Ruy Teixeira, of The Emerging Democratic Majority fame, has a new, lengthy paper (large PDF) up on the coming impact of demographic changes on American electoral politics.. The basic thesis as one you have heard before: over the next two or three decades, demographic changes strongly favor the Democratic Party, since population growth is concentrated within groups that vote heavily Democratic (non-whites, non-Christians, Creative Class, Millennials etc).
In the face of these trends, Teixiera lays out two possible paths forward for continued Republican electoral competitiveness:
Increased appeal to Democratic base groups through ideological moderation;
Ineffectiveness of Democratic governance
The second path is the only realistic one. This is because there is simply no conceivable institutional force that could push Republicans to the center.
There is simply no engine that can apply enough pressure to move Republicans to the center in the face of the combined force of right-wing media (Limbaugh, Fox News and more), the Christian Right (even though they have faded a bit lately), the Club for Growth, and the Tea Party (whether or not that is actually a definable institution). None. Zip. Zero. Nada. The resources simply do not exist for any group that would be interested in moving Republicans to the center. Further, there isn't even really a group interested in acquiring those non-existent resources. With over 70% of Republicans self-identifying as conservative, there is no base for it.
What funding did exist was largely produced by progressive, single issue advocacy infrastructure that, kin the interest of retaining influence on both sides of the aisle, used a double-standard and lot of its money to prop up moderate Republicans such as Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter, and the Maine Senators. However, that infrastructure was not producing any new moderate Republicans, just protecting the old ones. Further, it faces a new left-wing critique, was based on a double standard of choosing slightly-less than horrible candidates on their issues, and has generally proven to be no match for the right-wing forces outlined above.
So, the path forward for Republicans is to rely on ineffective Democratic governance. On that front, they are doing pretty well. The current manifestation of the Democratic Party is designed primarily govern in a fashion that protects center-right members of its own party. Unfortunately, governing in a fashion that improves the lives of most Americans is only its secondary purpose. The irony of this structure is that the only way to protect center-right members of the Democratic Party over the long-term is to cement a governing majority by improving the lives of the majority of Americans. But hey, I'm just a frakking stupid, pajama wearing, Cheetos munching blogger, so what do I really know anyway.
Rachel Maddow has been doing the best reporting and commentary there is on the widening cycle of violent rhetoric, threats, and, increasingly, crime being committed by right-wing extremists. Her shows the last couple of nights (here and here especially) have been remarkable, and her focus on this has begun to get the traditional media to start looking at it.
This is an important story as the implicit violence in the rhetoric of conservative politicians and pundits has continued to ratchet up. This kind of intentionally violent rhetoric- "Dreihaus is a dead man", "firing line", all the gun and noose references- is exactly what we were getting in the months before the McVeigh bombing in 1995, as Rachel did a good job of pointing out last night.
Anyone who has been a public figure in Democratic politics has gotten violent, threatening calls, letters, e-mails from right-wing extremists. When I mentioned going on the cruise with Maddow, someone with a rather obvious conservative world view e-mailed me saying they hoped that Rachel would push me over the side. Every time I have been in the public spotlight even a little bit- in my days as a PFAW spokesperson on the impeachment fight, in my time as a consultant for the Brady campaign, when I've done ads going after Bush and Cheney that got a lot of media attention- our office mailbox and voicemail have been full of threats, intimidation and obscenities, many assuming I'm Jewish so they threw in anti-Semitic stuff as well. Threats and intimidation just seem to come naturally to these folks. In fact, the right-wing extremists in this country have always had a dark and violent side- the Civil War, canings on the Senate floor, the KKK and White Citizens' Councils, the death and beatings and lynchings of civil rights activists, Father Coughlin's radio rants, the deaths at abortion clinics, Timothy McVeigh.
It's all part of a pattern that goes wide, deep, and steady throughout American history. There have been a smattering of violent lefties as well- a few school bombings and riots in the 1960s, some random anarchist violence a century ago- but nothing that was so intrinsic and deep in the progressive movement itself. Where this could become a crisis for the American political system is if the Republican party leadership decides that the violent extremists are too much a part of their base to distance themselves from them. They are coming dangerously close to that point now, embracing the teabaggers, adding more violence to their own rhetoric. If that's where we are going to in this country, we better hope that Democrats keep winning elections until the Republicans realize they need to do a little distancing from their crazies.
As grotesque as the current threats, and actual, right-wing violence is over the health reform bill, it is equally important remember that such threats of violence, and actual violence, has been a longstanding right-wing tactic. Consider an article I wrote three years ago about right-wing threats of violence on such small issues such as John Edwards campaign staffers movie reviews and a search engine optimization campaign I employed in the 2006 elections:
Much like the democratic means attempted by conservatives to outlaw abortion, the media pressure against Edwards didn't work. Unfortunately, the violent threats against Melissa did. Over at Pandagon, Amanda offers a taste of some of the tamer threats she received during the episode, and which it appears she continues to receive. Ultimately, it appears that it was the continuing threat of violence, not any media pressure or caving from the Edwards campaign, that allowed the right-wing to "take scalps" in this whole affair.
During the brief media frenzy surrounding my googlebomb campaign in October of 2006, I myself received about five dozen death threats that looked not unlike the ones Amanda posted at Pandagon. Also, when Michelle Malkin tried to attack two college students for engaging in anti-war protests, the college students also received dozens of death threats. Considering of this, it now seems pretty clear to me now that every right-wing media campaign against a mid-level Democrat or progressive is always accompanied with numerous threats of violence. It seems to be a ubiquitous back-up tactic of the American right-wing in the event that their media pressure fails to work, just as it failed to work against the Edwards campaign, and just as it failed to work against me when it came to the Googlebombs. As it the case with abortion providers, if you can't beat them using democratic means, and if you can't defeat them using your vast media empire, use death threats as a final tactic to force relatively powerless individuals to bend to your demands.
Terrorism and threats of violence frequently appear in the background of right-wing political discourse. Current events are more a difference of degree than of kind.
Howie Kurtz makes a point about the legitimization of Fox News:
President Obama is going on Fox News.
He must really want to pass that health-care bill.
No, he's not going to get emotional with Glenn Beck. But Obama will sit down with anchor Bret Baier for an interview that will air Wednesday on the 6 p.m. newscast "Special Report."
This would be unremarkable -- the president is constantly on TV -- except for last year's White House campaign attacking Fox News as an arm of the Republican Party. Fox executives insisted there is an important distinction between its news operation and opinionated hosts such as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. In sitting down with Baier, Obama -- who cordially greeted Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes at a White House Christmas party -- seems to be accepting that distinction.
Jed Lewison doesn't think Obama is accepting that distinction, but I think what misses the point there is that there is no distinction between the programming when it comes to the overall Fox empire. Good content, be it an exclusive interview with Obama or Democratic Strategist arguing with someone, drives viewers. Few people drive viewers more than the President of the United States. Viewers drive ratings, ratings drive ad revenue. It's not hard to understand. Whether Obama goes on with Baier or Hannity or Wallace, it all drives (a) legitimization of Fox as a credible news outlet since, after all, the President is appearing on it (b) ratings (c) ad revenue. Thus, in which Obama, as well as all other progressives/Democrats, financially contribute to Fox News when they go on.
To me, that's the underlying point that's always being missed.
The other thing is that this is a validation of what I called the "send Fox to their room" theory of media control:
Like I wrote back when this first started, this is akin to spanking FOX, sending them to their room, and expecting things to change. They are, and always will be, either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party (and those aren't even mine, those are Dunn's words, speaking for the White House!). They were before Obama came. They will be after Obama leaves. This is a long-term issue, which doesn't justify the White House's "FOX is being mean to us so we spanked them and they'll do better" mindset.
The reason I say that is because we've seen this game before. Flashback to 2008:
Barack Obama is going where his campaign has never gone before: Fox News, where he'll be interviewed by Chris Wallace this weekend on Fox News Sunday.
The Obama camp has more or less shut out Fox ever since they ran with the fake story about him supposedly being educated in a madrassah, so this is a big break from the standard practice. Even before that, Obama didn't have much time for Fox -- by the channel's count, the time between his last sit-down interview with them and this upcoming one will have been 772 days.
Obama already shut out Fox once before- the 2008 campaign- before going on for an interview. Then they did so again last year before giving in again this year. It is funny to me how the Obama team gets mad at Fox, shuts them out, then kisses and makes up after a cooling-off period. All this happens while Fox uses his appearances to go even higher in ratings and rakes in revenue to pay Glenn Beck an estimated $2 million per year, launch new initiatives like Fox Business Channel, push smears like the madrassa story and Barack Hussein Obama, continue punching ACORN, SEIU, Alan Grayson and others, and lie on the issues.
I have been on the progressive side of the aisle virtually my whole life (being around a lot of Republicans in Nebraska, I did flirt with being a Republican when I was eight years old, but fortunately my older brother and sister talked me out of that quickly), but I have always believed that conservatives in American history had an honorable tradition in part. Yes, they have the pro-slavery, anti-women's suffrage, and Great Depression inducing Republicans in their midst, but they also had honorable patriots like John Adams and Everett Dirksen. Modern-day conservatives, however, have decided to throw the honorable part of conservatism under the bus along with every other sentiment that might get in their way.
The pro-torture crowd has taken over modern conservatism. People at the CPAC convention are firing themselves up with cries of "waterboard them" and cheering wildly as speakers advocated locking political prisoners away forever at Gitmo. Republicans are embracing a movement that trafficks in secessionism, birtherism, and making threats about armed revolt.
While there has always been a crazy streak in the conservative movement- the John Birch Society founder used to call Dwight Eisenhower a communist agent- the most wild extremists have never taken over the movement lock, stock and barrel before. Today they are thoroughly in control.
Here's what I find so puzzling. Let me throw out some random quotes for you, and you tell me which socialist tract they came from:
"Love mercy, show kindness, and walk humbly with your God"
"I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you made me welcome, lacking clothes and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me... in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me"
"He has filled the starving poor with good things, and sent the rich away empty"
"The spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives, sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim a year of favour [when the poor would be forgiven their debts] from the Lord"
Okay, you probably guessed it: the socialist tract of which I speak is what is otherwise known as the Christian Bible. I've looked all through it for passages about how you should torture people, and perpetuate cruelty, but I couldn't seem to find them.
Jesus didn't talk about torturing people, he talked about helping the poor. George Washington forbade the use of torture even in the darkest days of the American Revolution when the British were doing it to our troops. Jesus and Washington seem to be the two people conservatives claim as their greatest heroes. Can you explain this to us, guys? The answer to "What Would Jesus Do" is definitely not torture.
I respect a conservatism that worries about the unintended consequences of change, and gets uncomfortable when government gets bigger or deficits get higher. A conservatism that exults in waterboarding, in torture used by the Inquisition and the Japanese in World War II? There is no honor in that. There is no justification for it. The conservative movement has been taken over by the pro-cruelty faction, and is on a dark, dark path.
The really interesting thing I noticed about all the press around The Mount Vernon Statement is that nowhere was a mention of Contract With America and how this documents echoes that bold manifesto, yadda yadda yadda. Apparently that's because Newt himself is helping to push yet another document- the Contract From America- on behalf of the Tea Party Patriots today at CPAC. This Contract has 22 "solutions" which will be narrowed to ten today by voting. The ten winning solutions will then be unveiled to the world on April 15.
Among the more interesting ones:
PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.
No doubt, an outgrowth of catcalls during last fall's town hall meetings that the Constitution does not allow for comprehensive health care reform.
ENACT FUNDAMENTAL TAX REFORM: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the Internal Revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words -- the length of the original Constitution.
On this one, I turn to the wisdom of Barney Frank, who once wondered aloud on the House floor why Republicans think the usefulness of a bill is inversely proportional to its length.
LET US SAVE: Allow all Americans to opt out of Social Security and Medicare and instead put those same payroll taxes in a personal account they own, control, and can leave to whomever they choose.
Partying like it's 2005!
AUDIT THE FED: Begin an audit of the Federal Reserve System.
Ron Paulite fingerprints, perhaps, and something we can agree on.
I also do find it interesting that while the Mount Vernon Statement is signed by Christian fundie types and espouses the usual language on "family values", etc., but this document doesn't have anything on "values" "traditional marriage" "unborn fetuses" or the like. Of course, the Tea Party types have always been more about economic and constitutional issues, but that has drummed up some attention among the fundie types at the National Tea Party Convention:
One convention development that might have slipped past the mainstream media's coverage was a new effort by some longtime Religious Right leaders to hoist them-selves aboard the Tea Party bandwagon.
[...]
Rick Scarborough, the founder and head of a small, but disproportionately influential, Texas-based outfit called Vision America, has come up with a plan to try and fuse the Religious Right's "traditional family values" agenda to the economic concerns that have thus far mostly dominated the Tea Party movement.
At a workshop at the National Tea Party Convention given by Scarborough, the senior pastor of Harvest Point Church in Nacogdoches, Texas, unveiled what he's calling the "Mandate to Save America," a plan that might, as Devin Burghart of the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights who attended the convention recently reported, signal "a shift taking place ... transforming the focus from bailouts and deficits to the culture war."
Scarborough is a former Southern Baptist pastor from Pearland, Texas, who in addition to Vision America, also heads up Vision America Action and the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. According to Burghart, Scarborough told a crowd of 200+supporters at the Tea Party Nation convention that it was time that differences between "fiscal and social conservatives ... cease[d]."
Well, that was quick. Yesterday was the announcement that White House interim Communications Director Anita Dunn, who started this fight with FOX, would be leaving. Today is this:
President Obama will give an interview to Fox News' Major Garrett, Drudge reports.
The interview will take place in China next week and comes just one day after it was reported that Obama Communications Director Anita Dunn the so-called general in the administration's war against Fox News will be stepping down.
[...]
Fox News executive Michael Clemente met recently at the White House with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and since then the tensions between the two parties have cooled; senior adviser David Axelrod granted an interview to Garrett last week.
I don't have any place to speculate that Dunn was forced out or this is some gesture to FOX or whatever, but it certainly doesn't look good. And how exactly have tensions cooled? Like I wrote back when this first started, this is akin to spanking FOX, sending them to their room, and expecting things to change. They are, and always will be, either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party (and those aren't even mine, those are Dunn's words, speaking for the White House!). They were before Obama came. They will be after Obama leaves. This is a long-term issue, which doesn't justify the White House's "FOX is being mean to us so we spanked them and they'll do better" mindset.
And by the way, what about the rest of us out here? FOX's hosts will continue to smear ACORN, Alan Grayson, Democrats in Congress, SEIU, and on and on and on. Even if the White House argues that FOX will play nice with them from now on, the rest of us still get thrown under the bus.
So I said it before, and I'll say it again. This was a job half-assed.
So the Villagers have circled their wagons around FOX in the name of respect, comity and High Broderism. Why their don't actually join in the fun and report on FOX's biased coverage, since it might ultimately help their own ratings, is beyond me, but that's what we get. Ruth Marcus published an absurd piece in the WaPo on Monday, which Eric Boehlert takes apart, and yesterday ABC's Jake Tapper called FOX a "sister organization" and attacked Robert Gibbs over the White House's position. Other talking heads have taken up the banner. The Village doesn't actually recognize its Idiots, and has become them.
It's all very heartwarming to see all the little media Villagers gather around their wealthy potential future employer, Fox News, and defend it from the big bad White House, but seriously, is there any real doubt that Fox News (not the gasbags ---but Fox News itself) is biased? (As Boehlert asks here --- has Ruth Marcus ever watched Fox News?) There are so many examples that it seems ridiculous to have to make the case, but evidently the villagers are so brainwashed they can't even see what's before their very eyes.
[...]
But just as it took nearly 25 years for the villagers to grok that even though he was invited to dinner parties by important people, Rush Limbaugh is actually a malignant blight on humanity, those who don't watch Fox News (and therefore agree with it) simply assume they must be ok because they hire lots of credentialed journalists and are invited to all the important social events. It would be downright unseemly if it turns out that right wing fascists are walking among them.
The whole thing reminds me of when Dana Milbank called HuffPo's Nico Pitney a "planted questioner" and a "dick", jealously upset that a new media outlet like HuffPo actually got a question in a live White House press conference. It's Villagers guarding their corridors of power, whether the people trying to come in is the HuffPo or the Obama administration.
I'm watching for the reaction of congressional Democrats, which I haven't seen much of. FOX gets elected Dems, former elected Dems, and Dem strategists on their network as their bread and butter, and a key to their legitimization and continued existence.
In something of a win, FOX was told that they should not "expect" Obama to appear on their network for the rest of the year. MoveOn launched a petition yesterday asking Democrats to follow his lead and stay off the network. It's a start towards "fringe-ifying" FOX by taking away those that gets it legitimization and viewership.
Last week, in the midst of the Obama Administration's smacking of all of us as "internet left fringe", they gave me some HopeTM when Anita Dunn decided to engage in something of a war against Fox. I wrote at the time:
Simultaneously, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has engaged in something of a week-long war this past week against FOX News, on the record. Earlier she said FOX is "opinion journalism masquerading as news" to TIME Magazine, then followed up on CNN yesterday, saying FOX is "either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party", then did an interview with the New York Times published today, saying "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent... As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."
Ms. Dunn [...] stressed that administration officials would still talk to Fox, and that Mr. Obama was likely to be interviewed on the network in the future. But, she added, "we're not going to legitimize them as a news organization."
Then, yesterday, Axelrod and Emanuel, appearing on the Sunday talk shows, confirmed they would allow WH officials to continue to appear on FOX.
The whole thing seems rather akin to spanking FOX and sending them to their room. As a strategic matter, is this effective? FOX's senior vice president for programming, as well as Roger Ailes, both have said they like it when the White House attacks them, in terms of how it helps their ratings and appeal among their demographic, which voted 88% for Bush in 2004. I actually believe them. On the other hand, there are other Americans who listen to the White House's comments and tune out FOX. It might be a little of both.
But what this comes across to me as akin to is not finishing what you started. Does the White House actually believe that if they send FOX to their room, FOX will ask fewer biased questions, Glenn Beck will talk about how the stimulus is working, etc.? And if my theory is right, and the White House's comments get Democrats and independents to stop watching FOX, and get hard-core Republicans to watch FOX even more... then, um, in terms of their audience, aren't they even more of what Dunn called an opponent, a research/communications arm of the Republican Party? And if that's the case, then why continue going on? Hell, why doesn't Obama start going to state Republican conventions? Same demographic, same biased questions, same communications arm of the Party. I have trouble finding the difference, with the exception that Obama might get booed. On the other hand, that might play into his team's brilliant strategy to not appear as a captive of the movement left or movement right.
Dunn said "we're not going to legitimize them as a news organization." What doesn't make sense about that statement and then today's news is that legitimizing is appearing on FOX. If I formed a liberal talk cable TV station from scratch today, my legitimacy would only go up if I got a White House official to appear for an interview on my program. Otherwise I would just be considered fringe.
Now, you can argue that FOX is already considered "mainstream". The objective, then, is to fringe-ify FOX, which is what Dunn was trying to do. Either Axelrod and Emanuel undercut her altogether, or this White House is doing a job half-assed.
Lest the White House not take me seriously, let me emphasize I am fully dressed and do not have a bag of Cheetos to my left as I type
As Chris wrote last night, the White House called me and all of you an "internet left fringe", and declared that I need to understand that running the country is difficult. This is nothing new from this Administration, since another (or perhaps the same) WH adviser dismissed those who push for a public option as "the left of the left", and Obama himself has said he doesn't read blogs, that he found DailyKos boring, skipped the Senate vote to censure MoveOn, and on and on.
Folks in Obamaland have been hyperparanoid for some time that a vast majority of the electorate not only understands the progressive internet media and organizing space, but that it's a Very Important Issue to voters, and they will take great offense if Obama said he read a blog every once in awhile and, hey, even found DailyKos to be interesting, and even voted with 25, or about half, of his Democratic colleagues against censure. Surely, that would have made front-page headlines, inspired huge attack ads from McCain, and caused us to lose the election, Obama advisers must have thought. In reality, not so much. "How will it play in Peoria?!", Rahm anxiously thought. "What's a blog?", Peoria resident might have responded.
Simultaneously, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has engaged in something of a week-long war this past week against FOX News, on the record. Earlier she said FOX is "opinion journalism masquerading as news" to TIME Magazine, then followed up on CNN yesterday, saying FOX is "either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party", then did an interview with the New York Times published today, saying "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent... As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."
Perhaps this is either another game of 32-dimensional chess from the White House- this time with the media and the electorate instead of with Republicans in Congress- but it's like triangulation is again in vogue. And this time it's 21st century style- movement-based instead of issue-based. As John Harwood said when reporting the White House comment:
we've seen and certainly Bill Clinton learned that they Democratic President can get punished by the mainstream of the electorate for being too aggressive on social issues so for now I think the administration feels that if they take care of the big issues - health care, energy, the economy - he's going to be just fine with this group.
That is actually much in dispute, since as Mike Lux wrote here, depression of base Democratic turnout- not anger from centrist voters over social issues- was the key to the losses that year. But Harwood's views are clearly echoed by this White House, which is determined to make sure it is not seen as either captive of the movement left or the movement right. Never mind that, um, the movement left helped get Obama's ass into the White House. Never mind that when a zillion of these Obama voters who report how they haven't voted since Ted Kennedy in 1980 (some even earlier) vanish if we don't get a lot of the hope-iness and change-yness that Obama promised, movement lefties like many of us at OpenLeft will be the only ones here battling to make sure we don't get crushed in Congress and at the ballot box. Never mind that the Obamaland folks' comments about blogs and the "left of the left" are actually aimed at elites, since "mainstream" voters don't care about or understand blogs or progressive movement institutions. And I have yet to find data or analysis of any kind demonstrating that other stupid things to smack the left that Obamaland has done- for example, his random editorial board interview praise of Reagan- was a significant contributing factor to his election, or even noticed by "mainstream" voters.
I'm glad that the White House is engaging some kind of war with FOX News, and I know that I, many of my blogging colleagues, and many of you here in our internet left fringe have thick skins. But there are limits to the bullshit, both in rhetoric and in policy delivery. And why the White House chooses to do stupid little things like this without any perceptible reward from voters is beyond me.
You have to love the pluck and persistence and creativity of the conservative movement. They always give us something to talk about.
Earlier today, I was debating as to whether to write about health care (my most frequent topic these days), or jobs, an incredibly urgent issue there's been some important articles about in the last 48 hours. And I will of course get back to those centrally important topics soon. But before I do, I have to spend a minute focused on my conservative movement friends. I really have to congratulate them on their creativity.
Some folks I know have been surprised at the level of violent and vitriolic rhetoric they have worked themselves into since Obama took office. Bringing assault weapons to Presidential events, while wearing t-shirts referencing quotes about spilling the blood of tyrants? Talking openly about secession and armed rebellion? Saying that giving women the right to vote was a bad idea? Saying that Obama hated white people? It's all been done in recent weeks by movement conservatives, openly, publicly. I haven't been surprised, because as a student of history, and a staffer for Bill Clinton, I have seen all of these rhetorical flourishes before throughout history.
But every once in a while, folks in the conservative movement surprise me and come up with something new. And this one is a doozy. Apparently the folks at Conservapedia are re-translating the Bible to make it fit better with conservative ideology.
Alan Grayson took to the House floor this afternoon to issue an apology. But it's not the kind you think and have come to expect from run-of-the-mill Democrats. Check it out.
In The Progressive Revolution, Mike wrote about how when John Kerry told a bad joke in 2007, Dems rushed to distance themselves. When MoveOn.org ran a controversial ad, the same thing happened, even resulting in Congressional censure. When Dick Durbin compared Guantanamo to the worst atrocities in our history, he was left undefended, and instead issued a tearful apology on the Senate floor.
We can't let that happen to Alan Grayson. The NRCC just launched this website going after Grayson. He's already all over RedState, and I expect to see him all over FOX and Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative machine soon. They'd like to make him their next scalp. Like Chris wrote this afternoon, if we don't stand up for our champions- including Matt Stoller, who co-founded OpenLeft and now works for Grayson- no one will. Like Kerry, and MoveOn.org, and Durbin, Democrats will abandon him. Rep. Larson already has. We have to defend our champions in the face of the conservative smear machine.
Other Democrats would retreat hastily. What did Alan Grayson do? He took to the floor and refused to apologize, reiterated how critical health care reform is, then took to DailyKos to reiterate that he's standing firm and thank us for having his back. Now that's what I call a Better Democrat. Please chip in to have Alan Grayson's back.
Yesterday, President Obama went on five Sunday talk shows. FOX was not among them, thankfully. In reading about his coverage yesterday, I came across this:
But Mr. Obama chose to make a statement - and raise a distracting fuss on Fox News - by declining to speak.
And Fox milked it. When he was not talking about Acorn, Mr. Wallace bemoaned the presidential slight, asking, "Whatever happened to reaching out to all Americans?" He told Bill O'Reilly that the White House aides were "a bunch of crybabies."
Apparently, the feeling is mutual. "We figured Fox would rather show 'So You Think You Can Dance' than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform," a White House deputy press secretary told ABC News on Saturday. "Fox is an ideological outlet where the president has been interviewed before and will likely be interviewed again; not that the whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon."
The WH deputy press secretary was Josh Earnest. I like the feistiness from him, especially the reference to FOX's decision to show an entertainment show rather than Obama's address to Congress. In response, Bill O and Chris Wallace admitted Glenn Beck and Hannity have an ideological point of view, claimed they themselves aren't ideological at all, called the Administration crybabies, childish and immature, and claimed every other major outlet is irrelevant. Kind of emphasizes Earnest's point.
So my question is whether the White House position with FOX will continue, or whether this is a one-time punishment of FOX for refusing to air Obama's speech. I have long thought no serious progressive should go on a TV show where the game is fixed, where each question is structured from a "so when did you stop beating your wife" standpoint, and where each big name they have helps their ratings. When Hillary Clinton opted to go on Bill O's show during last year's campaign, a lot of my die-hard movement FOX-hating friends gleefully rubbed their hands and said "ooooh, the belly of the beast! I'm getting popcorn!" Hillary drew a ton of viewers that night. Viewers equals ad revenue, ad revenue equals Bill O, Bill O's success leads to new ventures like the FOX Business Channel. I'm not saying such appearances are entirely responsible for FOX's continued existence. Right-wing donors will always support their own, and FOX is at the top of the heap.
But if you're looking for someone to blame in part for the continued existence of FOX, blame progressives who continue to go on, blindly thinking "surely among that viewer demographic that voted for Bush in 2004 by an 88%-7% margin, there must be a moderate I can speak to." Or "surely, we have to reach out to everyone." Or "I have to build my media profile and brag to all my friends I went on teevee." Then they turn around and whine about FOX for twisted lies and not firing Glenn Beck after he said the President hated white people and wishing Beck would disappear after hit jobs on Van Jones, Yosi Sergant and ACORN.
You can't have it both ways, my friends. I am glad the White House press operation realizes FOX is an arm of the GOP message machine, an ideologically opposed, no-win game. I am glad the deputy press secretary attacked FOX for whining and for being more interested in entertainment than arguably the most important issue currently facing our nation. My question is whether they'll stand their ground when Chris Wallace starts a "Where's Obama" clock or Bill O complains about not reaching out to everybody or whatever.
The 9-12ers are here in DC today, "tens of thousands!" according to FOX News. While I am of course happy for them, enjoying their constitutional rights that their ideological forbears fought against (that whole Bill of Rights thing was bitterly opposed by the conservatives in the 1790s, and states' righters don't even think it applies to the states at all), I do find it odd that for such an incredible mass movement, promoted day and night by Fox News and every right wing radio host in America, they couldn't turn out more people than this. Oh, well, maybe next time.
I do worry about them though. I mean, a lot of them are older, and this anger they carry around must be terrible for the toll it takes in terms of the high blood pressure, hypertension, heart disease. They really should take a Valium like a normal person.
Oh, and I also worry about their political beliefs. If this gang of Palinista, birther, secessionist, tea bagger, scream-at-the-President-and-members-of-Congress-rant-and-raver ever took power, this country would truly be in a world of hurt- I mean we tried a slightly milder version of it from 2001 to Jan 20th of this year, and look how messed up we got.
Rachel Maddow did a superb piece on this gang of misfits and hooligans last night, which was especially fabulous because she did an interview with me you can see here. It was fun, although it's always hard to calibrate how perky to look when you are just staring into the remote camera with an earpiece in your ear. Hopefully, I didn't scare anybody. Although speaking of scaring people, my company inbox last night overflowed with angry right wingers saying, well, really angry things: calling me all kinds of names, making their usual threats, even calling me ugly (okay, you might not think one is so crazy, to each their own).
So, again, I appeal to you guys: relax, take deep breaths, maybe take your blood pressure medicine before your veins pop. I promise that after I get appointed to the death panel, all the euthanasia will be painless.
I have some fun news- I'll be on Rachel Maddow's show tonight at 9 PM EST (leading off at the top of the hour) talking about my post here at OpenLeft regarding Joe Wilson, John C. Calhoun conservatism and the modern Republican party.
And David Sirota is going on at 9:15. It's OpenLeft-tastic today at MSNBC.
STATE BLOGS
