Thu 23 Jun 2005
When the Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain came down today, I thought about the political clients I work with and wondered what I would do if I were a campaign blogger.
I know that my gut reaction would be to write a flaming, Anakin Skywalker-like post about how awful the ruling is. A “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, what the hell is our country coming to???”-type post is what comes to mind.
Because I am such a level-headed and non-emotional person however — ahem — I would of course take a deep breath and realize that my boss, (enter candidate’s name here), probably would not appreciate me editorializing on her blog. I would, straight away, ask her what her position on the ruling is.
Which brings me to my point. Candidates are pretty busy, most of them hold full-time jobs in addition to running for public office, so who can really blame them for not formulating a position on every issue that comes down the pike. That’s where the blogs come in.
If campaign bloggers do their jobs well, they will know a) which current issues are important to blog about and b) that they need to find out what their candidate’s position on the issue is before blogging about it.
The upshot is that even if a candidate hasn’t thought about their position on eminent domain and the government seizing private property to build new space for Pfize…um “public use”, they will have to decide what their position is. This may be the second greatest thing blogs are doing for politics today (with community building being first).
What could be better than forcing politicians to take a stand, for better or for worse, on the issues that are important to voters?
June 24th, 2005 at 9:55 am
Did you also notice that the 5 justice majority was the “liberal” side of the court?
June 24th, 2005 at 10:03 am
I sure did… Has everyone gone crazy?
June 24th, 2005 at 10:32 am
Let’s have a bit of a sense of history here. This program is a blood descendant of the old Federal Urban Renewal Program, one of the liberal pieties of the post-WWII years. It got its legitimacy from Justice Douglas’ opinion in Berman v. Parker. The people who blew the whistle on it were Jane Jacobs, Ed Banfield and Martin Anderson.
June 24th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Well, if you can call a court that has 7 of 9 justices who were appointed by Republicans, and those same 7 who list themselves as Republicans liberal . . . its not really one of the more “liberal” courts in history.
June 24th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
Also, interesting tidbit. Bush wouldnt be President today if not for this exact thing happening: http://www.robertbryce.com/050997.htm
He used eminent domain to make buckets of money off the Texas Rangers baseball team, which launched his political career.
June 25th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Hey, thanks for stopping by at Grits. Glad to learn of your site. I added some thoughts on your related comments there about campaign blogging current events, see:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8597101&postID=111948235268874555
Best,