DOWNLOADS: (416)

PLAYS: (1231)

Embed

On Fox's answer to Howie Kurtz's hackery on CNN, Fox News Watch, conservative columnist and regular there Cal Thomas proudly celebrated Rupert Murdoch's ability to fool enough gullible Americans into thinking that Fox is anything besides a propaganda arm of the Republican Party and the fact that more people tuned into their network than their competitors during the mid-term elections.

SCOTT: USA Today started the coverage the day after the election with this headline, “Now What?” Cal I know you wrote a column about this, but does this apply to the voters? Or does this apply to the media? I’m not sure the media know what to make of this mid-term.

THOMAS: Jon, as you go through the numbers that you just had on the screen it’s very clear that MSMRIP; mainstream media is no longer mainstream. Fox is the dominant force in broadcast news today. There’s just no question about it. And most of the voters have figured this out. Jim mentioned the Dan Rather thing.

That was probably the beginning point of the people realizing that they could talk back to the media establishment. Now they no longer have to talk back. They’re irrelevant. Nobody watches them any more.

Thomas seems to have that Palin victim card down pat here doesn't he? Fox is just giving a voice to the little guy and fightin' against that "lame stream media" that just wants to keep the Republicans down and keep their voices from being heard. Thomas obviously assumes that none of the viewers of Fox News Watch are paying any attention to just whose interests his bosses are looking out for and it isn't the dupes who actually think they're a news organization or that represent the working class in America.

The rest of our corporate media isn't running too far behind them, but for anyone at Fox to be claiming that they're somehow "mainstream" compared to the rest of them is laughable. That's only true if "mainstream" equals ratings rather than telling their viewers the truth or covering issues that might actually matter when it comes to their economic interests.

I'm trying to remember who said it and maybe someone else can help me out here. Someone on the left and I'm thinking it might be Thom Hartmann talked to a reporter who covered the USSR and said that the one big difference between the Russians and Americans today is that most Russians knew that Pravda was propaganda. Sadly most Americans don't realize that the better part of what our corporate media is or not is telling them is just that, propaganda to benefit the wealthy and keep the viewers distracted about issues that matter, with Fox leading the way.

If you didn't already see it, here's Keith's Special Comment on the "Tea Party" and a reminder for this upcoming election of why everyone needs to get out there and vote.

It's almost twenty minutes long and you can read the entire transcript here.

DOWNLOADS: (316)

PLAYS: (1340)

Embed

After DCCC Chairman Rep. Chris Van Hollen points out that the Democrats are out performing Republicans in many of the districts which allow early voting Mrs. Greenspan decides to read straight from the Republican talking points memo of the week.

Mitchell: Well, although Republicans put out the word yesterday that you should be careful for what you wish for because some of those Democrats who are turning out early could be Democrats who are voting against you.

Van Hollen lets her know that there isn't any polling data to support that, but I'm sure that won't stop Andrea Mitchell and the rest of the beltway Villagers from allowing this to become the new conventional wisdom from now until the elections next Tuesday. It sounds like she's already making excuses for flawed election results if these rigged machines don't match up with voter turnout and exit polls on election day. I'm also tired of the concerted effort by the media to suppress the Democratic vote by telling everyone the races are already lost before election day. The Democrats very well may not hold the House but the Villagers are doing their best to make sure that happens.

Mitchell then went on to downplay the outside anonymous groups donating to conservatives by comparing that to the Democrats' war chest. As Van Hollen explained:

There's a huge difference these big monied special interests that are pouring money into races and money that candidates spend which is both limited and transparent and that's what the voters don't like.

We need to be getting all of the money out with publicly funded elections but our lovely Supreme Court opened the floodgates to make things even worse instead no matter how much the Villagers like Mitchell want to pretend this is just business as usual. Most voters don't like our politicians being bought whether it's transparent who's doing the buying or not. Unfortunately we're not seeing Democrats take the opportunity to make the case for public financing. If this election cycle doesn't wake them up to the fact that our badly broken system needs to be fixed, I don't know what will.

DOWNLOADS: (442)

PLAYS: (2350)

Embed

After Vice President Joe Biden asked the Democratic base to "buck up" and "quit whining" but still be sure to get out and vote in the mid-term elections, the response from a lot of the Democratic base was unsurprisingly less than enthusiastic. Lawrence O'Donnell talked to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee's Adam Green about President Obama's interview in Rolling Stone.

As Green noted, no one is telling the Democratic base not to go out and vote this year and none of us wants to see the Republican Party back in power to run the country off the cliff again. That said, what we liberals did want to see was the Obama administration fight for progressive ideals and as Green said, not making backroom sweetheart deals with Joe Lieberman when they needed him. Especially since when they needed Dennis Kucinich to go along with them, they actively campaigned in his district to put pressure on him to vote for the health care bill. They didn't use the bully-pulpit and public pressure to get the Blue Dog Conserva-Dems in line but they were more than happy to do it to undermine their progressive base. If they think that's a strategy to motivate the base to get out there and vote for them this year, they're sadly mistaken.

And all of that doesn't even begin to address the fact that they haven't gone after the Bush administration for their crimes and are continuing way too many of those policies like warrantless wiretapping, drone attacks, our occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo and the list goes on and on.

Unlike Republicans, liberals and the Democratic base are not going to support policies just because the leadership of the Democratic Party wants us to support them. "Because they're better than Republicans" is not as strong a motivation as actually standing strong for progressive principles. I think most of us who follow politics understand fully the kind of obstruction they're up against and that given that, they're lucky to have gotten anything passed. But there's no question that few liberal principles even make it to the table in fear of that obstruction.

I think there's a debate to be had over whether they would have gotten anything passed had they gone after the Bush administration, or had they pushed harder for a progressive agenda. Maybe that would have meant maybe a Lieberman bolting and caucusing with the Republicans or who knows what kind of reaction out of the Republicans and corporate Democrats, as though what we're seeing already isn't bad enough.

Cenk Uygur came on Dylan Ratigan's show for his daily rant segment and the video is below the fold. Cenk responded to Biden's comments about bucking up and not whining.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (519)

PLAYS: (1820)

Embed

Chris Hayes explains to Rachel Maddow why John Boehner is hedging on whether he'd support voting for the middle class tax cuts as he conceded during his interview on Face the Nation last weekend. He knows full well the Senate won't pass it and it gives cover to any of the Republicans in the House that want to vote for it as well. If he's right then Republicans are counting on voters being completely uninformed about what they're doing if they think this strategy is going to pay off with the electorate in the mid-terms.

MADDOW: So, did we just have a big Republican wobble on this issue?

Is their position clear now?

HAYES: I think it is very unclear. But I think part of it has to do with the different political calculations for the different houses. If you‘re John Boehner, you know, all of your members are up for re-election. There is a kind of anti-incumbent fervor and you don‘t want them take—you don‘t want them to have to vote against tax cuts in an election year.

I think McConnell, because there‘s more procedural control in the Senate and because cutting taxes for rich people is the core existential value of the modern Republican Party, he‘s going to make sure that that—he‘s going to do everything in his power to do that and he‘s less worried about the political implications because the races where the really competitive tend to be open seats, they tend to be against Democratic incumbents.

MADDOW: So, you think we‘re going to have a split between House Republicans and Senate Republicans on this, where Boehner actually does let people in the House vote for these things, but it doesn‘t matter because the Senate blocks it anyway. The Senate does hold the middle class hostage for the rich people.

HAYES: See that, yes, exactly that. And I talked to a Republican staffer today and said, look, if you get—on the House side—I said, if you get, if it comes up just the middle class tax cuts, does your—does your member vote for it? He said, sure. Because that‘s an easy vote.

You know, maybe I‘m wrong here, but my sense is that if you let the House vote on this first, it actually gives the Republicans in the House cover. They get to go ahead and kind of had their cake and eat it, too. They can vote for middle class tax cuts and then they can let the Senate hold it up and make sure it doesn‘t actually happen. And if I were the Republicans, I think that‘s the play that they actually would like to see happen.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (337)

PLAYS: (537)

Embed

Digby took note of this segment on Hardball, and I agree with her assessment about what it would mean for the President if he lost some Blue Dog Democrats in the mid-term election.

I would love to hear anyone tell me why I shouldn't be cheering for that outcome.

Cook said it would "reflect on" the president, but from my perspective it would reflect well on him. And if it happens because he rammed through meaningful health care reform instead of some watered down bucket of warm spit and the administration managed to get unemployment down, I think he will very likely have Morning in America in 2012.

To hell with Rahm and his appease the Blue Dogs at all costs strategy. What good is it if the president fails in 2012? If Cook is right and the Dems maintain their majority while losing a bunch of these reactionary wingnuts, I couldn't be happier. And the Democrat should be happy too because it means they can pass successful legislation for a change.

It wouldn't break my heart either. These Blue Dogs and Liebercrats do nothing but vote against the President anyway, and they give the media an excuse to bring them on to undermine the progressives in the party.