Reader input requested
Dear reader of Rossputin.com,
As I think more about how I might further my (mostly unpaid) foray into the world of news, opinion, and media, a close friend has suggested that if I ever want to get serious about it as a potential career or at least more serious sideline, I need to understand what value I might bring to a larger publication or media outlet, what I might do differently or better than most others which would make me an interesting fit, i.e. for a syndicated column, in a market that’s full of people who want to do the same thing.
Therefore, I’m asking you to offer me your honest opinion about what you like and don’t like about my writing on these pages or other places where you may have seen it.
You can offer comments either with your name or anonymously in the comment section of this blog note, or you can e-mail me directly at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Although everybody loves compliments and I’m happy to receive them, I would appreciate not just your telling me what you think I do well or what makes you keep reading these pages, but also what you think I could do better or where you think I have a weakness, particularly if it’s a weakness that you see as relatively persistent.
Thank you in advance for any time you spend responding to me.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Rossputin on 06/08/09 at 01:08:33 am . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. |
Yours truly
-
Following Obama's Economic Policies
Facebook NetworkedBlogs
XML Feeds
06/08/09 @ 08:22:54 am
Whilst I find the information on your blog interesting, it seems a bit one sided. I am generally opposed to opines from both sides of the political/economical spectrum. What I would genuinely like to hear is a dialogue between sides that do not lambaste, fear monger, misquote, or otherwise coerce an opinion from one side OR the other. Not that you do any of those things in your writings... However, If you want to stand apart from every other writer out there, ask the right questions, but know there is always more than one answer to the question. It is your perspective that will make the answers intriguing or not, and determine whether readership will grow, stagnate, or flounder.
ANY right wing blog can attract the same right wing followers.
Any Left wing blog can attract the same left wing followers.
There are intellectuals and experts that will create arguments for and against every opinion out there. What makes your opinion valued is the uniquely Ross way of looking at things. Just don't become too one-sided or the people on the other side of the fence will stop listening.
06/08/09 @ 02:13:31 pm
Ross,
I have been reading your blog since last December. You probably think I stopped reading, but I didn't. As you recall, what prompted me to start reading was your op-ed in regards to Republicans and (forgive my massive paraphrasing because I can't remember) the issues with social conservatives and how it might be time to rethink some things. You referred to the differences between little L and big L Libertarianism and your further postings since the election have led me to believe that you are more of a republican than I initially suspected. Regardless, I know that you have a strong fundamental difference and for the most part outwardly hostile opinion of President Obama--which is fine. My problem is that your rhetoric is solely about economics. Since I know you are a derivatives trader and your daughter's middle name is "Rand"--that is to be expected. This leads me to what you do right and why I read your blog. It is my opinion that there is no better source (for me) for economic news, theory, opinion that is from the fiscal conservative/Libertarian/free market perspective concerning the U.S. and particularly Colorado than your website. As an independent voter, I will ALWAYS seek opinions that are contrary to mine or that represent sides that I may not agree with or be familiar with. I think your readership is highly educated and while I can disagree with some of your postings, I cannot say that they are ever misinformed or un-researched.
The problem I have with your blog is that you completely discount or ignore the social issues that bog down the republican party and cause moderates like myself to not even consider voting for them. When Dr. Tiller was murdered, you did not even mention it. On one hand that is fine because your expertise is economic, but on the other hand you seem to blow off the impact that the extreme base of the republican party has had on the elections. You chastised me once for pointing this out and said that Obama's economic policies are much worse than anything I cared about, but I think you need to seriously consider the impact that the evangelicals and theocrats who preach intolerance have on the Republican national party. You can argue all day about taxes and and how Obama is screwing me and my kids, but it does not threaten me (much to your dismay) the way that GWB's push toward a theocracy did. So when you call Obama names and say bad things about him, it rings hollow to me, because until the republican party ceases to cater to their base crowd, I'm going to continue to choose the lesser of two evils. For the most part I typically agree with your economic arguments, but while you state that you are pro-choice and for things like legalizing drugs--the fact that the party you want in power wants to govern my bedroom, my social life, etc, still bothers me infinitely more than my tax rate. Right now, I still see the GOP as the party of intolerance and anti-intellectualism, thus not getting my vote. If I had a choice, I would prefer that you argue from a more Libertarian slant--which is what you have voted for in the last 4 elections according to you, instead of the republican talking points slant you seemed to have taken since November 4th. I want economic liberty AND personal liberty.
Ross does well: Economic reporting and insight about Colorado and U.S., Libertarian economical views
Ross does not do well: Addressing social issues that have a direct effect on U.S. elections
In a nutshell, I would read an article you wrote in The Economist or a financial magazine. I probably wouldn't read an article you wrote in the National Review.
Regards,
Chris
06/08/09 @ 02:25:16 pm
Chris,
While I understand your position, the bottom line is that I don't care a lot about social issues even though I somewhat agree with you that they're not good for the GOP.
I don't argue what's good for the GOP. I argue what's good for the nation and what is in keeping with my principles and with what I believe were the principles of the Founders.
That said, you probably don't know a lot of the "GOP base" and I'll tell you that the social issues don't hurt the GOP as much as you think in the sense that while they turn off some "moderate" voters, the party would probably lose conservative voters in measurable numbers if the party simply dropped the social issues.
As for me, while I'm not a social issues conservative, I can live with STATE governments addressing those issues. What I can't live with is the FEDERAL government getting involved. And when that happens in any important way, I tend to write about it.
As for the murder of Dr. Tiller, what am I supposed to say? Many hardcore social conservatives came out and said it was a horrible murder. They're right. What should I add?
I was against GWB's theocratic tendencies, but you certainly overstate them and they clearly pose MUCH less of a threat to this nation than Obama's economic fascism.
You see the GOP the way you want to see it, and it's extremely unlikely that I'm going to be able to change that. But that's OK. It's what makes a market. One day you will see that your children's future has been decimated under your nose while you were worried about prayer in school and you will hate yourself for putting on blinders to huge issues because you're so narrowly focused. You're not alone in your approach, but I suggest to you that your approach is a major error.
06/08/09 @ 03:46:16 pm
Ross:
In lieu of rehashing the same argument that I've had with you for 6 months in which I completely disagree with you and you completely disagree with me, I will take issue with one thing and add two comments.
1. I do know a lot of the GOP base. I spent 34 years in Oklahoma--which is now the reddest state in the union--not because of economic arguments that you make, but because the political platform of "God, gays, and guns" actually works in that state. (You can probably shoot back that that is not the GOP base, but I will disagree.
2. You wanted feedback from readers and I gave it to you, so don't feel compelled to justify your disagreements with me--I still read your blog.
3. Of course you should buy the red tractor. I can't believe you had to ask.
Regards,
Chris
P.S. I see your response, but not my original post.
06/09/09 @ 12:00:46 pm
Chris,
I think the problem that I have with your entire argument is that you refuse to see that there are social issues within the Democratic Party that come with those who carry the same conviction and degree of fanaticism. Do you not see the same fervent support for abortion, global warming, illegal immigration and social engineering as you do compared to someone opposed to abortion or gay rights? Are there not zealots in both camps?
It seems to me that you choose not to look at the Democrats in the same light as Republicans regarding social issues because on one side, the belief system is different. I think your argument is that if a person’s belief system is based on a religion, such as Christianity, that their argument is fanatical and thus void. However, if it is a more secular view, then that argument carries more weight. If that is the case and you put the social issues above everything else, then you will always have a view that leans to the Democratic Party.
Maybe it is me, but I do not think the Republican Party has been defined by one issue; but it could be the one issue that is a deal breaker for you. When I speak to other Republicans, it isn’t about gay marriage; it is about fiscal policy or the lack thereof from BOTH sides of the aisle. I have conversations regarding the appointment of judges that don’t see the Constitution as a “living” document, but as the fundamental rule of law on which this country was founded and continues to flourish. You are NEVER going to get away from either party representing certain social issues within their ranks as the core principles of each party will draw specific groups with the same principles. I can say with the same conviction as you that I will never vote for a Democrat because I see them as being taken over by socialist, big government fanatics hell bent on destroying free market capitalism. So I am stuck with the Republicans.
On another subject and the reason for this thread:
Ross, I believe the value you bring to me is a view of the world from a non-Party believer as you sometimes do address issues that are relevant to both parties. However, the issue you are going to face in trying to go “global” is that your views and opinions can never be dismissed when reporting current events. Therefore, you will always be a pundit for a more conservative approach to government and the infringement of the rights of the citizens of this country by our government. This isn’t a bad thing, but may limit your appeal to a broader audience. Because no matter what anyone says, there is bias in what is written by every reporter. However, as the MSM continues its love affair is all things Obama and Democrat, your insight and reporting of the unreported is even more important. BTW, if you are not already, start twittering!
Keith
06/09/09 @ 04:55:27 pm
Keith:
I completely agree that there are fanatics in each party. Please don't make the mistake that I am a Democrat, because I am not. I am an independent and would probably vote for Libertarian candidates if I thought they had a chance. I would not characterize Democrats as having fervent support "for abortion" as you say--I would say it is fervent support "for a woman's right to choose." I do choose to look at the Democratic party in the same light, but since I am arguing with Republicans or Republican-leaners I never felt compelled to discuss what I don't like about the Democratic party--because most of you already hate them anyway.
As for the zealots in each camp, what I have seen lately is the zealots on the left protesting the G-8, breaking windows, and destroying private property--which I do abhor...however, I see the zealots on the right more apt to armor up, join faux militias, and sometimes kill people.
I do not view Christians as fanatical. I do believe in the separation of church and state and I view "fanatical Christians" as a threat to my personal liberties. When Republicans stop nominating people like Sarah Palin, catering to people like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson, and hiring 1/3 of their justice department from Liberty university--then maybe I'll give them a listen, but for now (2008) I voted Democrat. You can''t tell me that GWB didn't earn this defeat. The republicans seem to worship Reagan....when will they actually start nominating people like Reagan?
I really believe that you and Ross need to live in Oklahoma and the deep South and then you'll get a picture of what I fear. It's hard to make headway with you guys on this site because you all make the economic arguments and TOTALLY dismiss the impact that the extreme evangelical base has had on the GOP. The hard part is that I mostly agree with your economic arguments, but you don't see that a large portion of America does not want to be governed by a theocracy.
I'm not a Christian-hater. I just believe in the separation of church and state and evangelical Christians do not.
If the GOP does not lose the wingnut evangelical base, they will continue to lose election after election and James Carville's 40 more years will come to fruition. You can take that to the bank.
06/11/09 @ 11:53:18 am
Chris,
I have to disagree with you with regard to the entire "right to choose" argument and that the Democrats are not "for" abortion. You are parsing words. If you fully endorse the right for a woman to obtain an abortion, support the public funding of Planned Parenthood that makes profits off of abortions, and then as President repeal the Mexico City abortion rules, you are for abortion. It's not a healthcare isssue, it is an ethical issue and I believe there would be more reasonable back and forth discussion of this topic if the government would stop spending federal dollars in the US and abroad to facilitate and abortions. I am not here to discuss my views on abortion, only to give you an understanding of where a rational Republican stands on this debate. If it is the law, we must abide by it like it or not. However, we do not have fund the actual procedure especially when there are millions in this country that fundamental oppose abortion. I think that is fair. Do not limit the acces, but then again, do not spend taxpayer money to promote and enable such a procedure.
It is almost the same with regard to Gay marriage. Personally, I think the only thing a state should do is honor the legal contract between two individuals as being the same whether man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman. No one can say they believe in our Founding Fathers principles that "all men are created equal," and then deny the same rights of union between gay men and/or women. That is nonsense. What needs to happen is that the government stay out of marriage altogether, honor contracts between 2 individuals and if they want to get married, do it in a church that will accept them.
I personally believe that it will always be impossible to separate the extreme faction from either party as they also have a voice in this entire process. However, that voice doesn't lend itself to defining the entire party and if you were to poll Republicans, you would see that the majority do not have those extreme views. I would say that the MSM does a wonderful job of painting the Republican party a with these extremes.