dagblog - Comments for "Dems still without defense?"

More from Kevin Drum | The

EmmaZahn — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:54:00 +0000

In reply to Dems still without defense?

So how is it that mainstream reporters have managed to repeat the right-wing attacks on Rice so endlessly and without any apparent pushback? Bob Somerby suggests that four factors allowed it to happen:

Death by lack of certainty. The press wants a simple story and just won't accept statements of uncertainty at face value.

Death by complexity. Rice told a multi-part story that the press insisted on simplifying into submission.

Death by submission to power. The right wing outrage machine yelled loudly about Rice's perfidy, and the rest of the press followed along.

Death by liberal silence. Liberals did nothing to fight back. Rice was on her own.

Bottom line: the press wants to be spoon fed a simple narrative that they can transcribe into a news article. Republicans take it a step further and create simplistic narrative even if it is a big lie while Democrats give them nuance they have to unravel and write themselves.

Solution: more Democratic ~~hacks~~ pr persons; fewer wonks dealing with the press.

David Ignatius basically

artappraiser — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:20:28 +0000

In reply to Dems still without defense?

David Ignatius basically reported on Friday that Susan Rice was using the most current CIA talking points available at the moment.

Need I say somebody important gave him that CIA memo?

Reminds me of how back in February he was being used like this by the actual capital-D Defense Team.

This is extremely

Michael Maiello — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:10:17 +0000

In reply to Dems still without defense?

This is extremely frustrating. The Benghazi attacks have been entirely stripped of their context. I've actually heard people wondering aloud "why do we even have people there?" which is a question you could only ask if you'd slept through current events.

Sigh ....I never said that

rmrd0000 — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 02:39:28 +0000

In reply to I think we can both agree

Sigh ....I never said that anyone should stop their criticism of MSNBC or anything else. Looking at the current landscape where Republicans are willing to not only lie, but do so in a loud voice and shout down any who disagree with the Tea Party line of thought, MSNBC not a problem.

Obama had facts in the first debate. The facts did not overcome Romney's lies. Obama had facts and a louder voice in the second debate, but the Republicans are still arguing that the term "terrorist attack" we're not used, or that the did not specifically say that the Libyan embassy attack a terrorist attack.

To me, MSNBC provides balance. I never told you to shut up.

I think we can both agree

ocean-kat — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 01:06:13 +0000

In reply to Do you have data to support

I think we can both agree that MSNBC does many good things. I've said that in my posts several times.

You're the one who decided to bring up your objection to some liberals criticism of O'Donnell's rant again in this thread. Yet you never address anyone's specific criticisms. I'm not sure what your point is but I think I'm starting to get it. Are you saying our criticisms of MSNBC are wrong or that its simply wrong to criticize MSNBC and we should just STFU.

Do you have data to support

rmrd0000 — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 23:31:28 +0000

In reply to Here's another thing. I like

Do you have data to support the contention that MSNBC has a negative impact on Democratic votes? More viewers are tuning in to MSNBC than CNN. Ed Shultz is standing with the unions. Harris-Perry is focusing on voter suppression. Even the pugilistic O'Donnell is effective is calling out the idiocy of the GOP.

Think Progress gave the network kudos for pointing out the impact the election could have on the Supreme Court. Where is the evidence of losing votes? Most people I know get charged by watching the network.

I don't see a real downside

rmrd0000 — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 23:10:19 +0000

In reply to I will bet you that an Al

I don't see a real downside to MSNBC. The majority of the voter mobilization is being done by on the ground forces from the Democratic Party. I think a lot of those forces get pumped by watching MSNBC.

Here's another thing. I like

ocean-kat — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 23:07:12 +0000

In reply to No, liberals don't attack

Here's another thing. I like Maddow. I think she does lots of good reporting. But do you really think her smirking and giggling on national tv about how the term "tea bagging" has a sexual as well as a political meaning helped us in any way? It hurt us with anyone who wasn't already on our side and with some who are. Hell, I had to goggle it to get the joke. That's not the kind of attacks on the republican tea bag movement that gain us votes or change minds.

I will bet you that an Al

rmrd0000 — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 23:01:37 +0000

In reply to No, liberals don't attack

I will bet you that an Al Sharpton and Ed Shultz get people out to the voting booths.

The Republicans have made the

rmrd0000 — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:58:41 +0000

In reply to I don't want liberals to act

The Republicans have made the rejection of facts the basis of their arguments.Facts no longer matter. Journalists do not clearly present the truth as a fact. We are no longer in the Walter Cronkite era. There are no moderate Republicans on the other side.

Some polls give Romney the edge over Obama in dealing with China. The Harper's Index notes that 47% of Ohio Republicans are not sure if Romney is more responsible than the President for the death of Bin Laden. 15% think Romney is more responsible for Bin Laden's death. That's what we are dealing with.

Pit was in your face confrontation that got voter suppression slowed down. Having facts on their side did not get union workers in Wisconsin to get their Governor tossed out.