Stab Us in Back Day

This post on MyDD today describes the netroots' frustration with the Nevada Democratic Party allowing Fox News to broadcast their Democratic primary debate in August. Here are some of the more interesting comments:

If the top of the Democratic Party really was in touch with the bottom of the Democratic Party there is no way in a hundred years that Hillary Clinton would celebrate the 10th anniversary of FOX News and accept cash from Murdoch. There is no way that Harry Reid would choose FOX News to carry the Nevada debate. Prior experience should show them that FOX News doesn't give Democrats a fair shake.... ...Reid, Hillary, and Murdoch probably all 'respect' each other and see each other as 'peers'. And that might be fine and understandable, seeing as they are all wealthy, successful, and powerful people. Nothing wrong with that. Except Murdoch runs a media empire that is ostensibly out to destroy Hillary and Reid, take away their power, and relegate them to the dustpin of history. Sorry...I'm not buying it. What we have here is as obvious as the disconnect between the family values trumpeted in FOX shows like The Simpsons and The Family Guy and the values espoused by loudmouths Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. It's a bait and switch. So...don't get me wrong...if we actually succeed in getting Nevada to drop FOX News from the debate it would be a huge move in the correct direction. It would be fantastic. It's worth trying...I guess. But sometimes it's better to choose your battles a little more carefully. If we get the higher echelons of the Democratic Party to suddenly declare FOX News a worthless propaganda outfit and to shun it...well...then I guess I've totally misjudged the state of American politics. As far as I can see, when we get up to Reid and Hillary, the distance between the parties is about as broad as the distance on the couch between James Carville and Mary Matalin.
- Booman Tribune.

Rupert Owes Bill A Big One... Clinton signed away on the Telecommunications Act that allowed all this consolidation to the point where we have 5 communications companies. It was a sweet symbiotic deal that left the people tuned into OJ all the time and Clear Channel preaching 24-7. Big money matters. Party doesn't.

Um, fact-check here: OJ was in 1993-4. The Telecommunications Act didn't pass until 1996. I guess your point is still valid, even if your facts aren't.

You're right! We already had OJ all the time. In 1996 though, the Clintons made sure Americans would have less of a chance to tune them out. My bad.

The Clinton(s) of 7-14 years ago are not the Clintons of today. And Murdoch is a significant player. Murdoch is all about business, he's never been a rabid Clinton hater. If the Clintons see HIS way, then he will help them on the way. The UK has a longer history with Murdoch, but it's worth exploring how Blair's style, politics and FORTUNE changed after he got on-board with this news and power broker. Hillary is CLEARLY shunning us, our pro-diplomacy stance in the ME, our push for universal health care, fair trade policies -- same as Blair.

Jeez, and just a day after I donated to the DNC, what a letdown. We need to get Governor Dean in line on this. I mean, why should Democrats donate to our party when they are enabling the other parties propaganda wing? I seriously doubt Republicans would donate to the RNC if they began consorting with Dailykos or Mother Jones in an effort to do "outreach to liberals." What a joke.

I really think it could be effective if Chris or Matt next started a campaign to get everyone to communicate with all the candidates that debating on Fox News is unacceptable. If a few of the candidates don't debate, it will be a huge story and seriously hinder the credibility of the event.

Don't forget, Fox is the news programming delivered to our military overseas. All Fox, all the time, with all its bias...another example of Bush stacking the deck.

Something every campaign already knew even before Karl Rove reminded us of it was that you had to go after your opponent's greatest strength. Does anyone want to make the argument that having Fox News Channel to amplify their messages isn't one of the greatest strengths of Republicans? Why, then, should we not go after it and make it our own, get our messages on it, filtered or otherwise? So you think Democrats can win elections while ignoring the cable news channel with the most viewers? Rationalize it any way you want, but that attitude is just childish and unserious. Not every Fox viewer is inclined to vote Republican, and not every Fox viewer is swayed by the messages that they may not even be media-savvy enough to be aware are being foisted on them. These viewers can be persuaded to vote Democratic, and to ignore them is to say you don't want their votes. Good luck with that strategy. It's a strategy for losers. I thought we were over that.

This is a debate in a Democratic primary, so its goal isn't to persuade viewers to vote for Democrats -- only Democrats will be voting. This isn't about failing to reach out to geographic areas. It's about not being foolish enough to expect our enemies' propaganda channel to help us get a Democratic president.

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

Okay, this is not exactly entirely 'from the left', but there are enough good comments from both conservatives and liberals on this particular post of an incredibly dim-witted attempt at humor by Fox News. The originating blog, 'Riehl World View', will not be put in my BlogRoll (as it is a right-wing site), but the blog that directed me to it, TBogg, will. To understand the context, watch this video.

is this a new attempt at wingnut humor? lol, conservatives are such failures

Let's see, a drug addict and a transvestite in the WH. Considering how low GW has set the bar, I think it's plausible. It's good to see that Rush's 'pain' has subsided and that he's feeding himself like a pig again.

Wow, what a stinking pil of monkey poop. That might be the least funny thing I have ever seen.

But of course the left would hate it...thats what its for.I mean...you have the elitist "spoof" news The Daily Show and then you have CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc etc. Hell, they all take cheap shots at the conservatives and you find THAT funny. Of course...your all biased. Still..all that conservative hating and your news channels still can't beat Fox. The show may not go far, but it'll be fun watching you libs get your underwear in a bunch trying to destroy it.

Wingnuts just don't get comedy; they never will. Stuffy, angry people who can't accept that they aren't necesarily entitled to the privileges they demand don't really resonate with someone looking for a laugh. This is an attempted "comedy" show we're talking about. If you want to make comparisons (I know you guys prefer the dishonest ones) compare it to John Stewart or Colbert - you know, the shows Faux News is trying (pathetically) to emulate. No one will have to put forth any effort to destroy this show; it will fail all on its own, because it isn't funny to anyone with a comedy IQ any higher than AIDS jokes. Comedy is about making sharp observations about popular events, which is what the aforementioned comedians do - not making fun of the ideologically impure, simply because you don't like them. Like all Reaganite projects, this one will fail and conservatives will bark, and seethe, and whine about bias and the evil libruls trying to destroy them. Somehow this failure will be Clinton's fault.

I have to roll my eyes every time I hear some conservative whine about how Jon Stewart only makes fun of conservatives. Sure, he probably makes fun of conservatives more than he makes fun of liberals, but you know why that might be? BECAUSE YOU GUYS WERE IN CONTROL OF ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT FOR SIX FREAKING YEARS.

One wonders how someone can grow up in America, supposedly going to public school for 13 years, and be as truly stupid as some of the liberals here. A testament to our public education system, I suppose, which is why I have my children in private school.

"which is why I have my children in private school." You think that keeps them safe from the liberals? Guess what I do for a living?

The Daily Show also has the advantage in that, while the writers and host may have a liberal bias that naturally gives one the overall sense that it is a liberal show, the show's conception of itself actually doesn't have a liberal agenda or "mandate", if you will. If a democratic candidate does or says something particularly silly TDS will make fun of it, and it regularly takes the position that both sides suck. However, if you set out to make an explicitly conservative news satire, you are going to end up harping endlessly on liberals while giving a pass to conservative targets who richly deserve skewering, even from other conservatives. It's going to seem forced and agenda-ridden if it does that. I mean, is it really political satire if it isn't going to make fearless fun of the President on a regular basis? Finally, Fox News can kiss "fair and balanced" goodbye forever, to the extent it hasn't already.

The reason libs are better at humor is they've had years of rejection to practice it. Years of hanging out by the drama department cutting yourself and making snide jokes about the jocks who didn't invite you to any of their keggers gives you chops. When you're a happy, optomistic, successful person, (and for LOL - successfull is usually defined by someone who doesn't need the government to take care of them or make laws so a college will accept them,) you don't cultivate that bitter angst that so many commedians have. And lets face it - The Daily Show is funny - but they NEVER have the balls to make fun of their own kind. We conservatives don't need our own comedy show as long as the libtards keep protesting. God, you couldn't write anything as funny as a bunch of stinky, dirty, quasi-retards, spewing bumper-sticker slogans and marching around with cute little signs with pictures of Bush with horns sticking out and Hitler mustaches drawn on. That is GOLDEN! ...and let them have their little comedy shows. I think our lives as conservatives, (happy, successful, monied, self-reliant) vindicates anything they can try to do to make us feel badly.

Well, I think I'm funny - but I spent years as an angry liberal. Then I got sober. People tend to want to be around happy, optomistic folks who don't try to guilt you out of your money. Nobody wants to hang with the angry "Negatarian" (my word for people so negative that they make a religion out of it,) except other angry Negatarians who have fallen into (what I call) their whirling vortex of misery.

RW, let's go over this a bit more slowly. Glenn Greenwald and tbogg are not doing the same thing. You see, Glenn Greenwald thinks rightwing nutballs are stupid and a colossal danger to the safety of the planet, so he is doing his best to convince more intelligent people to do whatever they can to stamp out rightwing nutball stupidity. Tbogg, on the other hand, thinks rightwing nutballs are stupid and is having a grand old time making fun of rightwing nutballs. Now it is true that both gentlemen think that rightwing nutballs are stupid, but let's be honest -- there are many, many people across the face of planet Earth who think rightwing nutballs are stupid. This common trait does not mean that all of these millions of intelligent people are engaged in the same schtick.

this thread is hilarious, every post golden. except templar's: "why I have my children in private school." I'm sorry that you feel so surrounded by liberals in you daily life and feel the need to censor their content from your children. If liberalism is so fucked up, why not let them see and if they're smart enough, they'll make sense of it. But the terror won't let you. Templar, you seem like a really small, impotent person.