Matt Stoller, a “blogger and thought leader in the internet wing of the progressive movement,” opined at The Politico that “Republican Propaganda Is Not News.”
As I figure that a “thought leader” probably knows a thing or two about propaganda, I read on.
Stoller wrote to explain the nutroots campaign which successfully pressured the Nevada Democratic Party to drop Fox News Channel as the host of a presidential debate in August:
First, we argued that Fox News is not a news channel, but a propaganda outlet that regularly distorts, spins, and falsifies information. Second, Fox News is heavily influenced or even controlled by the Republican Party itself. As such, we believe that Fox News on the whole functions as a surrogate operation for the GOP…
Thankfully, Fox News immediately proved our point with a press release after the debate cancellation that made the following remarkable claim: “News organizations will want to think twice before getting involved in the Nevada Democratic caucus which appears to be controlled by radical, fringe, out-of-state interest groups, not the Nevada Democratic Party.”
This statement has all the hallmarks of a Fox News-style Republican talking point. First of all, it is falsified. The pressure campaign included out-of-state Democrats, but it was anchored by local party members, including Nevada Democratic Party executive board member Mike Zahara. And many Democratic activists in Nevada cheered at the decision to drop Fox.
After vigorous debate, the Nevada Democratic Party itself made the decision to cancel the debate, which directly contradicts Fox’s claims. In addition, the release is partisan; calling bloggers and Moveon.org “radical†and “fringe†is a recognized Republican strategy, certainly not what one would expect from a legitimate news source.
Stoller has put himself in the rather delicate position of wanting to take credit for forcing the cancellation of the debate, while simultaneously portraying it as an organic, local decision.
The Politico’s own reporting on this story tells a different story.
On March 8, the day before the party dropped out of sponsoring the debate, it released a letter supporting the debate, signed by 21 prominent state Democrats representing nine counties, including the two most important to Democrats. The next morning, Stoller and others read the riot act to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), informing him that the issue was spoiling his popularity with the nutroots.
To be fair to Stoller:
Several senior-level Democrats familiar with the situation insist that Reid’s office was in agreement with the decision but did not force the state party to act. The consensus, they say, was reached during a mid-morning conference call between Reid staffers and Nevada state party officials…
However, that story must be considered in light of the fact that State party Chairman Tom Collins was not one of those officials; he approved of the decision after news reports about the cancellation. In fact:
“I’m not dropping the debate,†Collins told a reporter from the Las Vegas Review-Journal after the debate had already been dropped. “I’m not dropping Fox. The majority of the elected state party supports keeping this debate.â€Â
County chairmen learned of the cancellation via e-mail shortly after a letter had been sent to both Fox and the press announcing that the debate was off.
In sum, while Stoller claims that”the Nevada Democratic Party itself made the decision to cancel the debate,” the party’s chairman did not know about it, the majority of elected state party officials supported the debate, and the county chairmen were blindsided by the decision. The “vigorous debate” Stoller mentions appears to consist of a conference call from Harry Reid to a small number of officials that resulted in the cancellation of a debate supported by 21 prominent state Democrats in a letter posted to—but swiftly yanked from—the party’s website.
Stoller’s claim that Fox’s response was “partisan” because “calling bloggers and Moveon.org ‘radical’ and ‘fringe’ is a recognized Republican strategy” will come as news to Mary Matalin (former adviser to VP Cheney and bigtime GOP consultrix), who responded to the primary victory of nutroot poster boy Ned Lamont by going on Fox News Channel shortly after the polls closed to say,”MoveOn is not fringe. They’re the heart of the party.” Apparently, calling MoveOn “fringe” and calling it “not fringe” are both GOP talking points.
As Stoller’s position is that MoveOn is not a fringe of the Democrats, I guess I should note that this non-fringe group has a very casual relationship with facts. But I digress.
Stoller continues:
Falsifying information that is favorable to Republicans and problematic for Democrats is a regular tactic of Fox News. Specific examples are breathtakingly dishonest, including the Obama Madrassa smear, Carl Cameron’s false claims that John Kerry referred to himself as a “metrosexual†and “news anchor†Brit Hume repeating the false canard that the public does not trust the Democratic Party on national defense.
FNC did blow the Obama story by repeating the Insight story without checking it themselves. Carl Cameron’s John Kerry story was a joke that was accidentally posted on FNC’s website. FNC apologized on both occasions. Readers might judge the magnitude of those journalistic sins and FNC’s response to them by comparison to Rathergate, Tailwind, and various other scandals that reflect on the biases of media outlets Stoller undoubtedly deems legitimate.
The “false canard” about Democrats not being trusted on national security is not false at all, as Stoller knows, because he posted the data on his own website two months ago. (Did I capture that page, just in case something should happen to it? Of course I did.)
Stoller’s new claim links to a piece by the Internet’s favorite sock-puppeteer. In that piece, GG cherry-picks a few public opinion polls referring to rating the Congress versus Pres. Bush on “foreign affairs,” Iraq and terrorism (and ignoring a recent Time Poll listed on the same webpage GG linked giving the GOP a ten point advantage on terrorism)—not the long time-series of polls which have asked about generic party ratings on national security that Stoller cited. Perhaps both GG and Stoller are both ignorant as to the difference, though I tend to doubt it.
Stoller then claims that these three (two, really) incidents are part of a much larger pattern:
The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a study in October 2003 of public knowledge and attitudes about current events, focusing on media consumption habits. The study examined three generic misconceptions about the march to war in Iraq – alleged WMDs, purported Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and supported international support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. While three-fifths of Americans held at least one of these misconceptions at the time, speaking to the poor quality of American punditry, Fox News viewers stood out – their viewers were “three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions.”
Setting aside the debatable premises behind the poll, Stoller either does not know or does not care that PIPA itself later issued a clarification that the correlation between viewing Fox News and holding misperceptions does not prove that Fox News’ presentation caused the misperceptions. Again, it it difficult to believe that Stoller would not know this, as correlation does not prove causation in general. Moreover, while Stoller notes that over 80 percent of Fox News viewers had a basic factual misconception about the war in Iraq, he fails to note that over 70 percent of CBS News viewers did also. Perhaps this proves to him that CBS is also part of the VRWC, though I suspect he will not urge his party to boycott CBS.
Stoller’s next claim is that the leadership of Fox News is heavily tied into the Republican Party apparatus:
Let’s start with the top. Roger Ailes learned his trade in 1968 at the feet of the granddaddy of GOP disinformation, Richard Nixon, continuing his career as a high level aide to Ronald Reagan’s 1984 campaign, and crafting George H.W. Bush’s media strategy in 1988, including the infamous Willie Horton ads.
Actually, Ailes learned his trade at the feet of talk-show host Mike Douglas. Stoller then throws out some guilt by association with Nixon, but makes no specific charge against Ailes here aside from crafting “the infamous Willie Horton ads,” though it is well-established that Ailes did not craft them.
Stoller continues:
Ailes isn’t the only high level Republican operative in a position of authority at the network. Former “Fox News Sunday†host Tony Snow worked for President George H.W. Bush as a speechwriter, moved to the network, and then became White House press secretary for President George W. Bush.
Which means that Snow is no longer in a position of authority at the network. In any event, that’s quite an indictment. Do you think Stoller applies the same standard to Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Brian Williams, George Stephanopoulos, or CBS Evening News Executive Producer Rick Kaplan? Nah, me neither. Not unless the Democrats are planning on limiting their debates to the Food Channel, anyway.
More Stoller:
Fox News, aside from its Republican leadership, supports the Republican Party overtly… Fox News executive John Moody hands down a memo with Republican messaging themes each day to guide editorial content. Sometimes the support is more direct – just last month, Fox News personality Sean Hannity was the headline speaker at the South Carolina Republican Party’s Annual Silver Elephant Dinner.
Stoller is apparently unaware of how network news operations function, but yes, memos are involved. Moody has explained his, including their non-binding nature. Stoller calls them “Republican messaging themes,” but points to no connection with any official GOP organization. His characterization of the memo points as “Republican” will tend to be in the eye of the beholder. While claiming that such themes are handed down “each day,” the grand total of memos cited is 33. And claiming that such internal memos constitute overt support for the GOP demonstrate Stoller’s basic misunderstanding of the word “overt.”
Other networks have memos, too. For example, at ABC, Mark Halperin issued one during the 2004 campaign about the need to hold Bush more accountable for his errors than to hold Kerry accountable for his. CNN issued one warning staffers to hold off reporting on a book which presented a bad portrait of Rev. Jesse Jackson. Again, I’m guessing Stoller will not be urging the de-legitimization of these networks.
As for Hannity appearing at a GOP event, I would note that James Carville stumped for candidates and raised money for Democrats while co-hosting CNN’s Crossfire and appearing on the Situation Room, all without Stoller calling for a CNN boycott.
Stoller’s largely imaginary “overt” ties between FNC and the GOP causes him to fear for our democracy. It might be inferred that covert ties do not bother him as much. There are years of data showing how the mass media votes, and how the public views the mass media in terms of bias. By Stoller’s standards of causation, I would be forced to conclude that FNC is a lonely island in a sea of propaganda from the Democrats.
Stoller further asserts that “Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch seem to have baked into their business model a wholesale allegiance to the Republican Party,” which would explain why Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). And donated to Hillary, Rep. Harold Ford’s Senate campaign, and Rep. Ed Markey in 2006. He might also want to examine the donor patterns for News Corp execs generally. Or the donations of News America Holdings. Or maybe he would not.
Stoller concludes:
As one prominent activist wrote me, “As liberal activists, we cannot stop FOX from operating, nor can we insist they provide fair programming. But as the activists and rank and file of this party we can insist that our presidential primary candidates not legitimize them by debating on their airwaves.â€Â
I would add only that we can begin to force the debate that journalists, Democratic operatives, and elite newsmakers should have had a long time ago about the Republican propaganda outlet in their midst.
I am wondering where Stoller has been. The work of FNC-basher Robert Greenwald, who played a part in the debate cancellation, has been covered—in a fair and balanced manner—by the AP on FNC’s website. Greenwald’s movie on the network’s alleged bias has been debated on FNC. Greenwald invited Fox’s Roger Friedman to the premiere—though he was later refused entrance.
Of course, so much of Stoller’s piece is itself propaganda that I doubt he’s really interested in having a debate on the issue. And he certainly would not have it on FNC.
Democrats aren’t happy about the development of broadband platforms parallel to traditional cable.
Dingell evidently didn’t get the memo.
Link on the FCC story is
Wow. That is what I call a SLAM. Thorough; Complete; Utter—Debunking.
One niggling addendum, though: WRT the Fox viewers being more likely to have “misconceptions” about the war. First thing that popped into my when I read the quote from Stoller was exactly the same one you make and refer to from Paterrico, correlation DNE causation. Still, something gnawed at me…I knew that there had to be some cause X for variable A being correlated to variable B, even if explanation Y (Fox viewers are f’n redneck ignoramuses who swallow FNC news more readily than Jenna Jameson with a protein deficiency) was not correct, even if it were merely sample bias or some other underlying statistical impropriety of method.
Instead of taking the time to figure it out myself, I cheated, and went to Patterico’s post which you linked to. The bold in the following quote hits the nail on the head:
Anyway, again, great post. Stoller would do well to read it himself and swallow some “Protein Wisdom” of his own.
So, you turn over the rock and find a lying reactionary leftist.
What a suprise.
Karl’s been eating that brain enhancin’ fish paste.
Well done, Karl.
You were thoughtful enough to leave off all of ABC’s Mark Halperin’s Dem-helping memos and public statements and Stephanopolous’s role in the immediately prior administration. That would be dog-piling.
Bill Maher on pussies.
That was great Karl.
So many lies and distortions, so little time.
Karl, great post as always. Your, sir, are the reigning King of Links!
Dan: There are so many times that listening to Maher infuses me with an overwhelming desire to Jello mold my head…
but…
I agree with him. I’m actually thrilled and pleased that Harry Reid (who continues to prove that he has a backbone made out of … OK, he had no backbone) and the Nevada party elite allowed themselves to be cowed by the braying bullies of the left and gave Fox the finger. Ultimately it is the Democratic party which will pay the price for blowing off the single most watched cable news network because they don’t like its “political style.” Do those narcissistic bloviators really believe that only Republicans watch Fox News? One has to wonder how this will play with party moderates, those being the ones who really fueled the election gains in 2006.
I imagine that James Carville is throwing furniture and burning Markos in effigy about now.
Thought leader?
Is that actually a job that one can apply for? “Hi, I want to tell you what to think.”
Was there an election? Maybe a debate? What does it pay?
After seeing you deliver a beatdown like that, I look forward to seeing you on Ultimate Fighter.
What’s Stoller’s condition, anyway? Is he out of Intensive Care yet?
Very, very nicely done, Karl. Just one quibble:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but IIRC, Fox merely reported that the story was floating out there and that it was alleged to have come from Shrillary’s camp. It was not a report validating the claim, but one on intraparty mudslinging.
tw: herself45
If there was a debate, it wasn’t on Fox News.
I report, you decide. Go look at those screenshots.
Or to put it another way, this is because the “study†focuses on delusions that are more likely to be held by people on the right. Naturally, such delusions are more often held by people who watch Fox News  because people on the right are more likely to get or reinforce their delusions by watching Fox News.
Now granted many on the right never watch FOX NEws or any other televised news coverage. Same on the left. You can get all your news reading Drudge and nothing but righty blogs. I could get all my news reading nothing but TPM and Kos. But I don’t. And neither should you.
Because if you do you wind up with a whole lot of misconceptions. Adn frankly that makes some of your criticisms of people like me howlingly funny to us.
Squid, Karl’s post does not exist, and it’s all lies anyway. That’s the truthiness!
Here’s the thing. markg8:
Not one of those screen shots is even in the same universe as the dispicable broadcast on CNN of an American soldier being shot by a jihadist sniper.
I’m sure that you feel differently.
Regardless, attempting to cold shoulder the #1 player in Cable News because you don’t like the “slant” of their reporting is bad politics and will hurt Dems in the long run.
So, please, I beg you, spread the word and DOWN WITH FOX NEWS!!
FOR THE TRUTHINESS!!
Mark, will there be some time in the future when you have a link from a website that’s a little less partisan? I see a pattern developing…
I’ll add the Philadelphia Inquirer if you add the WSJ online. Deal?
Well, considering the fact that ‘people like you’ tend to claim that there were no WMDs in Iraq, when there’s actual film of Iraqi chemical artillery killing Iranians soldiers and entire villages of Kurds and that Saddam wasn’t involved in exporting terrorism when there’s solid proof that he was supporting Palestinian terrorists by paying families of suicide bombers in Arafatistan as well as smuggling weapons to them in violation of the UN and the Oslo Accords and there was no link between Saddam and Al Quaeda when it has since been discovered he was harboring Al Quaeda leaders during the Afghanistan Campaign.
Not to mention prating on about lack of “international support” when we now know that France, Germany and Russia and various UN functionaries tied to Kofi Annan were all trading with Saddam in violation of your precious UNs own sanctions and that they were all benefitting financially from the Oil for Bribes betrayal.
So, when you slime in here talking about alleged “rightwing delusions” being perpetrated and then procede with the “Bush lied, kids died” bullshit and then go right down the leftwing talking point meme’s that are flat out destroyed by actual evidence, well don’t be surprised that no one takes you seriously.
NEXT!
I could be wrong—and I hesitate to engage in any conspiracy theorizing—but this piece, when taken with Mona’s piece, and Greenwald’s piece of yesterday, seems to be part of an orchestrated campaign to rationalize the enforced marginalization of anything to the right of Joe Lieberman.
A new, more securely-kept Townhouse list, maybe?
As someone put is so nicely the other day, “Oh, a purge. How quaint!”
markg8 is the king of projection. Funny stuff.
Mark, to block out the left point-of-view from my life, I’d have to live in a cocoon. My local news, my local paper, local radio, most of my neighbors, the local politicians (I live in Detroit) – everything would have to be silenced.
I let you in on a secret; I even have some (very) liberal friends and relatives. I’d have to shut-them up as well.
The liberal POV is inescapable. Believe me, I’ve tried. Until Fox News, I had to go to extra lengths to FIND conservative voices.
Jeff, I don’t think Joe will make the cut with this crowd, him being a bloodthirsty warmonger Jooo and all..
BAN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL! TOOL OF THE REPUBLICAN FATCATS AND THE CAPITALIST HEGEMONY!!
This is kinda fun…
There’s that acute narcissism so well on display again.
markg8 wrote:
Agreed, which is why my post links to The Politico, Time magazine, factcheck.org, MyDD, Salon, Polling Report, The Washington Post, USA Today, CBS News, and opensecrets.org, among others.
markg8, otoh, links to an obscure left-wing blog that—like Stoller—is unable to distinguish between FNC’s straight news coverage and its commentary-based shows. It would be like me pretending that there is no difference between NBC’s straight news shows and Hardball or Keith Olbermann.
We’re not supposed to be smart enough to catch those things, Karl.
After all, we’ve watched FOXNews. And now we’re stupid.
Jeff:
Mark might have a point – after all, RoboShep, king of all disinformation, does work for FNC.
As does Geraldo’s mustache.
BTW, the new Zogby poll (fwiw) is the latest in a long line suggesting that most people see the mass media as biased to the left. Even 17% of Democrats admit it.
Jeff:
Regarding your “conspiracy theory,” I almost did a post along that line, though I think Occam’s Razor suggests that it’s probably just be a case of lefty minds thinking alike.
But it’s not just Mona, GG and Stoller. It’s all of the Dems who cannot bear the thought of their candidates being questioned by FNC. It’s the Senate Dems who decided to drop Iraq resolutions rather than debate the amendment about not cutting off the funding. It’s the House Dems who cannot get an Iraq plan to the floor because they cannot bear to debate each other, let alone the GOP. It’s Rep. Obey, who explodes at some activist because the nutroots blew Murtha’s secret slow-bleed scheme by publicizing it.
Not to mention, Mark, that if we didn’t watch and read mainstream news regularly, it would be impossible for us to discredit the stories they routinely make up.
Honestly, mate, you need to bring your A game if you’re going to play over here.
Squid:
Not to be too much of a cynic, but I begin to suspect that he is bringing his ‘A’ game – it’s just that it sucks.
Hmmmm.
“thought leader”?
Ahh that explains everything! No wonder we get hordes of lefty idiots all repeating the same damn thing.
They’re all following the “thought leader”!
Is there a cable network that gives Al Sharpton more face time than Fox? Didn’t I just see Kucinich on there yesterday? Where is it that Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, Kirsten Powers, Julie Rogini, Neal Gabler, Susan Estrich, Wendy Murphy, Laura Schwartz and other avowed liberals draw paychecks from? Is there a news/opinion show with more polarized debate on it than Hannity and Colmes? Is there a show that invites more guests with which the host disagrees than O’Reilly?
I’m looking at you, Mark.
LOL! See what I mean? ROFLAMO, stop it, stop it! You’re killin me! LOL!
The Politico? The news org that publishes Dangerstein’s attack on lefty bloggers without mentioning he’s a paid shill for Lieberman?
The political director of ABCNEWS, (Mark Halperin) you know the guy who does most of the writing at the NOTE and the former national politics editor of the WASHINGTON POST and now editor and founder at Poliitico (John Harris) wrote in their book HOW TO WIN “Matt Drudge rules our world. With the exception of the ASSOCIATED PRESS, there is no outlet other than the DRUDGE REPORT whose dispatches instantly can command the attention and energies of the most established newspapers and television newscasts.”
C’mon guys. Open your eyes.
Markg8:
Do you have a point to make? What you just wrote doesn’t in any substantial way answer what Karl wrote above in response to your earlier post.
A word of advice, sport. Responding to people who are taking the time to provide highly sourced, detailed commentary with nothing more than how “much they make you laugh” or by picking one of the about 2 dozen sources to ridicule or by stating how obvious it is that they’re wrong doesn’t exactly strengthen your position.
In fact, who’s laughing now? That would be me at you and at Jeff Goldstein’s comment because I can see at least a small kernal of truth in his broad musing, you being exhibit A.
IT’S A VAST POLITICO CONSPIRACY, I TELL YOU!!!
Yeah, Mark Halperin, who also wrote the memo about the need to give Bush a rougher time than Kerry, as noted above.
Mark Halperin, son of Morton Halperin.
Mark Halperin, who called Bush a “lame duck” the second he was re-elected.
But for the sin of admitting the mass media’s left-leanings (the long-standing majority view of the media), he is immediately labeled by the leftosphere as an ”Idiot Appeaser” and a shill, who must be denounced.
So who will be next to be purged? Newsweek’s Evan Thomas? To wit:
Sure, he said it in 2004, but I doubt the statute of limitations is a defense in a show trial.
PS: Stoller would have been better off had The Politico also failed to disclose his title as “thought leader.”
PPS: markg8 missed one of the counts that should be in his indictment of John Harris. He really does need to work harder.
Bwahahaha. Karl, you owe me for the strange looks my coworkers gave me for the snort I emitted upon reading that comment.
Brilliant!
oh who can we ever trust?
BJTexas: Markg8’s already made his intentions clear in an earlier thread. He’s not interested in debate or discussion, he wants to destroy his political opponents. For the Common Good, of course.
…which is why I remarked: “Ah, a purge. How quaint.” (No exclamation points, Jeff.)
I had to go up north to take my dad to see my sister’s kid’s highschool play. Lotta fun. I get back and Blowjob Tex is demanding I respond to this:
My response? Wrong again. On a mostly partisan 36-28 vote, the House Appropriations Committee passed approved a $124.1 billion emergency spending bill, including $95.5 billion to continue fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year.
The legislation, which could be debated in the full House as early as next week, would end U.S. combat there by September 1, 2008.
The Senate Dems held votes on both bills, theirs’ and Greggs’ today. Now those Repub senators are on record.
I don’t know who looks dumber, Karnak Karl or BJTex.
It’s amazing that FOX gives face time to people who don’t have much sway at all among Dems and holds them up as paragons of the left. Sort of like the wingnut bloggers propped up Ward Churchill whoever he is.
Did you… did you guys hear something? Sounded like a wet fart, almost.
Seems Mr. Aeronautical Engineer/Military Procurement Officer Supreme couldn’t hack it in the other threads and so decided to drop by and leave a turd in this thread.
That other sound you heard was me adding Mark to my kill file. G’night and good luck with that whole “commenting on the Internets” thing, sweet child. I’ll miss your ramblings on the subjects of Valkyries, Nighthawks and Raptors, oh my!
Well, I would be the dumber one if I didn’t notice your unsubtle attempt to construe what I said as a prediction, rather than a statement of historical fact. And the fact is that the House Dems have not gotten their plan to the floor yet, due to internal division.
It’s taken any number of trial balloons and a truckload of pork to even get anything out of committee in the House. Why? Because there are between 20 and 40 progressives who may oppose it, and about 19 Blue Dogs who oppose it. I do look forward to seeing what sort of rule the Dems try to impose on any floor debate, given that they can’t afford to lose more than 15 or 16 votes. If they can’t thread that needle, it won’t reach the floor.
If I was to play Karnak, I would predict that Pelosi can get most all of the hardcore antiwar folks to go along by making it a test of party loyalty. Pelosi and Hoyer would then have to strong-arm a few of those Blue Dogs into flip-flopping. They might even pull it off, though at a long-term cost, just as the Dems’ ‘94 losses were due in part to Clinton strong-arming Reps into approving his first budget.
The Senate rejected the Democratic resolution aimed at withdrawing most American combat troops from Iraq in 2008. The Dems couldn’t muster 50 votes for that new direction they promised the left, let alone the 60 they would have needed to actually accomplish anything. That’s why Reid refused to go forward with debate earlier; when debate does go forward, the loss—and its magnitude—is revealed. I do thank the nutroots for keeping the pressure on to force that losing vote.
PS: BJ Texs was pointing out that markg8 failed to have any meaningful response to this comment, not the one to which markg8 responded.
OMG, they’re on record opposing bills that will never have enough votes to overturn an evidential veto. So basically mark’s happy that even more time has been wasted producing legislature that will never be signed in law. What mark, are you a graduate of the DailyKOS School of Moral Victories? Looks like that Nedtastic!!! political calculus is paying off in dividends… unfortunately for you, it’s mostly for the other-side, but your side seems pretty content w/ all things, non-binding or passing so far. I guess it’s the perfect companion piece to your non-victory preference in Iraq & Afghanistan or your non-debate in Nevada. Maybe you can regurgitate another non-reality based talking point, taken from the non-ratings earning Keith Olberman in yet another non-point making comment. Personally I think you have it within you & you should reach for the stars, because so far your meager little snipe hasn’t been too grounded in fact.
So, who’s giving the blowjobs now, genius?
You and your illustrious Republican senators and soon, House reps have sided with the worst president in history and apparently Iran. You let me know if you need anymore latex to paint yourself in the corner boys.
Markg8; aren’t you getting tired of being intellectually pile driven by the commentators here? You got your head handed to you over at procurements and now you’re getting trampled by Karl, who isn’t even breaking a sweat. I know that you are on a Holy Crusade to rid the world of evil conservatives but it would help your cause if you could actually compete in a rhetorical battle every now and again.
The funniest part is that you don’t even see the danger to your own point of view in this whole dustup. Like the political Einsteins at Kos or Huffpo or MyDD or FDL, your hatred and contempt flowing from Bushhitler and Cheney Mcburton to all reichwingers has so ginned your inner slap clown that you don’t see the potential moderate meteor about to fall on your head.
The continued foaming demands of the anti-war “we hate Bush” far left will not bear the fruit that you expect. The signs are all over the House and Senate debate on the Iraq appropriations bill. The tug of war between the most virulent antiwar Dems and the so called moderate “blue dogs” while the party leaders attempt to impose discipline has seen the sorts of results that PMain indicated above. Why is this so difficult, you must be asking yourself? Didn’t we just get a sweeping referendum victory against this war?
Here is the crux of your particular delusion. You believe that the 2006 election results validate your particular angry view of conservatives and the administration and that those results give you the mandate to crush them all and end this war with impunity. What you don’t know (surely what Pelosi, Emmanuel and Reid know) is that numerous polls taken after the election showed that while a large majority of voters disapproved of the President and were sick of the culture of corruption, a similar majority was concerned that Dems might pull out of Iraq too soon.
The mistake that you BDS people keep making is that while Bush’s approval rating is small, the vast majority of Americans don’t hate or despise him the way your cadre bleats on a regular basis. While a majority of Americans don’t like the way the war is being managed, a bigger majority are concerned that we’ll leave precipitously.
Your problem is that your historical rage is blinding you to the realities that dissatisfaction is not contempt, concern is not anger and a yearning that things be managed better is not a desire for all conservatives to eat shit and die. Thus sayeth the majority and your crew, despite your noise and insults and bloviating, are still a pitifully small minority who will be shown, time and time again, by the power brokers within your own party that you don’t and won’t have any real power.
For that, The Republic thanks you.
BTW, you know who makes bad predictions on this subject?
Harry Reid.
LOL, Karl, but I think that Dingy was just playing to the crowd, so to speak. The Dems are a party that inhales polls like a crack addict snorts heroin. Their dilemma is that the anti-war lefties are loud beyond their number and a continual facination for the MSM.
Unfortunately that facination also allows the excesses to come shining through, a dirty laundry list of anti-americanism that just ain’t gonna play with the majority of Americans. That’s why I find such creamy delicious irony in Progs laughing about the ‘thugs nominating someone the “religious right” won’t support when their own screaming far left flank is already talking about not settling for a “warmonger pro Iraq war voter” like Hil. or others.
Most hilarious is watching John Edwards slowly collapse into himself like a dying dwarf white as he urgently panders to the nutroots. In the meantime even his SC numbers are melting, melting! If he wins the nomination with this stategy as a centerpiece I’ll slap a *gack* “John Kerry for President” sticker on my car.
Even as he fails the “religious right” will get all the credit for torpedoing his campaign. Because, you know, we have the power of Jesus!