Senate Republican Majority Leader Mike Bishop Declares War on Blogs

This is on the front-page of DKos (4.00 / 2)

And all 1500 attendees here at YearlyKos are ready to roast Mike Bishop.

Cross-posted to the front-page of Kos

Bad, bad, move Mike!

I want to change the world, not help people adjust to it. - Millie Jeffrey, MI - National Women's labor and Democratic activist, Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipient

---

by: LiberalLucy @ Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 15:11:08 PM CDT

Seriously, LL.... (4.00 / 2)

I owe you a beer when you get back:).

Hate to sound greedy, but is this up on Mydd yet?:)

Putting conservatives in charge of our government makes about as much sense as GM hiring a CEO who hates cars.

---

by: djtyg @ Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 15:20:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Great catch! (4.00 / 4)

Somedays, it isn't hard to make the Repugs look bad.  Bishop does it all by himself.  Knee jerk reactions almost always lead to poor decisions.

Can't wait to see him dig himself out of this.  Maybe it was those pesky attack squirrels that did it.

Do stupid people know they are stupid?

---

by: JPowers155 @ Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 15:27:43 PM CDT

This is an outrage! (4.00 / 4)

This guy reminds me a George Bush more every day.  Not so bright and very thin skinned.

---

by: Jrjr @ Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 15:32:14 PM CDT

They think it's still 2002.... (4.00 / 2)

Back then, the right had their own blogs and talk radio to mobilize against anyone who ticked them off, while liberals had nothing.

Nice to see how times have changed.  Bill O'Reilly has proven that we're a force to be dealt with.  A few years ago, anyone Bill classified as a "hate site" would have Democrats running for cover.  Now they go on his show just to call him out on his b.s.

Now, not only do they not fear the pundits, but they're learning that we have our own army at the ready.

Putting conservatives in charge of our government makes about as much sense as GM hiring a CEO who hates cars.

---

by: djtyg @ Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 15:51:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just referenced the story over at D4MD... (4.00 / 2)

...every little bit helps...

---

by: Brainwrap @ Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 15:56:37 PM CDT

Cherry (4.00 / 1)

As President of the Senate, can't Lt. Gov. Cherry overrule Bishop and get it back online?

Success is not final, failure is not fatal. - Winston Churchill  

---

by: TJarrell @ Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 22:50:55 PM CDT

Bishop's Chief of Staff response (4.00 / 3)

On Eric's blog, is a load of lies. 

He specifically told MIRS that we were shut down because we said bad things about them.  All of this other fluff about goofing off is good political spin, but isn't legit.  We can compare stats, but I'd bet my lunch that legislators on both sides of the aisle spend more time on ML than they do on BFM.

As for goofing off, Mike Bishop has made sure that the Senate does nothing.  He put out a list of demands that had to be met before he would allow the Senate to do any work on the budget.  He changed the Senate rules so that the Democrats couldn't make the Republicans come to work.  Whenever he is presented with a budget deadline, he reminds people that they don't have to hurry, because they have until October 1. 

And isn't it interesting that they blocked access to BFM  within 27 minutes of wizardkitten 'sannouncement that the Senate Dems would be posting on the neglected legislative issues?

So I don't think any Democrats should be taking advice from Bishop on "goofing off"

This is a political move.  He's giving Senator Schauer the finger, just like he did with Governor Granholm on that rule change.

And I'll take this opportunity to mention that on behalf of the bloggers at BFM, and probably all of the bloggers in Michigan, we really don't appreciate being accused, in the press, of accessing Senate computers.  Mike Bishop should apologize to us for making the accusation. 

And he should explain why Nick at Right Michigan has access to memos & other insider info, but is not blocked, and is not being accused of a crime.

---

by: Christine @ Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:55:02 AM CDT

There are definitely more questions here... (0.00 / 0)

I don't buy the "BFM says mean things about us" answer, either.  As Hazen Pingree pointed out yesterday, worse things have been said about Republicans in general and Mike Bishop specifically on this site.

There could be a mix of reasons at work ... my own suspicion is that your series of posts from senators -- along with Mark Schauer's criticism that this is a do-nothing Senate -- probably did more to push the issue than anything.  In that case, even the rationale offered for the block doesn't make any sense.  A politician being political on the taxpayer dime?  Whoever heard of such a thing?

But, I think it's wise to first make sure their stated reasons stand up to scrutiny.  As I blogged yesterday, I think that while they are very reasonable and the same thing I'd demand in return, I don't think the execution matches the rationale very well.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:00:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Saying bad things... (4.00 / 2)

Clearly the line about ML never saying bad things about the Senate Rethugs is one of the biggest loads of bullshit ever produced. What's interesting to me is that MIRS chose to report it without any qualification whatsoever (i.e., mentioning that the statement was a joke). That says to me that MIRS is either a) utterly clueless, or b) deliberately spewing right-wing spin.

That MIRS would do the Republicans' bidding is certainly nothing new. But this has me thinking that perhaps it's time to start actively calling them on their B.S. I don't want to sink MIRS, because they do have a lot of good info. However, they either need to clean up their act or just come out of the closet and freely admit that they're a right-wing rag. After all, how much do Michigan taxpayers pay so that state employees can have access to MIRS? If they're determined to be a right-wing front, then perhaps it's time to take another look at those state subscriptions...

"HAZEN S. PINGREE...He was the first to warn the people of the great danger threatened by powerful private corporations, and the first to awake to the great inequalities in taxation and to initiate steps for reforms. THE IDOL OF THE PEOPLE"

---

by: Hazen Pingree @ Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 10:59:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

BFM is more focused on the Senate (0.00 / 0)

than ML.  There's no question about it.  But it doesn't mean that ML doesn't matter or that ML is weak.  It's just because ML has so many more participants, and ML does community oriented things like Coffee Talk and leadership polls.  At BFM we don't have too many social posts or too many participants.  We're a lot smaller than ML and our posts are almost always economic development success stories, Governor Granholm success stories, or the failures of this obstructionist Republican Senate. 

It's understandable that Matt Miner, Propaganda Minister, would think that BFM was "meaner" than ML because BFM's concentration of Senate posts is higher than ML's.  I don't think Miner was joking or lying when he made that statement ... it was just a slip of the tongue on his part, and probably the most honest thing he said all day.  Despite the fact that he was in error about ML, he was telling his version of the truth.  This statement by Miner is one of the best pieces of evidence that this is blatant censorship on the part of the Michigan Senate. 

---

by: Christine @ Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 13:39:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think it's a power issue... (0.00 / 0)

This isn't a great analogy, but like PNAC said about Iraq being the "low-hanging fruit" and therefore the best target for destruction, Bishop has seen BFM as the lower hanging fruit, as BFM has only been up for about 2 months.

Meanwhile, they didn't want to come after you because they know that you have a strong reputation by most news media throughout the state (it's well known that many reporters in Lansing come here for their own information on politics) and that you have friends in high places.

To put it simply: They were afraid to come after you.

They also hoped it would bring divisions in our ranks.  They hoped you guys would say "Well, at least I'm not blocked!" and write it off.  I'm glad to see that that not only isn't the case, but that you've also come right out and said "Hey!  Why aren't we blocked by this quasi-Stalinist state, too?!":)

I'm sure they also didn't anticipate the national blogs getting wind of this, either.  But hell, they picked the week of YearlyKos to do this, when some of us talk to those bloggers IN PERSON!

Putting conservatives in charge of our government makes about as much sense as GM hiring a CEO who hates cars.

---

by: djtyg @ Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 15:53:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Very reasonable"? (4.00 / 1)

Eric, I have a ton of respect for the work you do and agree with you 99.9% of the time, but I think you are off on this one. There's just not much rationale or precedent for giving these guys the benefit of the doubt and considering that they are "very reasonable." Even slightly agreeing that participating or sharing information with blogs, regardless of what the blogs have said about them, could be construed as 'goofing off' or not what taxpayers want from their public employees is just giving Bishop and his gang cover. Almost concern-trollish, if you will.

Again, not trying to pick a fight, just really worried that by even mildly considering they may have had a point, we inch toward letting these guys off the hook. Sorry.

---

by: mipolitics @ Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 10:45:38 AM CDT

There's disagreeing and picking a fight... (0.00 / 0)

First off, thanks.  I appreciate the compliments.

Second, let me clarify my position here.

What I think is very reasonable is that staffers of Senate Democrats not spend their time at work engaged in political advocacy.  This isn't different than what I think when I walk into a retail store and see the clerks standing around, chit-chatting, while customers wander around obviously in need of assistance.  The key difference is that a staff employee is paid through taxes.

There are nuances, like what someone's job description spells out as their particular duties.  And, also -- yes -- quality.  If someone is providing interesting perspectives or important facts, this is preferable than someone who just takes the opportunity to take shots at the other side.

Did I let Republicans off?  I don't think so.  I accepted their rationalization (and, based on some things I've heard, I can see why they'd think it applied), and engaged it and rejected it.  In this case, I don't think that banning access to Blogging for Michigan on Senate computers can be supported by the argument that Senate staffers should do Senate work while on the clock, and not spend time blogging.

This is beyond the other stuff, like that they say mean things about Mike Bishop there, which is obviously supported by such weak legs that it topples in a stiff breeze.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 12:50:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You sound like you're supporting them... (0.00 / 0)

not rejecting them.

Putting conservatives in charge of our government makes about as much sense as GM hiring a CEO who hates cars.

---

by: djtyg @ Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 15:56:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No I don't... (0.00 / 0)

I sound like I agree with Matt Miner that people who are working on the taxpayer dime should be doing taxpayer work.  I don't see how that's even a mildly controversial position.

On the other hand, I sound like someone who disagrees that this standard was properly applied in this case.  At least based on what I know.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 08:21:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think the controversial position (4.00 / 1)

is that blogging is not taxpayer/constituent work, and therefore our Senators shouldn't be blogging or reading blogs.  That's where Miner is wrong.  (Miner is probably lying anyway, he's just using this technicality to defend his stupid decision)

Legislators talk to reporters and prepare press releases and other communications to be mailed to their constituents, on taxpayer time.  They also inform themselves and communicate with constituents on taxpayer time.  They go on tv, they call in to radio stations, etc.  They get Mon & Fri of every week to be in their districts talking to people.  In July Mike Bishop was all over the press talking about how he needed that 2 week "working vacation" so he could communicate with his constituents.

Maybe if he interacted on blogs, he wouldn't need that entire 2 weeks.  Blogs are an efficient means of communication, and when they are not being censored, they are always available to the citizens and their representatives.  They give us the ability to interact with our government on our own time, in a forum that can always be scrutinized by the public.

The only difference between blogging and other constituent communications is the method of interaction.  There are times when it can be abused, just like there are times when a mailing can be abused.  But we don't prohibit correspondence from our representatives simply because there's a possibility that someone might abuse that method of communication. 

The Republicans censored us using the excuse that blogging is not constituent work.  They said that our Senators cannot have access to our work because BFM is nothing but political propaganda.  (Ironically they also say that our information is so accurate and timely that it must come from Senate servers ... but, whatever) 

If we are censoring things that do not qualify as a constituent service, then the Senate needs to get busy blocking all the news sites, all the e-commerce sites, etc.  In fact, get rid of the Internet altogether.  There was a time when there was no Internet, and the government worked just fine.  No reason to change things now. 

---

by: Christine @ Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:26:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreement (0.00 / 0)

I think the controversial position is that blogging is not taxpayer/constituent work, and therefore our Senators shouldn't be blogging or reading blogs.  That's where Miner is wrong.  (Miner is probably lying anyway, he's just using this technicality to defend his stupid decision)...

I agree with this (except the part about Miner lying), when it comes to reading things on the Internet.  There is no question but that anything with any legitimate journalistic value should be open to lawmakers or their staff or even any members of the public who might wander in off the street.  In fact, this seems very basic to me.

I disagree, to a point, when it comes to active participation.  There are legitimate reasons for elected officials to participate in online conversations about his work.  Mark Schauer's participation in the discussion a water bottler withdrawal fee strikes me as wholly legitimate (in fact, this is one of the reasons why I like Mark Schauer).  Participation by political staff, party staff, or communications folks in online discussions also seem like reasonable interpretations of job duties.  There are other people, on staff, who might be expected to deal directly with the public, and it's fair to ask them to stay out of politics while they're at work.  Again, if I walked into Alan Cropsey's office with a question about veterans benefits, and was handed off to some guy who slagged environmentalists on the Free Republic (or someone who tried to convert me to Christianity), I'd be highly irritated and for good reason.

I don't know ... sounds like a fine reason to call a bloggers' ethics conference.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 10:26:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]