To Blog About Nothing ...
My colleague, KC Johnson, has told us that political conventions serve little obvious, other than symbolic, purpose any more. So why would one watch their proceedings? Probably most of us don't. Earlier in the summer, there was much ado about this year's conventions being the first to be covered by bloggers, but I can't recall much that was memorable from keyboards in the convention halls. Still, in case you are interested, here's a list of the blogs which have privileged access at the Republican National Convention next week. Of those, I'll look in on Oxblog's David Adesnik. Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall will have traditional media credentials; Andrew Sullivan will climb out of his hammock and blog the convention from a distance, and, for the skanky side of things, there's always Wonkette. Still, the skanky side of a Republican convention has to be a limited field, doesn't it? Aren't Republican scandals about money? It's the Democrats who do sex, isn't it?
comments powered by Disqus
Jonathan Dresner - 8/27/2004
Traditionally, you're right: Democratic scandals are about sex; Republican scandals are about money and power. But I wonder to what extent that is a function of inherent tendencies to sin/behave differently and to what extent it is a function of the process of 'scandal'. In other words, Democrats are scandalized by the abuse of money and power, and Republicans are scandalized by sexual misconduct.
Then I think of the House Bank scandal (which mostly affected Democrats, if memory serves), and the Bob Packwood (R-OR) scandal.....
- Historian Fernando Prado on quest to find remains of Cervantes
- Historian shines a light on the dark heart of Australia's nationhood
- Female historian says human rights museum censored her
- Japanese historians slam sex-slave apology review
- Stephanie Coontz: "Marriages require much more maturity than they once did."