Talk:RedState

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 July 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Deletion

RedState is a major presence in the world of U.S. political blogging (which is itself an important force in the broader world of U.S. politics). I think it clearly qualifies as notable, in that "it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact." I'm removing the deletion notice. --Christopher M 00:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but as it stands now it seems somewhat of an advert, or at the very least a tad bit on the biased side. If thats cleaned up, and a good arguement for notability is made (perhaps saying how many hits or how many sites refer to this one) and I'd support keeping this article. Galactor213 19:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RedState's location in the political spectrum

I think this line from the article is inaccurate: "While open to differing political and philosophical perspectives, the tenor of the site skews towards a distinctly moderate and moderately conservative Republican agenda."

Location on a political spectrum is a hard think to characterize in a NPOV way, because it tends to be relative to the person doing the characterizing. But I think RedState is clearly a generally conservative forum -- not "moderate" -- and it acknowledges that itself. Its "About" page (http://www.redstate.com/story/2004/7/10/122032/263) says: "While we are great believers in the big tent of the Republican Party, we know that Republicans do best -- as candidates and as leaders -- when they stand for, and uphold, conservative principles."

I'm inclined to change the language quoted above to "While open to differing political and philosophical perspectives, the tenor of the site skews towards a distinctly conservative Republican agenda." Objections?

I agree, for the most part.

Describing it as conservative wouldn't be inaccurate, although I'm sure that some people would beg to differ, or at least qualify that description with the phrase "center-right."

My problem is that the site-while conservative-is more of a vehicle for Republican Party candidates and initiatives.

Witness the vituperative reaction to Michelle Malkin-generally considered to be much more of a conservative than a Republican-when she questioned one of their editors, i.e. Ben Domenach, with respect to his alleged plagiarism.

Also, the relatively benign view many members take of President Bush's amnesty proposal, which conservatives oppose, almost without exception.

I don't object to adding the appellation "conservative," but I do think that it should be noted that allegiance to Republican Party policies and objectives takes precedence among Red State editors, if not users.

Ruthfulbarbarity 01:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited the sentence to read "While open to differing political and philosophical perspectives, the tenor of the site skews towards a distinctly conservative—and above all, Republican—agenda." Hopefully that addresses my concern as well as Ruthfulbarbarity's. Christopher M 00:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)