I have been saying this till i am blue in the face and every Democrat should be sent this article. I agree with this guy 100 percent especially his point about the 2006 elections. Thee is no genius in what Rove does. Its the stupidity with what the Democrats do. Is it stupidity? For the life of me i will never understand the Democrats stance with this subject. That is why we so desperately need a third party. I truly believe what this guy is talking about creates guys like the Truth and his five altered egos as well as guys like Nick and Merlin.
If you don't "support the troops" please raise your hand.
Does Anyone Really Not Support the Troops?
Yesterday I moderated a panel on whether the mainstream media is fair and balanced at the Take Back America conference. Do they wittingly or unwittingly slant the news in favor of the right-wing in this country?
I think there was consensus among the panelists (Richard Wolffe, Newsweek; David Shuster, MSNBC; Dan Froomkin, Washington Post; Duncan Black a.k.a. Atrios; Craig Crawford, Congressional Quarterly; Keith Boykin, BET and keithboykin.com; Marisa Trevino, Latina Lista) that the media does not have an intentional bias. I know some might disagree, but it was at least our conclusion that there is no corporate cabal that tells the reporters what to write in favor of Republicans.
On the other hand, there was also universal consensus that the media often gets the priorities and the emphasis wrong. So, there will be more stories about John Edwards' haircut than about the Downing Street Memos that showed the US fixed the intelligence that led us into the Iraq War. There are several reasons for this. The two most important ones mentioned were the enormous right-wing echo chamber that still controls the conversation and the lack of engagement by the Democratic Party in the media wars.
What do I mean by the right-wing echo chamber? You can take any insignificant story from the Republican Congress investigating Bill Clinton's Christmas card list or his cat or his haircut or John Kerry's haircut or John Edwards haircut (do you sense a theme here?) and see how it got to be a runaway story. It always goes through the same familiar circle -- Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes, the Radio Factor, the Sean Hannity radio show, every other conservative talk radio show in the country, every Fox talk show, every Fox "news" show. Rinse and repeat.
On the other hand, when there is a devastating story about Republican failures, the press runs it -- once -- and then it dies. For example, does anyone even know who David Safavian is? He was the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy and he was convicted in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Can you imagine if the person in charge of setting purchasing policy for the entire government for the Clinton White House was convicted on corruption charges? The earth would have stopped rotating on its axis. The Republicans would have impeached anyone who had ever walked within a two mile perimeter of the Clinton White House.
But since there is almost no progressive media infrastructure to constantly rehash these stories, they die a quick and unceremonious death. It is not the journalists' job to keep repeating the same story over and over. It is up to the opposition to create story lines or conversations around it.
The fact that Democrats and the establishment progressives have still not understood this fundamental concept almost speaks to their intelligence. They keep punching you in the face, you might want to put your hands up. And have you ever considered this -- punching back?
This brings us to point number two -- Democratic weakness. It is a familiar talking point, but this time it's not because of the right-wing noise machine, it's because it's true.
Quick example here is the filibuster issue. When the Democrats were in the minority, filibustering anything in the Senate was called extreme and radical. The Republicans demanded "up and down" votes on every issue. Now when Republicans are in the minority, the filibuster is taken for granted. It's not even mentioned in news stories anymore. The reporter explains that you need 60 votes in the Senate as a matter of course to get a cloture vote.
Totally different language and attitude about the same exact issue. And it wasn't like the change happened over the course of a generation. It happened instantly. I remember the bygone days when filibusters were considered extreme -- six months ago. Now, Republicans even filibuster non-binding resolutions. The history books have been erased and even stories from last year are instantly forgotten. It's now a cloture vote -- and it is a matter of course.
How do the Republicans get away with this blatant rhetorical trick -- and get the mainstream press to accept it completely? Yes, it is partly the media's fault. They should question the Republicans when faced with this obvious hypocrisy. Did they all start their careers five months ago? What's their excuse for not realizing this clear Orwellian maneuver?
But the opposition party is a thousand times more culpable. Is there even an opposition party? Where the hell are you guys? Do none of you realize what game is being played on you? Are there no Democratic leaders smart enough or savvy enough to realize that their lunch money has been stolen? Don't they get hungry at lunch?
It shouldn't have to be my job to point out that you're getting rooked in the media because you are not putting up an effective opposition. It should be patently obvious to you. If Democratic leaders complained once or twice about the use of the word filibuster, or insisted that the Republicans actually carry one out (I would love to see the Republicans speaking for 24 hours straight about why a non-binding resolution must be defeated) or even simply used the same rhetorical trick the Republicans did and demand "up and down" votes, they would be a million times better off. Wake up already. We're tired of sitting by your hospital bed nursing your wounds after the Republicans deliver another rhetorical ass kicking to you.
Which brings me to my title. The war in Iraq has been going on for nearly four and half years and the Democrats have still not figured out a way to get out of the verbal trap known simply as, "support the troops." Come on, I feel sick writing about it. It's pathetic.
Who doesn't support the troops? Really, can you name a single person in America who thinks, "Yeah, I don't really like the troops. I wish them harm." That is beyond preposterous. How can that possibly be an effective talking point? Let alone the most devastating catch phrase of our generation? How can the opposition be so feckless, so painfully incompetent?
Every single person in America supports the troops. I honestly can't think of any reason why a sane person wouldn't. The question is WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THOSE TROOPS? The questions isn't whether we support the troops but how do we support the troops?
After all, if the Democrats really disliked the troops, wouldn't they just leave them in the middle of Iraq for the next fifty years? Oh no, that's right, that's the president's plan.
Do you support the troops by sending them to die for an unnecessary mission and keeping them in the middle of an unwinnable civil war? Or by sending them on reasonable missions against the people who actually attacked us on 9/11? If you can't win this battle, I'm not sure you're capable of winning any political fights.
I grow more convinced everyday that the Democrats didn't win anything in 2006. The American people were simply vomitously sick of the Republican Party. They didn't throw out the Republicans, they threw them up. The body politic rejected the virus.
The Democrats weren't the doctors, they were the curious bystander in the room who got the regurgitation on their shirt. And now they don't know what to do with it.
Clean it up.
Now, on the other hand, you can't give the mainstream media a pass, either. How can you write about this with a straight face? Does any real journalist wonder whether the Democrats are actually against the troops? Do they wonder if the Democrats are against America and want the troops to get hurt? Come on, can anyone really believe that?
So, if you don't believe it is even remotely true, then why would you write about it as if it's a real issue? Here's a response a journalist with any sense and ethics would say to a Republican politician who uses this talking point, "Senator, do you believe the Democrats really intend to harm the troops? Do you have any evidence of this? Can you name names, who are these villains who hate our own people? If you can't answer these questions, can you please tell me the real reason for your policy in Iraq without pretending you speak for the troops?"
Is it ever going to get better? Are the Democrats ever going to find out what game is being played on them? Is the media ever going to get tired of accepting Republican talking points as legitimate discourse?
Is there any hope that smart, honest people will be leading this country soon instead of the crafty and the craven? Or that the press can tell the difference between the two?
Thanks brother Jabber
<!-- / message --> <!-- edit note --> <hr style="color: rgb(209, 209, 209);" size="1">
If you don't "support the troops" please raise your hand.
Does Anyone Really Not Support the Troops?
Yesterday I moderated a panel on whether the mainstream media is fair and balanced at the Take Back America conference. Do they wittingly or unwittingly slant the news in favor of the right-wing in this country?
I think there was consensus among the panelists (Richard Wolffe, Newsweek; David Shuster, MSNBC; Dan Froomkin, Washington Post; Duncan Black a.k.a. Atrios; Craig Crawford, Congressional Quarterly; Keith Boykin, BET and keithboykin.com; Marisa Trevino, Latina Lista) that the media does not have an intentional bias. I know some might disagree, but it was at least our conclusion that there is no corporate cabal that tells the reporters what to write in favor of Republicans.
On the other hand, there was also universal consensus that the media often gets the priorities and the emphasis wrong. So, there will be more stories about John Edwards' haircut than about the Downing Street Memos that showed the US fixed the intelligence that led us into the Iraq War. There are several reasons for this. The two most important ones mentioned were the enormous right-wing echo chamber that still controls the conversation and the lack of engagement by the Democratic Party in the media wars.
What do I mean by the right-wing echo chamber? You can take any insignificant story from the Republican Congress investigating Bill Clinton's Christmas card list or his cat or his haircut or John Kerry's haircut or John Edwards haircut (do you sense a theme here?) and see how it got to be a runaway story. It always goes through the same familiar circle -- Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes, the Radio Factor, the Sean Hannity radio show, every other conservative talk radio show in the country, every Fox talk show, every Fox "news" show. Rinse and repeat.
On the other hand, when there is a devastating story about Republican failures, the press runs it -- once -- and then it dies. For example, does anyone even know who David Safavian is? He was the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy and he was convicted in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Can you imagine if the person in charge of setting purchasing policy for the entire government for the Clinton White House was convicted on corruption charges? The earth would have stopped rotating on its axis. The Republicans would have impeached anyone who had ever walked within a two mile perimeter of the Clinton White House.
But since there is almost no progressive media infrastructure to constantly rehash these stories, they die a quick and unceremonious death. It is not the journalists' job to keep repeating the same story over and over. It is up to the opposition to create story lines or conversations around it.
The fact that Democrats and the establishment progressives have still not understood this fundamental concept almost speaks to their intelligence. They keep punching you in the face, you might want to put your hands up. And have you ever considered this -- punching back?
This brings us to point number two -- Democratic weakness. It is a familiar talking point, but this time it's not because of the right-wing noise machine, it's because it's true.
Quick example here is the filibuster issue. When the Democrats were in the minority, filibustering anything in the Senate was called extreme and radical. The Republicans demanded "up and down" votes on every issue. Now when Republicans are in the minority, the filibuster is taken for granted. It's not even mentioned in news stories anymore. The reporter explains that you need 60 votes in the Senate as a matter of course to get a cloture vote.
Totally different language and attitude about the same exact issue. And it wasn't like the change happened over the course of a generation. It happened instantly. I remember the bygone days when filibusters were considered extreme -- six months ago. Now, Republicans even filibuster non-binding resolutions. The history books have been erased and even stories from last year are instantly forgotten. It's now a cloture vote -- and it is a matter of course.
How do the Republicans get away with this blatant rhetorical trick -- and get the mainstream press to accept it completely? Yes, it is partly the media's fault. They should question the Republicans when faced with this obvious hypocrisy. Did they all start their careers five months ago? What's their excuse for not realizing this clear Orwellian maneuver?
But the opposition party is a thousand times more culpable. Is there even an opposition party? Where the hell are you guys? Do none of you realize what game is being played on you? Are there no Democratic leaders smart enough or savvy enough to realize that their lunch money has been stolen? Don't they get hungry at lunch?
It shouldn't have to be my job to point out that you're getting rooked in the media because you are not putting up an effective opposition. It should be patently obvious to you. If Democratic leaders complained once or twice about the use of the word filibuster, or insisted that the Republicans actually carry one out (I would love to see the Republicans speaking for 24 hours straight about why a non-binding resolution must be defeated) or even simply used the same rhetorical trick the Republicans did and demand "up and down" votes, they would be a million times better off. Wake up already. We're tired of sitting by your hospital bed nursing your wounds after the Republicans deliver another rhetorical ass kicking to you.
Which brings me to my title. The war in Iraq has been going on for nearly four and half years and the Democrats have still not figured out a way to get out of the verbal trap known simply as, "support the troops." Come on, I feel sick writing about it. It's pathetic.
Who doesn't support the troops? Really, can you name a single person in America who thinks, "Yeah, I don't really like the troops. I wish them harm." That is beyond preposterous. How can that possibly be an effective talking point? Let alone the most devastating catch phrase of our generation? How can the opposition be so feckless, so painfully incompetent?
Every single person in America supports the troops. I honestly can't think of any reason why a sane person wouldn't. The question is WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THOSE TROOPS? The questions isn't whether we support the troops but how do we support the troops?
After all, if the Democrats really disliked the troops, wouldn't they just leave them in the middle of Iraq for the next fifty years? Oh no, that's right, that's the president's plan.
Do you support the troops by sending them to die for an unnecessary mission and keeping them in the middle of an unwinnable civil war? Or by sending them on reasonable missions against the people who actually attacked us on 9/11? If you can't win this battle, I'm not sure you're capable of winning any political fights.
I grow more convinced everyday that the Democrats didn't win anything in 2006. The American people were simply vomitously sick of the Republican Party. They didn't throw out the Republicans, they threw them up. The body politic rejected the virus.
The Democrats weren't the doctors, they were the curious bystander in the room who got the regurgitation on their shirt. And now they don't know what to do with it.
Clean it up.
Now, on the other hand, you can't give the mainstream media a pass, either. How can you write about this with a straight face? Does any real journalist wonder whether the Democrats are actually against the troops? Do they wonder if the Democrats are against America and want the troops to get hurt? Come on, can anyone really believe that?
So, if you don't believe it is even remotely true, then why would you write about it as if it's a real issue? Here's a response a journalist with any sense and ethics would say to a Republican politician who uses this talking point, "Senator, do you believe the Democrats really intend to harm the troops? Do you have any evidence of this? Can you name names, who are these villains who hate our own people? If you can't answer these questions, can you please tell me the real reason for your policy in Iraq without pretending you speak for the troops?"
Is it ever going to get better? Are the Democrats ever going to find out what game is being played on them? Is the media ever going to get tired of accepting Republican talking points as legitimate discourse?
Is there any hope that smart, honest people will be leading this country soon instead of the crafty and the craven? Or that the press can tell the difference between the two?
Thanks brother Jabber
<!-- / message --> <!-- edit note --> <hr style="color: rgb(209, 209, 209);" size="1">
