<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Republican Candidates Almost Invisible on the Web</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/republicans_almost_invisible_on_the_web/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/republicans_almost_invisible_on_the_web/</link>
	<description>Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:37:55 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ragnell</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/republicans_almost_invisible_on_the_web/comment-page-1/#comment-111017</link>
		<dc:creator>Ragnell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/01/republicans_almost_invisible_on_the_web/#comment-111017</guid>
		<description>Hoping to help encourage more active congressional involvement, I emailed Mitch McConnell to congratulate him for hiring someone to act his blog intermediary. However, I also suggested that he convince the top Republican congressional leaders to hire a skilled and respected blogger*to help organize or fund all of the efforts of the online community backing the war on terror. Not just a contact for his office, but an official Republican congressional liaison, which assisted in coordinating online efforts with Congressional allies. 

I think some blogs such as PowerLine are attempting to do so; but so far their community is small. Powerline&#039;s particular effort appears to attract primarily republican bloggers and commenters. Libertarians or liberal hawks don&#039;t appear to have joined up at that site.. Furthermore, as you noted, few Republicans blog or even post on digg or del.icio.us.**

The same limitation occurs with liberal hawk  attempts at unifying a large group of bloggers and commenters. I&#039;m not seeing many conservatives post articles at politics central. Perhaps it doesn&#039;t matter a great deal, but it does dilute the potential of their combined impact through power of numbers. So I question whether all these assorted groups could lay aside their differences on social and religious issues, in order to unite under one huge blog umbrella and gain larger online visibility. How else can a counter-force to Kos&#039;s traffic be created? 

I know I&#039;m singing to the choir, but Kos outguns us because he managed to organize the large part of the radical left under one blog umbrella. You know how that accomplishment impacted their internet visibility. In contrast, their opposition is broken up into so many independent blogs(a classic sign of personality types who prize their individuality). Of course while Kos enforces the groupthink law; most conservative or libertarian bloggers would rather die the death by a thousand cuts rather than sacrifice their right to disagree with each other. 


*Current Republican efforts to promote a network of republican bloggers is absurd due to their poor understand of how the blogosphere works. For example, bloggers are required to post what fundraising they have accomplished for that month. A further problem is presented when they post the bloggers real name and city of residence. Some of us face severe professional damage if such publicity reveals our political viewpoints to our very intolerant, far-left administrations.

**If I link to five articles at del.icio.us, 40 more are posted during the same time which promote a radical left viewpoint. In fact, I could link 20 articles and still remain in the tiny minority. You understand how this impacts news on net but the Republican leaders are oblivious to the damage. They had better wake up to this problem before it&#039;s too late to change the ratio.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hoping to help encourage more active congressional involvement, I emailed Mitch McConnell to congratulate him for hiring someone to act his blog intermediary. However, I also suggested that he convince the top Republican congressional leaders to hire a skilled and respected blogger*to help organize or fund all of the efforts of the online community backing the war on terror. Not just a contact for his office, but an official Republican congressional liaison, which assisted in coordinating online efforts with Congressional allies. </p>
<p>I think some blogs such as PowerLine are attempting to do so; but so far their community is small. Powerline's particular effort appears to attract primarily republican bloggers and commenters. Libertarians or liberal hawks don't appear to have joined up at that site.. Furthermore, as you noted, few Republicans blog or even post on digg or del.icio.us.**</p>
<p>The same limitation occurs with liberal hawk  attempts at unifying a large group of bloggers and commenters. I'm not seeing many conservatives post articles at politics central. Perhaps it doesn't matter a great deal, but it does dilute the potential of their combined impact through power of numbers. So I question whether all these assorted groups could lay aside their differences on social and religious issues, in order to unite under one huge blog umbrella and gain larger online visibility. How else can a counter-force to Kos's traffic be created? </p>
<p>I know I'm singing to the choir, but Kos outguns us because he managed to organize the large part of the radical left under one blog umbrella. You know how that accomplishment impacted their internet visibility. In contrast, their opposition is broken up into so many independent blogs(a classic sign of personality types who prize their individuality). Of course while Kos enforces the groupthink law; most conservative or libertarian bloggers would rather die the death by a thousand cuts rather than sacrifice their right to disagree with each other. </p>
<p>*Current Republican efforts to promote a network of republican bloggers is absurd due to their poor understand of how the blogosphere works. For example, bloggers are required to post what fundraising they have accomplished for that month. A further problem is presented when they post the bloggers real name and city of residence. Some of us face severe professional damage if such publicity reveals our political viewpoints to our very intolerant, far-left administrations.</p>
<p>**If I link to five articles at del.icio.us, 40 more are posted during the same time which promote a radical left viewpoint. In fact, I could link 20 articles and still remain in the tiny minority. You understand how this impacts news on net but the Republican leaders are oblivious to the damage. They had better wake up to this problem before it's too late to change the ratio.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jwb</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/republicans_almost_invisible_on_the_web/comment-page-1/#comment-110932</link>
		<dc:creator>jwb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jan 2007 19:58:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/01/republicans_almost_invisible_on_the_web/#comment-110932</guid>
		<description>Not to delve too deeply into the frivolous, but wouldn&#039;t that scenario degenerate into men posing as lesbians trading pictures of hot women with other men posing as lesbians?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not to delve too deeply into the frivolous, but wouldn't that scenario degenerate into men posing as lesbians trading pictures of hot women with other men posing as lesbians?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Joyner</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/republicans_almost_invisible_on_the_web/comment-page-1/#comment-110885</link>
		<dc:creator>James Joyner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:03:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/01/republicans_almost_invisible_on_the_web/#comment-110885</guid>
		<description>Triumph,

According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_lesbian&quot; title=&quot;lipstick lesbian&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:
&lt;blockquote&gt;
A lipstick lesbian is a slang term for a feminine homosexual woman who is attracted to another feminine woman, rather than a lesbian who is attracted to a more masculine woman, such as in a &quot;butch and femme&quot;-type relationship. It is also used to describe a homosexual (or bisexual) woman who exhibits feminine gender expression, a female who wears make-up (thus, lipstick), dresses or skirts, and perhaps takes on other characteristics associated with feminine women.

In mainstream American films, lesbians are often portrayed according to the lipstick lesbian stereotype to be both politically safer and more sexually attractive to male viewers. A good example is Showtime&#039;s television series The L Word, which presents most of its major lesbian characters in this way. Most lesbians in mainstream pornography are also portrayed in this way.

The term was used in San Francisco at least as far back as the 1980s. In 1982, Priscilla Rhoades, a journalist with the gay newspaper The Sentinel, wrote a feature story on &quot;Lesbians for Lipstick.&quot; The term is thought to have emerged in wide usage during the early 1990s. A 1997 episode of the television show Ellen widely publicized the phrase. In the show, Ellen DeGeneres&#039;s character, asked by her parents whether a certain woman is a &quot;dipstick lesbian,&quot; explains that the term is &quot;lipstick lesbian,&quot; and comments that &quot;I would be a ChapStick™ lesbian.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

In my usage, though, I&#039;m thinking of the (possibly apocryphal) phenomenon of college-aged women experimenting with lesbianism and then moving back into heterosexual roles.  

My brief forays into MySpace searching for various things related to my Hollywood site has unearthed a phenomenal number of self-identified lesbians, all of whom are very attractive.  My guess is that some sizable number are not really lesbians and that an even larger number are guys using pictures of women, posing as lesbians, in order to get hot women who claim to be lesbians to show them photos in their altogether.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Triumph,</p>
<p>According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_lesbian" title="lipstick lesbian" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>
A lipstick lesbian is a slang term for a feminine homosexual woman who is attracted to another feminine woman, rather than a lesbian who is attracted to a more masculine woman, such as in a "butch and femme"-type relationship. It is also used to describe a homosexual (or bisexual) woman who exhibits feminine gender expression, a female who wears make-up (thus, lipstick), dresses or skirts, and perhaps takes on other characteristics associated with feminine women.</p>
<p>In mainstream American films, lesbians are often portrayed according to the lipstick lesbian stereotype to be both politically safer and more sexually attractive to male viewers. A good example is Showtime's television series The L Word, which presents most of its major lesbian characters in this way. Most lesbians in mainstream pornography are also portrayed in this way.</p>
<p>The term was used in San Francisco at least as far back as the 1980s. In 1982, Priscilla Rhoades, a journalist with the gay newspaper The Sentinel, wrote a feature story on "Lesbians for Lipstick." The term is thought to have emerged in wide usage during the early 1990s. A 1997 episode of the television show Ellen widely publicized the phrase. In the show, Ellen DeGeneres's character, asked by her parents whether a certain woman is a "dipstick lesbian," explains that the term is "lipstick lesbian," and comments that "I would be a ChapStick™ lesbian."</p></blockquote>
<p>In my usage, though, I'm thinking of the (possibly apocryphal) phenomenon of college-aged women experimenting with lesbianism and then moving back into heterosexual roles.  </p>
<p>My brief forays into MySpace searching for various things related to my Hollywood site has unearthed a phenomenal number of self-identified lesbians, all of whom are very attractive.  My guess is that some sizable number are not really lesbians and that an even larger number are guys using pictures of women, posing as lesbians, in order to get hot women who claim to be lesbians to show them photos in their altogether.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Triumph</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/republicans_almost_invisible_on_the_web/comment-page-1/#comment-110883</link>
		<dc:creator>Triumph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:46:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/01/republicans_almost_invisible_on_the_web/#comment-110883</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;young lipstick lesbians&lt;/blockquote&gt;

James,  For the uninitiated, could you please explain what a &quot;lipstick lesbian&quot; is?  And how are they distinguished from their makeup-eschewing fellow travellers?

Where do prominent lesbians like Mary Cheney, Ellen Degeneris, and Oprah fall on the scale?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>young lipstick lesbians</p></blockquote>
<p>James,  For the uninitiated, could you please explain what a "lipstick lesbian" is?  And how are they distinguished from their makeup-eschewing fellow travellers?</p>
<p>Where do prominent lesbians like Mary Cheney, Ellen Degeneris, and Oprah fall on the scale?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: yetanotherjohn</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/republicans_almost_invisible_on_the_web/comment-page-1/#comment-110877</link>
		<dc:creator>yetanotherjohn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 20:31:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/01/republicans_almost_invisible_on_the_web/#comment-110877</guid>
		<description>My advice, create a special &quot;election 2008&quot; add spot and auction it off on a daily basis. The market will build nicely over the next 21 or so months and then crumble, but it will be a sellers market while it lasts.

Let the campaigns get their &quot;thought for the day&quot; spam out to your readers but pay for the privilege.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My advice, create a special "election 2008" add spot and auction it off on a daily basis. The market will build nicely over the next 21 or so months and then crumble, but it will be a sellers market while it lasts.</p>
<p>Let the campaigns get their "thought for the day" spam out to your readers but pay for the privilege.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
