« Jay Tea Vs. Hillary: This Time It's Personal | Main | Group Launches Abortion E-Cards »

The Nutroots: learning the wrong lessons

The Nutroots -- the affectionate little name that is going around for the self-styled "Net Roots" and moonbat element of the Democratic Party -- are growing more and more powerful in that party. And it seems that their obsession with the Viet Nam war -- it comes up pretty much every time they discuss Iraq -- has led them to learn precisely the wrong lessons from that conflict.

People who actually look at the Viet Nam war have pretty much agreed on one oft-repeated thesis: the United States won every battle, yet still lost the war. In their eagerness to embrace the Viet Nam analogy, it seems that the Nutroots have adopted that philosophy.

Markos "Kos" Moulitsas is now one of the biggest power brokers of the Democratic party. His hordes of slavering followers have become a major faction in Democratic circles, and courting his favor has become a necessity for many Democrats. Yet hardly anyone notices that his endorsement has been the "kiss of death" for so many candidates. I haven't kept track of it, but I seem to recall reading a little while ago that of the 17 or 19 candidates Kos had backed, every single one of them was defeated.

In 2006, the Nutroots declared a fatwa on Connecticut's Senator (and 2000 vice presidential nominee) Joe Lieberman. Never mind that Lieberman had a nearly-perfect liberal voting record; he was on the "wrong" side of the Iraq war and therefore was an apostate and heretic. The Nutroots rallied behind Ned Lamont, who challenged -- and defeated -- Lieberman in the Democratic primary. Lieberman then went independent, ran as a third-party candidate. In the end, Lieberman not only beat Lamont by over 10%, but pulled more votes than Lamont and the official Republican nominee combined. He then returned to the Senate unencumbered by any political affiliation or obligations, threatening the Democrats' control. He declined to formally rejoin the party, but agreed to caucus with them and allowed them to take the leadership of the Senate despite officially only holding 49 of 100 seats -- matching the Republicans' numbers.

Now we have the would-be Nevada debate between the Democratic presidential candidates. Originally it was to be co-sponsored by Fox News, the far and away biggest cable news channel. This would have given the candidates the broadest possible audience, increasing their exposure and -- hopefully, to them -- allowing them to sway voters across the nation. But the Nutroots (apparently led by "Kiss Of Death Kos" himself) declared a new fatwa, this one on Fox News.

(I was reminded of Kos' earlier pledge to make the Democratic Leadership Council "radioactive" in two weeks' time. It seems that the DLC had committed the heresy of doing that which is anathema to Kos -- they had actually gotten a Democrat elected in Bill Clinton, and were working to do that again WITHOUT asking him first. Luckily for Kos, Hurricane Katrina arrived in the meantime and gave him an excuse to back down from his threat.)

Well, the Nutroots did it. They got enough of the leading candidates to toe the line and boycott the debate. Now they're calling for a complete "freeze-out" of Fox News from the Democratic primary process. The Nutroots are demanding that the Democratic candidates boycott from appearing on the highest-rated cable news channel and shut themselves off from a forum that has been, for the most part, pretty "fair and balanced" to them when they've appeared on it in the past. (I don't recall any major Democratic official getting ambushed or cheap-shotted or set up on Fox News, and if such had happened, I am absolutely certain the Nutroots would have shoved it into everyone's faces over the past week or so.) And the Democratic candidates are cheerfully obeying Kos' demands.

This is beyond stupid. This has to be the most insane political tactic I've ever seen. Its one redeeming feature has to be its sheer entertainment value, as Kos plays the Judas goat, leading the Democrats into electoral slaughterhouses while he parlays his string of losses and defeats into more power and more money.

In 2004, I cheerfully split my ballot. I voted for Republicans for president and the House, and Democrats for the Senate and governor. Last November, I did it again, voting for the same Democratic governor and a Republican representative. I like having two parties to choose from, two viable candidates with clear distinctions to differentiate themselves. I don't like giving my vote by default to one side, because the other one is a raving loony. (That happened to me last November, when the moonbat beat the Republican I didn't overly care for in the race for the US House.)

The only thing is, this isn't a TV show. This isn't entertainment. This the future of the two-party system, and our nation, is at stake here.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Nutroots: learning the wrong lessons:

» The Thunder Run linked with Web Reconnaissance for 03/15/2007

Comments (85)

WAAAAAHHHH!!!We're... (Below threshold)

WAAAAAHHHH!!!

We're taking our ball and going home!

Never interrupt your enemy ... (Below threshold)
yetanotherjohn:

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
- Napoleon Bonaparte

open mouth..shoot foot... (Below threshold)
tj:

open mouth..shoot foot

I find it amazing that so m... (Below threshold)
yo:

I find it amazing that so many Dems want to curry the favor of these whackjobs while moderates on both sides of the aisle don't take them seriously.

You'd think Reid, Pelosi, Murtha and the like (toss the Breck girl on there, as well) would see that the power to sway elections rests in the hands of the independents who have no idea who Kos and his gaggle of frothing lunatics are - and would probably care less if they did.

But alas, they do not and hence expose themselves to being out of touch with the Americans they emphatically state they represent.

The democratic party is on fire and in serious danger of imploding. Kos giggles and incites his minions to keep the flames coming while the elected Dems keep throwing on effigies of open dialog.

Not to get off subject but ... (Below threshold)
markm:

Not to get off subject but is the debate still on and who is hosting/sponsoring if so???

And yet the silly trolls (o... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

And yet the silly trolls (one in particular) regularly stop by here to fling poo about how the elections of 2006 marked the end of conservatism, that the Republican party is imploding, and that they will reign supreme in 2009. Good luck with that, nutroots.

Those wacky dems never fail... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Those wacky dems never fail to entertain. Now, if they would just but out of foreign policy...

This extreme view of the op... (Below threshold)
MunDane:

This extreme view of the opposition is not limited to Kos. Our conservative side has its share of vocal bombthrowers. Misha of The Anti-idiotarian etc., comes to mind as do occasional posts of Kim Du Toit. Both have called for the elimination of the Democrat party. But, I would also remind people, I am not seeing Misha appearing in commercials for candidates nor Kim showing up as a guest of Republican party magnates.

(N.B. John Hawkins and Michelle Malkin do appear at these fetes regularly, but I have never seen one of them play kingmaker, nor invest their posts with the level of vitriol of netroot blogiarchy.)

The problem with the far left, as I see it, is that they are going to run out of enemies real soon. GWB is not going to be president in 2009, and what will happen then? Not a single serious candidate for Republican President Nomination is as conservative as he is/was (Which isn't perfect by any means, i.e. border issues.) So then who do they turn on? The new Republican president? They seem so one note, that one would expect them to play the same song and dance for whomever gets elected.

So the implication may be: ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

So the implication may be: Kos is gaining influence in the Democratic Party, and this is making the party too left-wing and will cost the Dems elections. And the "freeze out" of Fox News is part of this.

I don't think the Dems pulling out of the Fox News hosting of a debate will have any discernible effect on the election. The only people who are upset about it are people who would never vote for the Dem for president anyway.

As for Kos and company radicalizing the Dems away from voters, I have 2 points:

1. Being against the war in Iraq is not a positions of a fringe group; this is not such a popular war with voters.

2. If Pelosi and company already represent "San Francisco" values, etc., I don't see how Kos would be taking them away from positions they already held.

BTW, Jay...I split my ballot, too. I guess I may not be radical enough to be considered a moonbat...

Publicus, it's not about wh... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Publicus, it's not about who gets "upset." It's about the image this gives the Democrats as nut-jobs among the non-political types who make up most of the voting population.

I'm not American. I'm an ho... (Below threshold)
89:

I'm not American. I'm an honest to goodness foreigner. And my reaction on hearing this was "Oh, so you don't want the presidency after all?" But in retrospect, I doubt it will have much of an impact with the base. And the swing voters have seen the dog and pony show for a while already.

It's about the ima... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
It's about the image this gives the Democrats as nut-jobs among the non-political types who make up most of the voting population.

Let me know when you have persuasive evidence that it's had any lasting effect on a substantial number of the "non-political" types. (Since Wizbang doesn't believe in polls, I don't know how you could ever do that...)

Publicus,Being again... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Publicus,
Being against the Iraq war, alone, is not what makes the nut roots out on the far left fringe. The causes, opinions and behaviors of these groups as a whole is what makes them fringers.

Their eagerness to persecute "heretical" thought and people, despite any offsetting upsides, is what should make folks on the left take notice and be concerned. Lieberman is a good democrat in every measure and category, BUT, he supports the war in Iraq. And for that the nutroots decided he must pay.
Fox News would have given the candidates both a larger audience AND an audience more likely to contain fence sitters or those fed up with the opposition and ready to jump ship (or just send a message at the ballot box). But the nutroots hate for Fox was too great to allow for anything but a good old fashioned "burn at the stake" bbq.

Taking a stand is not a bad thing. But the nutroots seem to go from 0-jihad with very little provocation and less analysis of the big picture than I would think is healthy in anyone I would want to associate with or to hand power to. I left the democrats 11 or so years ago because I saw this road being paved, and I am sad that my prediction has come true. I keep a close eye and ear on the fundie wing of the republicans for the same reasons.

Public opinion on the Iraq ... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

Public opinion on the Iraq war seems to ebb and flow; if the "surge" is successful folks will change their minds yet again. What is a killer is the general anti-war sentiment within the kook left.

Americans may not be entirely satisfied with how the war in Iraq has been managed, but I guarantee you they aren't thrilled by the prospect of Congress trying to limit Bush's military options on Iran. Nor do I think they'll embrace a return to the Clinton approach of random missle strikes and a law enforcement approach to terrorism.

I, for one, welcome the new big-D Democratic overlords. If Kos's oh-for endorsement record in general elections has taught us anything, it's that what seems normal to the Kos Kids is a loser with John Q Public.

Besides, where does it say you need to be tough enough to appear on Fox News to be tough enough to deal with Iran, DPRK, Sudan, etc.? Or maybe it's a perfect illustration of the Dems surrender mentality. When the only things you are committed to fighting are things that can't fight back - like global warming or poverty - you start to look like a bunch of pussies.

"Let me know when you have ... (Below threshold)
yo:

"Let me know when you have persuasive evidence that it's had any lasting effect on a substantial number of the "non-political" types."

I dunno if it has any lasting effects, but why listen to the fringe, play by their rules and risk alienating your party from the swing voters?

Though, you could look at Ned Lamont and extrapolate some sort of conclusion. That strategy did an Elmer Fudd back-fire which blew off Ned's hunting cap and left his face covered in soot.

Whatever happened to him, anyway?

Anyone ever mention a 'vast... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Anyone ever mention a 'vast (far) left wing' conspiracy?

My observations:Pr... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

My observations:

Principled anti-war stance: "I'm opposed to this war, and I think Bush was wrong to get us involved. That being said, we're there now and we have an obligation to do it right, which Bush does not seem to be doing to the best of our ability."

Nutroot version "Bushhitler lied!! Impeach NOW! [insert demand for exact opposite of any administration plan, no matter if said plan is identical to that called for by rootnut previously]"

Well, Publicus, the proof w... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Well, Publicus, the proof will come after the next election.

Not that the shortsighted people that make up the left will be convinced to make rational decisions based on long-term goals, but there it is.

The only people who are ... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

The only people who are upset about it are people who would never vote for the Dem for president anyway.

SCSIwuzzy's analysis is right about this, but I would take it a bit further. The nutroots only damage themselves because they draw false conclusions from thir actions. In the case of Ned Lamont, they believed that an electoral victory in a partisan primary was the same as winning the general election. Clearly, it wasn't. The partisans who carried the day in the primary were later outnumbered, and Lamont paid the price for it.

While the Kossacks may feel that the American people are on their side on the issue of the war (and I think that's debatable,) they will make the mistake of believing that agreement on one issue constitutes agreement on all issues. Just wait. It will happen. With this much time to go before the election, they will screw up bbig time and the Democrats will pay for it. The Kossacks are just too full of themselves.

30% of Democrats think Bush... (Below threshold)
Robert the original:

30% of Democrats think Bush blew up the WTC.

Even more have endorsed the Tinkerbell Plan.

The Tinkerbell Plan:

1) Withdraw troops to Okinawa
2) Close eyes and believe in fairies

___

Now, some of the smart ones may have lately realized how truely wacked this stuff is (Koppel, Obey, Lieberman, Davis, WP) but we can only hope that the Dem. candidates will keep lurching left.

The reason the Nutroots don... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

The reason the Nutroots don't see a problem with this is that they are a minority, they know it, and they still want to full control.

Basically they don't give a rats ass about Democracy or popular rule. They view themselves as some class of elites and deserving of control.

These guys are on a secular-political jihad that has zero tolerance for dissent. It's better to view them and what they'll do next based on religious fanaticism than logic.

Robert ..., calling Obey "s... (Below threshold)
yo:

Robert ..., calling Obey "smart" simply because he realizes the nutroots are off their buckets isn't quite right.

Broken clock theory in full effect. He's not sitting squarely on his bucket, either.

It always cracks me up when... (Below threshold)
Lee:

It always cracks me up when the far-right wingnuts on Wizbang act as if they are in the mainstream -- as if what you wackjobs think has any resemblance to what Americans in general think.

"Publicus, it's not about who gets "upset." It's about the image this gives the Democrats as nut-jobs among the non-political types who make up most of the voting population."

That's right - it's all about votes you fruitloops... and here's what real Americans are thinking:

A majority of Republicans are not satisfied with the GOP presidential candidates running for the party's nomination in 2008 and would like more choices, a new poll reveals.

In the CBS News/New York Times survey of 1,362 adults nationwide, 57 percent of Republican primary voters said they want more candidates in the field, while 40 percent said they were satisfied with the current slate of GOP presidential hopefuls.

In contrast, 57 percent of Democratic primary voters said they are satisfied with the Democratic candidates, and only 39 percent want more choices.

Democrats are also more confident that a candidate from their party will win the White House in 2008 -- 84 percent of Democratic primary voters expect a Democrat to win next year, while 8 percent believe a Republican will win.

Among Republicans, 50 percent believe a GOP candidate will win, and 36 percent say a Democrat will prevail.

Overall, 61 percent of those surveyed expect a Democrat to win, and 26 percent expect a Republican victory.

Check back next week and we'll see if those numbers change.

Hey Lee, are the folks who ... (Below threshold)
yo:

Hey Lee, are the folks who respond to the polls you site the same type of folks who post the following in comments sections?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3097.html

by Toast on 03.14.2007 at 07:44 AM

Faux Noise picks boogers.

Faux Noise viewers eat booger sandwiches.

I don't see the Democrats a... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

I don't see the Democrats as any more "radical" than they were when they won majorities in the House and Senate in November. If not appearing on a Fox News hosted debate is the big change...

What are the radical policies being pushed by Kos? Not appearing on Fox "News" in Nevada certainly doesn't qualify. Supporting a candidate who opposes the war in Iraq in a Democratic primary doesn't qualify either.

you could show me a poll to... (Below threshold)
tj:

you could show me a poll tomorrow that said the planet would burn up like marshmellow and i still would not belive a thing a cbs/nyt poll said. a poll indeed :P

Well, Publicus, th... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
Well, Publicus, the proof will come after the next election.

I think the proof came in the last election.

Since when do real America... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Since when do real Americans pay attention to the far left Times, or CBS?

CBS has already proven itself to be the 'Tass' of North America, a propaganda arm of the far left. (See Rather, Dan) NYT has a decades long history of liberalism.

That you refer to them as 'real' only enforces the idea that youre so far IN to the far left ideology, you cant be objective anymore.

Posted by: Publicus at Marc... (Below threshold)
yo:

Posted by: Publicus at March 14, 2007 02:15 PM

Indeed. Moderate democrats were voted in and doddering old republicans voted out.

Proof being: the public wanted a change and thought to give the dems a shot. But not the looney ones.

Blue dogs in, Lamont ... not so much.

Hence, the point of this entire discussion.

Time will tell Junior.<br /... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Time will tell Junior.
At this time in the 1992 cycle, Clinton polled at 8 % (go ahead, prove me wrong BG2k; I expect crickets from you) and conventional wisdom had the election in Bush 41's pocket.

Remember, it ain't over till it's over

Jay Tea,The nation... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Jay Tea,

The nation won't even skip a beat doing without the coverage of candidates debate hosted by hate TV Fox news.

Those who count on Fox news for anything more than right wing fundie trash talk can go pick their nose in the corner. All the rest of us will live just fine without you.

"pick their nose in the cor... (Below threshold)
yo:

"pick their nose in the corner"


What's up with the booger theme, today?

CB, I don't see Fox trying to stifle speech, or rolling about in hate-mongering swill as does Moveon and their ilk.

What say you?

Actually, Lee, I know my vi... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Actually, Lee, I know my views aren't in the mainstream, nor are they represented accurately by either the right or the left. I've seen well-done polls turn out to be wildly wrong, and I've seen wild-ass guesses turn out correct, and place my bets on neither therefore.

We need both political parties strong enough to beat the bad apples out of both, but it's not happening.

And for the record, among the major political planks, I am:
100% pro-2nd amendment as supporting individual rights to keep and bear arms, but not a gun owner (currently).
Reluctantly pro-choice, because the alternative is worse.
Pro-same sex marriage, because it's not the governments business, nor is it Mrs. Grundys.
Pro-legalization of marijuana, because it's no better or worse than tobacco and alcohol, and wastes valuable law enforcement resources, however I am no pot smoker.
Pro-state and federal school funding, and would prefer a voucher system to reward stronger schools.
Pro-social safety net, give people having a bad time of it a break, while assuring that it is not taken advantage of.
Anti-high taxes, because it's been amply demonstrated that higher taxes are counterproductive to everyone except Congresscritters.
And, of course, 100% pro-defense. Support our military, keep it strong, and when we send our troops in harms way, back them all the way to victory.

Since when do real... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
Since when do real Americans pay attention to the far left Times, or CBS?

What's "far left"? Opposition to the war in Iraq? Or requiring warrants when our government spies on people?

Also, you're dreaming if you think the last election was a big triumph of "blue dog" democrats over some alleged radical fringe...

BTW --Thanks for i... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

BTW --

Thanks for insulting the millions who watch CBS and read the Times as being not real Americans...

Yeah, people who oppose YOUR particular views can't be real Americans...

Good grief Publicus. The 2... (Below threshold)
Rick:

Good grief Publicus. The 2006 elections revealed two things, neither earth-shaking:  that the country is both war-weary and incumbent-weary.  2008 is an entirely new ballgame, holding infinitely more meaning than the last, off-cycle election.  With no Bush to campaign against the Democrats are in the same ideological morass that they have been in for the last 20 years:  having to go in front of an American electorate and explain what they actually stand for.  Good luck there, friend.

The two wildcards are progress in Iraq and who gets the GOP nomination.  I honestly believe that it almost doesn't matter who the Dems nominate, although if it's Hillary then even a weak GOP nominee should have an easy ride.  If the surge produces tangible gains for the mission (which I expect) then the only hope for the Democrat nominee is if the GOP nominates another Dole.  My money's on the eloquence, principled conservatism and campaign savvy of Newt Gingrich, with the resulting nutroots meltdown at such an outcome producing the political spectacle of a lifetime.

John Irving -- Thanks for t... (Below threshold)
Lee:

John Irving -- Thanks for taking the time to outline your positions, and I agree that both sides of the aisle are making a pretty poor showing here as far as giving us candidates who are truly "presidential". I've been an open critic of Hillary from the start, and I think Edwards and Obama are seriously lacking as well. This election is shaping up to be a dismal choice of the lesser of many evils, as usual.

What I found interesting about the poll I cited above is that we see other poll results showing Guiliani beating Hillary (and Obama and Edwards) head-to-head, but in the poll I cited above we see different perceptions from Republicans as far as whihc party Republicans think will actually win.

I think that suggests that Republicans will vote for Guiliani over Clinton, but they think a Democrat (apparently someone other than Clinton/Obama/Edwards) will ultimately emerge and win.

Interesting....I think this suggests that swing Republicans are expecting a Democrat other than Clinton/Obama/Edwards to emerge, and that they will support that candidate. Given Guiliani's moderate positions in a lot of areas, this move in Republicans' perception away from Guiliani as a "winner" suggests the conservative right is continuing to shrink even more - something I've said since the day after last November's election. Thats why I have such fun prodding the dinosaurs around here who still don't have a clue as they suggest that "America will strike down the Democrats" for the actions of netroots - etc.

I wrote: "It always cracks me up when the far-right wingnuts on Wizbang act as if they are in the mainstream -- as if what you wackjobs think has any resemblance to what Americans in general think." - and by that I wasn't referring to every Republican on Wizbang - just the nutcakes who take extreme positions.

From your positions on the issues you outlined it's clear that doesn't include you. My apologies if I put you on the defensive. That wasn't my intention.

John Irving, You say, you'r... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

John Irving, You say, you're 100% pro-defense and I assume pro the current Pentagon.back them all the way to victory Yes, but when their restrictive policies collides wth your liberal social views where do you fall? What do you think about this defense pace we are pursing in Middle East? I would suggest one reason we won all the battles but lost the war in Vietnam was that our attitude towards the Viet Cong and the Vietnamese was as one G.I. reflected on the lessons of Basic Training "The only thing they told us about the Viet Cong was they were gooks. They were to be killed" and here is our progress to what has gone wrong with Iraq. It's Vietnam redux Bigotry that hurts our military No wonder we will continue to win most of the battles with massive firepower, but most probably lose the overall war with limited brainpower.

The liberals are just plain... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

The liberals are just plain afraid to have their views challenged. Fox will go on and gather stronger ratings. The lefties look pathetic AGAIN. ww

Are we talking about the sa... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Are we talking about the same Fox News that put up a graphic labeling Foley as a Democrat?

The same Fox News that writes checks to Ann Coulter?

You guys are nuts if you think anyone takes Fox News seriously. It's like watching cartoons...

Here's my take on the issue... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Here's my take on the issue: we on the left and you on the right need to get over ourselves. Most of the country doesn't give a rat's patooee who broadcasts a debate.

The nutroots no more control the democratic party than do the wingnuts who live here at Wizbang control the republican party.

Fox is no more right, than ... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Fox is no more right, than the alphabet networks, AP and NY Times is left.

There was a question a while back challenging libs to verify how many (R) on any of the lib networks, vs how many (D) on Fox. NONE stepped up, as we all expected.

Saw a segment the other day on fox with Laura Schwartz and Lanny Davis. Guess Fox must be pandering to Dems now right?

You guys are nuts ... (Below threshold)
You guys are nuts if you think anyone takes Fox News seriously. It's like watching cartoons... Posted by: Lee at March 14, 2007 04:54 PM

Then why are you afraid Lee? Why not debate on Fox? If it's so cartoonish, why not let the "cartoon" watchers decides if the democratic nominees would any of the same opinions?

Why are you afraid donkeys?

The nutroots no m... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
The nutroots no more control the democratic party than do the wingnuts who live here at Wizbang control the republican party

Um,

From the MoveOn PAC team,

Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back."
Link

This is one case where I will agree with the nutroots at MoveOn.

"Then why are you afraid... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Then why are you afraid Lee? Why not debate on Fox? "

You forgot to make the "cluck cluck" sound, Steve.

Fox isn't a real news channel, Steve - quit posing. This is the channel that thinks it's funny to label Congressman Foley a Democrat.

By appearing on FAUX it lends to the channel an air of legitimacy, and is therefore a disservice to the voters of America. Those voters with a brain anyway, which by definition is those interested in the Democratic candidates.

It's kind of like appearing in a debate on the Cartoon Channel.

Now make the "cluck cluck" sound, Steve, and show everybody how wrong I am about you big, grown up TeleRepubbies...

I think Fox's hatchet job o... (Below threshold)

I think Fox's hatchet job on Barack Obama pretty much set the tone for how they will cover the upcoming campaign. It's a free country, the Democrats should boycott Fox if they want and the Republicans should boycott whoever they want.

People who are interested enough to watch the Nevada Democratic debate will simply click their remote through the channels until they find the one that's showing it. It's absurd to think that people who really want to see the debate won't watch it if it's on MSNBC instead of Fox.

Bottom line is: the Democrats just don't need Fox.

And neither do the rest of us for that matter.

Lee, it must madden you to ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Lee, it must madden you to no end that Fox gets so many more people to watch it then the networks you swear by.

Hey, you guys are so into throwing the polling numbers around: By the same token, since Fox has more viewers it must be more mainstream, right?

Publicus, since you don't see the Democrat party any differently after they ran from public debate on the largest news channel, you really aren't the mainstream person I was talking about. Not even close.

Oh Lee you are so funny.</p... (Below threshold)

Oh Lee you are so funny.

Fox labels Foley a Democrat, and somehow I suppose this is worse than CBS concocting a completely fraudulent story about Bush's TANG service during an election?

And you have the nerve to complain that FOX is biased?

Please. Stop the comedy routine. Yer killin' me here.

Uh, Lee, aside from the abo... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Uh, Lee, aside from the above question about why you get worked up if they aren't to be taken seriously... here is somebody that does: Harold Ford, Jr

As for who else may take them seriously: Viewers
Here's the latest ad-supported (excludes pay only like HBO and Showtime) cable newtork rankings
1) USA
2) TNT
3) Fox News
4) TBS
5) Lifetime

Hmmm.
Just looking at the newsies
FNC 851
CNN 457
MSNBC 273
CNBC 247

Hmmm. I guess the viewers and the advertisers take them seriously.

Fox isn't a real ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Fox isn't a real news channel, Steve - quit posing. This is the channel that thinks it's funny to label Congressman Foley a Democrat

Funny how this one tiny incident where Foley had a (D) next to his name has become the left's only talking point on how Fox is biased.

Yet every broadcast on Fox News described Foley as a Republican.

Then you have people like Lee here posing like he was confused over the matter because this briefly happened. You know, since before this he was such a big Fox News fan until he discovered this blatant attempt to cover Foley's political affiliation.

There's No Conspiracy Behind an Error at Fox News

Now I would say you had a point if they did something like put a big "X" over the face of a prominent Democrat leader while he was speaking. Luckily that never happened anywhere, right?

Steve , please , just STFU... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Steve , please , just STFU.

"I would suggest one reason we won all the battles but lost the war in Vietnam was..."

You don't need to suggest shit. You just need to shut your whiny liberal lying ass and suffer as our Country succeeds and progresses with out infantile emotional outbursts from incompetants.

The United States of America does not lose wars. Nor do we accept defeat being cried out by those treasonous cowards a world away from the battlefield. YOU YOURSELF admit we have won all battles.


"I would suggest one reason we won all the battles"
"No wonder we will continue to win most of the battles with massive firepower".

How is it remotely possible for the USA to actually lose a war? That laughable possibility would begin with comments and thinking like this.


"What do you think about this defense pace we are pursing in Middle East?"

"one reason we won all the battles but lost the war in Vietnam was that our attitude towards the Viet Cong and the Vietnamese"

"and here is our progress to what has gone wrong with Iraq. It's Vietnam redux Bigotry that hurts our military"

"but most probably lose the overall war with limited brainpower."

"limited brainpower"

It's the limited brainpower of emotional incompetant cowards in the criminal democrat party. That is the greatest threat to our Country of ever having to suffer and accept defeat.

What really burns you emotional pusssies is the fact that you are useless , been rejected and can't stand the fact that your failed feel good fraud will never be as effective as the threat or use of "MASSIVE FIREPOWER."

Democrats are the ones who "CAN'T ACCEPT DEFEAT" . Can't accept that FACT there are things greater than them. There are greater and smarter people than them with the knowledge to use that MASSIVE FIREPOWER" to protect and defend this Great Country of ours. The psychosis and deluded mental capacity of the BDS suffering democrats has reached its climax.

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY "IS" A PERPETUAL FRAUD.

It must continue for it is the lifes blood of the Party of Democrats. Democrats and their loyal flock who disgrace our Country and this site have only one objective , perpetuate their fraud to deceive , distort and divide. Taking back power and holding on to it "SAYING ANYTHING" and "DOING WHAT EVER IT TAKES" to get them where they believe only they belong , in "COMPLETE POWER". Just as they openly proclaim the issue of Social Security as belonging to them. Only then can they once again experience true happiness and sudden flooring bouts of orgasmic jubilation as they bask and revel over their ill gotten gains.

"Hmmm. I guess the viewe... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Hmmm. I guess the viewers and the advertisers take them seriously."

Yep - there's a sucker born every minute, SCSI.

So do good ratings make them a legitimate news channel? Naw - it just means there's a lot of ill-informed people out there who prefer Faux News to real news...

How does Faux News ratings compare to ABC, CBS, and NBC? I think we're talking about spit here, SCSI. That's about the size of it.... but if you think it's really good spit -- spit that's worth watching -- you go right ahead.

The rest of America knows better. How does it feel to be so marginalized that you have your own news channel - one that normal people don't respect? America is laughing at Faux News - and you're the only one who cares - not me...

Why are all the libtards s... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Why are all the libtards so afraid of Fox?

Guess after decades of the media spewing the Dem party line, theyre used to having it their own way?

Edwards was on Fox over 25 times, and never mentioned prior to this month that they were biased in their coverage. Dolt #2, aka last Dem pres sacrificie, err, candidate, says that yeah, eh should have went on Fox.

I dont think anyone here says Fox is far left, but damn, the constant whining about them makes many think the left is afraid that the media actually offers a view somehow different than Tass, aka the lib MSM.

The rest of Americ... (Below threshold)
The rest of America knows better. How does it feel to be so marginalized that you have your own news channel - one that normal people don't respect? America is laughing at Faux News - and you're the only one who cares - not me... Posted by: Lee at March 14, 2007 06:45 PM

Well golly gee Lee, I hope you're not watching it at all...sure would hate that you'd miss Keith Olbermann and his one man sycophant show where he allows ZERO opinion other than his own. Or go watch Katie, she really needs you Lee.

Ever have the thought cross that little brain of yours that a lot of us on the right don't have the time or need to watch Fox 24/7 and we get our news from MANY different sources?


"I hope you're not watch... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"I hope you're not watching it at all"

I'm not, Steve, thanks for asking.

"Ever have the thought cross that little brain of yours that a lot of us on the right don't have the time or need to watch Fox 24/7 and we get our news from MANY different sources?"

Judging from the similarities between you and Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh I'd say you're a good little cowboy and you always watch Faux News, Steve. You are plainly their target audience.

You won't see the Nevada Democrats' debate on Faux, and be honest Stevie, do you really care? Aren't you just be a loud mouth sycophant, Stevie - just like the fake newscasters on Faux News?

Lee, go back to botany clas... (Below threshold)

Lee, go back to botany class. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Fox News: Cable news network. 24/7 schedule.

MSNBC/CNBC/CNN: Cable news networks. 24/7 schedules.

ABC/NBC/CBS: Broadcast networks. Morning shows, evening broadast, news programs and specials, a couple hours a day max, hundreds of affiliates.

Fox Broadcasting: Broadcast networks. Minimal news coverage.

Fox News' ratings almost beat out the other three cable news networks COMBINED. Fox Broadcasting regularly beats the other three networks.

The Republicans should be thrilled with the Democrats' cheerfully snubbing the biggest cable news outlet. And as far as the Air America stunt... I say let if they can guarantee enough listeners, go for it. But make them admit just how pathetic their audience is.

As others have noted, Fox routinely welcomes in people from all across the political spectrum. When was the last time Olberman hosted a dissenter?

J.

"Among Republicans, 50 perc... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"Among Republicans, 50 percent believe a GOP candidate will win, and 36 percent say a Democrat will prevail.

Overall, 61 percent of those surveyed expect a Democrat to win, and 26 percent expect a Republican victory."

"So do good ratings make them a legitimate news channel? Naw - it just means there's a lot of ill-informed people out there who prefer Faux News to real news..."
All by Lee.
Liberals love pointing out when people agree with them in any significant number. But the minute they don't they're all "a lot of ill-informed people."

Fox isn't a real ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Fox isn't a real news channel, Steve - quit posing. This is the channel that thinks it's funny to label Congressman Foley a Democrat

Opps, turns out AP accidentally labeled Foley a Democrat also.

Dammit all to hell, another news source you have to boycott.

AP Calls Foley a Democrat

Steve of Norway, Lee like... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Steve of Norway, Lee like his party if Dictators just can't help but to think they know what other poeple think. It's not as if it takes much longer for them to give it some actual thought or facts to back them than it would to just outright lie. They have the perpetual fraud on their side working 24/7.

"The rest of America knows better. How does it feel to be so marginalized that you have your own news channel - one that normal people don't respect? America is laughing at Faux News - and you're the only one who cares - not me... Posted by: Lee at March 14, 2007 06:45 PM"

WOW! The rambling of an idiot who is the only one that knows what he is talking about and does care. "Not me"? Yes you. You are deffinitely not "NORMAL PEOPLE".

Explain why all democrat media outlets advertise of FOX NEWS CHANNEL?

Lee, ignore the typo and ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Lee, ignore the typo and answer the question.

Opps, turns out AP... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
Opps, turns out AP accidentally labeled Foley a Democrat also.

Ummm...who said accidentally? Fox "News" frequently makes "mistakes" favorable to Republicans and smearing Democrats. (They never make mistakes favorable to Democrats. BTW...do they ever issue corrections?)

This is why many of us see it as an extension of the GOP...and certainly not a news organization.

Publicus, so you're claimin... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Publicus, so you're claiming that AP purposely labeled Foley a Dem?

Interesting theory, Publicu... (Below threshold)

Interesting theory, Publicus... can you cite some concrete examples?

Here's a model you can follow...

J.

This is why many o... (Below threshold)
This is why many of us see it as an extension of the GOP...and certainly not a news organization. Posted by: Publicus at March 14, 2007 08:06 PM

By the that sweeping generalization about a news channel presenting stories that most of the other MSM won't EVER touch, that's a badge of honor, but taking your assertion about Fox being an extention of the GOP and not being a news organization? Hell man, most people don't take the DNC seriously anymore for being the Nutroots/Kos/Soros toadies...

You take last November's results way too much in assuming people want to just pull out of Iraq. The American People(as you like to call them) want us to win there, not pull out and cause even more harm for doing so.

For starters:<a hr... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
You take last Nove... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
You take last November's results way too much in assuming people want to just pull out of Iraq. The American People(as you like to call them) want us to win there, not pull out and cause even more harm for doing so.

Any evidence for that assertion? Or just wishful thinking?

Any ideas on how to win a civil war where WE are the foreigner? (Hint: the natives aren't going "home".) How many more of our troops (who you "support") will be maimed or killed while we continue this mistake?

But wait, there's more! You... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

But wait, there's more! You can regularly read about the lies, distortions and propaganda invented by Fox "News" at http://www.newshounds.us/

You might also enjoy this: ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

You might also enjoy this: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=9197

I could do this all night...but I'd rather not...

Nope, no agenda there pubes... (Below threshold)

Nope, no agenda there pubes...

SLeeve --Of course... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

SLeeve --

Of course, you won't ever read anything you disagree with, but guys on this blog are forever pointing me to their "experts"...

Yeah, my citations aren't unbiased...like Drudge, Malkin, Rush, etc...and especially Fox...

Well, if you have unbiased ... (Below threshold)

Well, if you have unbiased info on CNN,NBC,ABC,CBS, The NY Times and MSNBC as well, you'd have something then.

The lie-alleger-in-chief se... (Below threshold)

The lie-alleger-in-chief seems to believe that the Fox audience is made up exclusively of right wing zealots. This is of course convenient for him, so that he can flail away in his obtuse ignorance without regard for the accuracy of his slanders.

Of course, he would refuse to admit that the Fox News audience is considerably more far-flung than he perceives -- but surely all of these people must not have the gift of omniscience that is his alone.

Too bad he doesn't exercise his discernment a little more carefully while he masturbates to Katie after supper.

I could do this a... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
I could do this all night...but I'd rather not...

I don't blame you. If I was a lefty I wouldn't want to undertake that job either. Afterall, just Google "Right Wing News bias" and then "Left Wing News Bias" and there is no comparison.

Everything under "Right Wing Bias" is lefty blogs critcizing Fox News, whereas "Left Wing Bias" encompasses just about every other MSM network, newspaper and magazine.

The best any one of the lefty persuation can muster up is out of context "Fox News Bias". I see you found it and posted as proof.

It would take me weeks to post every legitimate example of left wing bias that is out there. Here is a "in a nutshell" catch all for you...

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co?author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter
Jumpinjoe --Well, ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Jumpinjoe --

Well, since you found a UCLA political scientist who agrees with you...that settles it!

"I keep a close eye and ear... (Below threshold)

"I keep a close eye and ear on the fundie wing of the republicans for the same reasons"

SCSI, why would you do this? The "fundie wing" as you so condescendingly call it, wins elections for the GOP, the exact opposite of the Nutroots effect on their party. When the religious right stays home, we get Pelosi as Speaker of the House. The Dems did not win the 06 election, the GOP lost it because it lost the trust of the evangelical and Catholic vote. As the GOP moves left, it loses elections. This is historical fact.

GW is, for all intents and purposes, left of center. The only reason he won the last two presidential elections is because the Dems put up losers lefties for their candidate. Had the "fundie" vote turned out in the numbers it did when Reagan ran and when Newt staged his impressive takeover of congress, Bush would have won by a landslide both times and Pelosi would still be in the minority. Had the Dems put up candidates with less baggage and looniness than Gore or Kerry, Bush would have easily gone down to defeat.

By the way, for most of the life of this country, presidents were more conservative than even the conservatives that frequent this blog. The country has continued to move left over the last century. It is not as left as Kos and Co. think but as long as the GOP runs RINOs it will continue to be ruled by the Dems.

Well, since you f... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Well, since you found a UCLA political scientist who agrees with you...that settles it!

It's not as simplistic as "a" (singular) UCLA political scientist.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants -- most of them college students -- to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years
The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias -- or the appearance of same -- in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

Like I said, I just posted this as a "catch all" because there are literally hundreds and hundreds of legitimate left wing bias stories verses the left's attacks directed solely at Fox News.

Poor old "pucker puss" (lee... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Poor old "pucker puss" (lee lee) (RTP (RM) sounds more like Alan Combs (on FOX NEWS of all places!) every post he makes now. He had better watch out that old "eyebrow" dosen't sue him for trying to take his job as the offical EXCUSE maker for the moonbats. Must be dishearting to be a second string excuse maker. Hang in there p'p'. If old "eyebrow"'s eyebrow ever reaches his hairline, his head will explode. Then just think, you will be #1!!!!!!

Since the leftists like pol... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Since the leftists like polls so much:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

It's kind of like appea... (Below threshold)
marc:

It's kind of like appearing in a debate on the Cartoon Channel.Posted by: Lee at March 14, 2007 06:10 PM

Again, I post this. Last time you are your fellow travellers utterly failed to address it. This is the transcript of the 2003 debate hosted by Fox.

What is biased about it.

Jumpinjoe --FYI...... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Jumpinjoe --

FYI...your unbiased study showing that Fox "News" (sic) is not right-wing was by a senior fellow at the (completely objective) Cato Institute.

BTW - do you guys also beli... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

BTW - do you guys also believe that Druge leans left? Because that's the conclusion of that scholarly objective study by the brilliant guys from UCLA.

I am confused...what is the... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

I am confused...what is the difference between Kos and LGF? Both preach to their choir..some folks go to Kos to get verbal ammunition to verbally fire at the Wingnuts...some folks go to LGF to to get ammunition to fire at the moonbats...

As someone who is increasingly moving left..
a simple question...would some post 3 well known established positions of the moonbats...no comment just positions..
I cannot name 3 positions that are embraced by everyone of the "wingnuts" so I don't pretend to know...

At some point in time can we move away from labels...Someone asks "What kind of music do you like?" The spectrum is too large..maybe someday it can be as simple as "What bands do you like and why?" ...or "What candidate do you support and why?"....
but we are a lazy nation..set on Brand Names and stereotypes.....on All sides....

"I don't think the Dems ... (Below threshold)
Don:

"I don't think the Dems pulling out of the Fox News hosting of a debate will have any discernible effect on the election. The only people who are upset about it are people who would never vote for the Dem for president anyway."

Pulling out is stupid, at least if Democrats want to do well in the election. Those who won't vote for a Democrat are not upset, trust me on that.

"I am confused...what is the difference between Kos and LGF? Both preach to their choir..some folks go to Kos to get verbal ammunition to verbally fire at the Wingnuts...some folks go to LGF to to get ammunition to fire at the moonbats..."

Kos attempts to control Democratic politics, while LGF takes down left wing media.

So far, it looks like Kos has been making things worse for the Democrats, while LGF has definitly done well for the Republicans.

Perhaps long term the Kos approach is better, but I doubt it.

Publicus,Drudge is... (Below threshold)
Don:

Publicus,

Drudge is an internet portal, not a blog. While Drudge leans right, his ratings in the study are based upon the stories he links too, which mostly lean left. The study in fact points that out.

From the study:... (Below threshold)
Don:

From the study:

Another result, which appears anomalous, is not so anomalous upon further examination. This is the estimate for the Drudge Report, which at 60.4, places it approximately in the middle of our mix of media outlets and approximately as liberal as a typical Southern Democrat, such as John Breaux (D-La.). We should emphasize that this estimate reflects both the news flashes that Matt Drudge reports and the news stories to which his site links on other web sites. In fact, of the entire 311 think-tank citations we found in the Drudge Report, only five came from reports written by Matt Drudge. Thus, for all intents and purposes, our estimate for the Drudge Report refers only to the articles to which the Report links on other web sites. Although the conventional wisdom often asserts that the Drudge Report is relatively conservative, we believe that the conventional wisdom would also assert that--if confined only to the news stories to which the Report links on other web sites--this set would have a slant approximately equal to the average slant of all media outlets, since, after all, it is comprised of stories from a broad mix of other outlets.[29]




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy