David’s post yesterday that documented Romney’s 1994 support for a federal individual health care mandate is a good example of how radically the Internet has changed access to political discourse and lessened — although certainly not eliminated — traditional media’s power to manage debate.
Our celebrated co-Editor hit “Publish” at 11:33 a.m. Less than an hour later, at 12:18 p.m., Salon blogger Dave Wiegel observed, “The day before his big health care speech, Blue Mass Group explodes a depth charge right under Mitt Romney. They point to “Stormin’ Mormon,” the pre-1994 election profile of Romney by John Judis …” Phoenix political reporter David Bernstein was next with “lovable local liberal bloggers Blue Mass Group came up with a good one, if dated,” at 1:38 p.m. Phillip Klein brought legacy media into the game at 4.45 p.m. with a piece for the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential site titled “Romney in ’08: ‘I like mandates'” that cited and linked back to BMG. By the end of the day, the story had worked its way up the prestige chain to Time’s Swampland blog, where Adam Sorensen and Jay Newton-Small, with droll understatement, noted that a “possible inconsistency was flagged Wednesday by the liberal blog Blue Mass Group.” Finally, at 7.34 a.m. this morning, a benediction from clergy. Michael Shear of The Caucus: The Politics and Government Blog of The Times (confusingly, of course, The New York Times, as opposed to the actual, older and more famous newspaper The Times) included the following cryptic paragraph in his preview of Romney’s speech today:
A liberal blogger on Wednesday dug up another example of Mr. Romney endorsing the idea of a state mandating that individuals buy insurance.
No link. No elaboration. The journalistic equivalent, one might say, of mumbling through gritted teeth.
Far more important than whether we are in fact lovable at BMG (of course we are: Bernstein, Boston’s “bloodhound of truth,” will not be gainsaid), or whether anyone reading The Caucus this morning had any idea what Shear was on about (I assume almost no one did and, in fact, it is only my conjecture that he was referring to David’s post; he may have been referring to a liberal blog in Mexico for all I know) is the fact that a single post on BMG can alter, however slightly, the national discourse about the Republican front runner in just a few hours. That’s revolutionary, and we’re only getting started.
Stay tuned for more information, coming in a few weeks, about how you can use our new platform to start your own personal BMG, which will be visible to our readership of around one million unique visitors per year, for free.
jconway says
Is that a surprising number of conservatives were in favor of mandates back in the 1990s and even into the 2000s. The Washington Post had some good coverage on Gingrich’s support of mandates as recently as 2008, and a federal proposal quite similar to Romney and Obama care. Dole proposed a similar proposal in the 1990s, so did John Chaffee, so did Richard Nixon in the 1970s (and his version had far more generous subsidies for the poor and middle class than either Romney or Obamacare). The sad thing is how, in just a few years, the heathcare debate has shifted so far to the right even though polls have consistently shown it shifting to the left. A public option hit near 60% and single payer has consistently had pluralities in the past few years in polling. It shows that special interests are driving the debate in both parties at the expense of the average American and there is a large disconnect between voters and their elected officials on this issue.
jconway says
If Romney is serious about his principled commitment to federalism (who are we kidding that position is also up for sale depending on the polls!) than I hope the effort in Vermont blazes a path through the country like wildfire to fix this problem. Some of you may know, many do not, that I work at a bankruptcy law firm, and around 50% of the cases I deal with are with people filing bankruptcy due to medical debt. Thats terrible and its un-American and its time we wake up.
cmassd says
Contra St. Elizabeth of Hahvd, my experience has long been that creditors holding claims for health care services are among the least aggressive collectors in existence, often willing to take a few dollars a month for many tens of thousands of debt– and therefore quite unlikely to provoke bankruptcies.
I think, rather, that when people are sick enough to run up thousands of dollars of medical debt that they aren’t working– and suddenly can’t service the debt that they already have. In other words, they’d be clients even if they had no medical debt.
jconway says
This is partly true. A big problem is that people are too sick to work to pay for all the other bills. That said these days hospitals can’t afford to have people avoid paying for services, and while medical collectors are not nearly as aggressive as those the credit card companies outsource to, they do place garnishments and liens on bank accounts and salaries. While I am not sure a single payer system as developed in other nations is the best model to follow, I am certain our system is broken and risks need to be pooled much more efficiently to drive down costs. The irony of the Obama reform is that it has been a boon to the insurance industry instead of its death knell.
kirth says
Eventually, Romney may regret his ever being Governor of Massachusetts. Then he and I will finally have something in common.
johnk says
this should put it to rest. Seamlessly linking with social media sites has expanded the claws of the BMG Media Empire. Great idea!
Trickle up says
between the new site architecture and the attention this post got?
Any reason to suppose the same post would not have gotten the same treatment if posted on the Soapblox site?
I would have thought it was about the content, not the technology.
cmassd says
I think that this was brilliant indeed; and worthy of a Hindenburg, which I cannot seem to cause to appear here.
Another amusing note I saw yesterday– though, alas, not here– is that there is a significant difference that makes Romneycare quite a different animal than Obamacare after all: Romneycare covers abortions.
johnk says
hesterprynne says
The Massachusetts Constitution gives greater protection to a woman’s right to choose than the federal constitution does.
hesterprynne says
since the people Mitt is trying to win over may not be persuaded that he had nothing to do with abortions being covered.
HR's Kevin says
Obama is definitely not responsible for everything in “Obamacare”. In politics, executives end up “owning” both the good and bad aspects of things that happen under their watch.
dont-get-cute says
Romneycare covers IVF too, which is very expensive and unnecessary for health.
dont-get-cute says
That’s a lot of people with an incorrect perception that this as a “liberal blog” and David is a “Liberal blogger.” They’re wrong, this is a Libertarian blog. David himself described himself as a “Liberaltarian” when I made a poll question asking if BlueMassGroup was a Libertarian blog. The poll results didn’t survive the transition to wordpress, but the comments reveal a marked preference for Libertarianism, not Liberalism.
“Liberaltarians” are not Liberals, they are libertarians who support Democrats, as opposed to whatever the term if for RedMassGroup Libertarians who support Republicans.
HR's Kevin says
I would bet that Libertarians make up a low percentage of readers. Your poll was meaningless, since very few people bothered to answer it.
And your definition of “liberaltarian” does not necessarily match David’s, but I will let David comment on whether that is what he meant.
In any case, the posts here seem to reflect mostly progressive and Democratic leanings rather than Libertarian ones.
cmassd says
I don’t think this is something that ever really got off the ground.
It began as a reaction to massive expansion of government power under the previous administration, which was opposed by liberals and by libertarians alike.
Since then libertarianism seems to have found more acceptance than it ever has in the Republican party– even in libertarianism most silly flavors. I don’t think it was ever a marriage made to last: “suspicion of government” is not likely to be a decent description of a liberal.
Bob Neer says
And neither does some poll you may have posted heaven knows when.
Readers can draw their own conclusions about this site’s politics from our content. The only thing we assert in the masthead is that this is a place for “reality-based commentary.”
Christopher says
…we can’t help it if reality has a liberal bias!
I think we can safely say that libertarianism is not the prevailing philosophy here.
environmentma says
And I know that you all won’t crib directly from MA GOP press releases, like the Cape Cod Times when discussing positions
dont-get-cute says
Sorry, I should have responded to the “Far more important than whether we are in fact lovable at BMG” (or Liberal, and I wouldn’t trust libertarian David Bernstein to break the truth about that one, or is that a different David Bernstein at the Phoenix?) point:
“the fact that a single post on BMG can alter, however slightly, the national discourse about the Republican front runner in just a few hours. That’s revolutionary, and we’re only getting started.”
Yes, this is true. Stories and ideas can snowball in just a few days into something everyone is talking about. Blogs have much more power than they are willing to admit. (Assuming they are actually read by other bloggers, of course, and aren’t just closed echo chambers). Keep up the good work and use your power for Good, not Evil!