up a supportive network of centrist, New Democratic, Neo-liberal bloggers to compete in the marketplace of ideas with the “progressives”, it was until the night before my departure that I even learned that Harold Ford was in town.
Most importantly, I spent too much time talking to the delegates, and not enough to the press. As a result, I did not learn of the free smorgasbord available to all with press passes at the Fox News Hospitality Tent (some would consider this a sell-out; I consider it collecting reparations on behalf of victimized liberal Democrats); I also did not learn that a press pass could often be used to Bogart one’s way into events like those held by Spike Lee and Rolling Stone Magazine. Ultimately, though even a bumbler like myself managed to learn that the press credential allowed one to walk right into Invesco rather than to endure the three hour wait suffered by actual delegates.
Instead of eating with the elite, I mostly partook in the cheap grub available at blogger parties, including one had by some high-tech kids who called themselves Swarmforce. I still don’t understand a damned thing they were talking about, but the chicken skewers were delicious and the wine quenched my thirst for high-tech knowledge.
Similarly, I’d have been better off talking logistics with my New York friends instead of politics. As a result, I missed out on not one, but two parties which were not part of the NY press package (at least the one I got). Actually, I did learn of the second party in time, but without the written directions, I ended up in front of a western-themed adult book store.
“Ride ‘Em Cowboy”.
Could this be because I am disliked? I know that I am, but tend to doubt that this alone was the reason, considering some of the non-delegates who did manage to attend these soirées. Nonetheless, it got me thinking, as did a few other events, such as being banned at The Daily Gotham, which Nextgendems told me was a badge of honor.
For instance, I was screamed at by Scott Stringer for writing bad things about his parents. He loudly promised vengeance upon all my friends, such as they are. I looked back at the piece in question and found that all that I had said was that his parents were regular Democrats and then named the positions they had held. I know that being called a “Regular Democrat” is considered a damning insult at The Daily Gotham, but I myself have never thought that being a regular Democrat was conclusive proof of evil, as opposed to merely being evidence of it. Personally, I’ve been called a “Regular Democratic Hack” so often, I’m thinking of printing it on my business cards (another important bit of preparation I'd neglected to take care of before the convention ).
Some friends have urged me to consider quitting: "i mean this sincerely. watch your back. this gatemouth thing has taken on a life of it's own. you are now changing people's carrers. ambitious, greedy psychophantic people. people get hurt over lesser stuff."
And, recently, I received a complaint which went in part:
“Your basic method, one we've seen time and time again, is to caricature random people you oppose politically as human garbage. You do so, by the way, by taking something they've said or done, convincing yourself that this means something absolutely horrible, and pounding it again and again and again. And when you're on that tear, you're completely impervious to argument…. It's as if it's a game for you: "oh, look at me, I did really just say that! Aren't I outrageous?". Just a hint: there are people out there who hate your guts, and I'm somewhat surprised that you haven't been sued yet.
The reason why that hasn't happened is probably that few people, at least that I'm aware of, consider you an effective advocate. I've said this to you before: if you really want to damage somebody at this point, play a softer register. Calling people…traitors, whatever, with your track record, makes you look worse than anything it might make them look."
I sent the excerpts out to some readers who responded thusly:
“Seriously, I think within the criticism is a message for all bloggers, not just you. Let's examine first, why do any of us read the blogs, not for dry analysis put out by supporters or campaigns themselves, but for hard hitting critique that is often times missing in the public arena. You all say the things that most of us say privately but would never admit to, after all it would not be very [discrete] for me to state some of things I actually believe about others in my profession.
Can it get nasty and personal, yes, but what divides the blogosphere is that some of you, in your nastiness, actually say things that force us all to think. Which is the only valid reason for blogging. can you be a little over the top sometimes, yes, but never gratuitously.
There are some people who can not absorb the message when it is encased in a negative connotation, that is more a reflection on them than you or any of the other serious bloggers. self-reflection is critical in this business, especially since we are all surrounded by sycophants all the time.
Criticism can be constructive, so my feeling is if you are pissing people off, you are doing what is needed.”
“You…have a deep and long memory and a unique style and specific cadence. I don't believe that those qualities equate with any sort of actionable or terribly offensive conduct.”
“As I recall, truth is an absolute defense to libel.”
“Your arguments have been quite cogent, and supported with fact. They would quite valuable if more people were paying attention. So much of the criticism is unreasonable. But the suggestion about tone is good advice. A lying sack of shit may best be shown for what he is by stating the facts, but using greater discretion in characterizing him. More people might pay attention to the valuable factual argument.
So don't worry about your meds, but do take a deep breath now and then.
I remain, with ever increasing admiration, Yr most humble and obedient servant”
“You are harsher in your posts than I would be but that's a difference in personality. And you tend to beat a dead horse to death, but I think you do it in an effective way.
I don't think you call anybody human garbage and it's your opponents, not you who tend to call people….traitors”
“As much as I am certain that you are serious about your political involvement, I am able to separate the boyish prankster in you from the serious political activist. Some people can't do that. Thus they will read into your stuff more than I think they should. Personally I enjoy your political history lessons, that's when you are at your best; not when you are spinning metaphors that very few can discern. DON'T LET THEM SEE YOU SWEAT.”
I'll add that, at one of the NY breakfasts, Errol Louis gave me (along with himself) credit for helping to alter the zeitgeist in the press concerning the Kevin Powell-Ed Towns race (I myself credit Kevin). Apparently, my small readership is highly influential–I'm sort of the blogging equivalent of the Velvet Underground; only about 1,000 people bought their first album, but everyone of them formed their own band.
And yet, the convention once again got me thinking that my critic had been correct.
I’ve pretty much been away from day to day politics for over five years now, and distance has reduced my contact with the very human folks I write about. I once wrote what I thought was a fairly thoughtful, if somewhat vulgar, think piece about the publicizing the sexual peccadilloes of politicos, a topic probably even more pertinent today than it was at the time.
When I wrote the piece, he New York Post had just run such a story about a pair of New York electeds, and the blogging world, not including myself, had provided further details. My piece in response riffed on the implications of all this in a dozen legitimate ways, and I am not sorry that it was written.
And yet, one night at the convention I sat next to one of the central figures in my vulgar effort, and had a conversation about our kids. My identity was not revealed, but if it had been, the capacity crowd would have prevented my comfortable exit. I also encountered some far more deserving of my scorn (the sex scandal article had actually defended my seat-mate, though that was probably of little consolation), who did know who I was, and it was not a comfortable experience.
I was no longer sure whether, involved day-to-day in that world, I could have written the same pieces. Probably not. Although I am now doing far better financially than when I was engaged in politics day to day, and would have considerable trouble trying to replicate my salary unless I attained a position near the top of that field, it did make me wonder if my work carried the indicia of resentment of being on the outside.
I’m sure that it did.
I recently had an argument, on “Daily Gotham”, since deleted by mutual agreement, where I termed a State Senate Candidate a practitioner of “The Big Lie”, and made an allusion to the creator of that term (though it did not name him).
In response, a Daily Gotham commentator, posted in several places on TDG and Room 8 (all since deleted by mutual agreement), that I had compared the gentleman man in question, a member of my Jewish religious congregation, to a Nazi, and that I was despicable.
Embarrassed, I pretty much conceded the point, but I note that in this week’s New Yorker, there appears a piece by the unassailable Hedrick Hertzberg concerning Jerome’s Corsi’s bestselling “The Obama Nation” where Hertzberg says “The result is an example of what used to be known, in the glory days of ideologically driven totalitarianism, as the Big Lie”.
Now perhaps, we can excuse Mr. Hertzberg because Mr. Corsi is a stone bigot with many attributes (racist and religious intolerance, as well as homophobia) similar to those held by Nazis. And perhaps it is never fair game to call a member of the Hebrew persuasion a practitioner of “The Big Lie” (is this why Dubya hired Ari Fleisher?).
And surely Gatemouth needs to, and will be, reevaluating his modis operandi. After I get this primary out of this system, I anticipate (but don't necessaily promise) a more national focus, and maybe even a kindler, gentler Gatemouth.
But let’s have some sense of proportion. One who tells large lies in the hopes of successfully using them to change the zeitgeist is a “Big Liar”. To say so is in no way implying they are guilty of genocide, or other high crimes.
I apologize for in any way creating the impression among the feeble minded that any of my targets was a consumer of Cyclon-B gas or a mass murdering bigot.