The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Dems still without defense?

    By PeraclesPlease on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 2:08pm |

    Bob Somerby has been noting the month-long right-wing attacks on Susan Rice (over many columns). It seems that both Fox & CNN keep distorting and cherry-picking what Rice said and that her original next-day comments contained the bulk of what we know now:

    The consulate was attacked on 9/11. Information was incomplete, so hard to draw conclusions, but seemed a protest similar to Egypt's was co-opted by a Libyan militant group, that may or may not have ties with Al Qaeda.

    ("Al Qaeda" being a rather nebulous over the last 10 years.)

    But where's the Democratic Defense team? Why is Chris Hayes helping the Republicans, Rachel Maddow silent, everyone else piling on? Where are Democrats on Sunday morning clarifying the obvious. (No, it wasn't just the abstract boilerplate Obama comment - it's been the bulk of press releases and 3rd party reporting.)

    I'm no big Obama supporter, but this narrative has been pretty known since 9/12, and Susan Rice hasn't changed her story.

    But it's similar to the "Obama cut $716 billion from Medicare" lie -- there's no one in the Democratic camp who can defend and counter-attack on these issues. Why not? How did we let ACORN get killed off? How come we can't justify the existence of PBS aside from a big sad picture of Big Bird?

    In the case of Libya, the surrounding story should actually help Obama. Again, I didn't fully support the invasion of Libya because I didn't see an actual plan or precedent. But the Libyan reactions in the last 1 1/2 months make it pretty clear Libya's no Afghanistan, that there is a pretty sane and settled populace, that there is a reasonable chance for democracy without overbearing Sharia law. And that the militants aren't likely to take over and run things.

    So why do we let the hyperbolic right control the messaging? How is Obama's foreign policy suddenly reduced to the picayune issue of whether he called the consulate incident a "terrorist attack"? Why do we let the right get away with murder, and what can we do about it? (practically, effectively, consistently)

    Comments

    So why do we let the hyperbolic right control the messaging? How is Obama's foreign policy suddenly reduced to the picayune issue of whether he called the consulate incident a "terrorist attack"? Why do we let the right get away with murder, and what can we do about it? (practically, effectively, consistently)

    It's the 'hack gap', a term recently coined by Kevin Drum to describe "a liberal problem of long standing. Put simply, we liberals don't have enough hacks. Conservatives outscore us considerably in the number of bloggers/pundits/columnists/talking heads who are willing to cheerfully say whatever it takes to advance the party line, no matter how ridiculous it is."  

    The Hack Gap Rears Its Ugly Head Yet Again | Mother Jones

    The Hack Gap Revisited: How Powerful Is the Modern Media ...

    Its creation post sparked a lively conversation in left blogistan for a couple of days that illustrates a another liberal problem: after identifying, labeling, cataloging and discussing it to death, it seems to have disappeared down the giant black memory hole of cyberspace.  In other words, there is no one coordinating and directing liberal communication strategy.  

    Drum also has a nice recap of who knew what when about the Benghazi incident:

    The Benghazi Controversy, Explained

    ------------

    O/T question:  why is it so hard to format direct copy/paste quotes here?


    by EmmaZahn on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 3:36pm

    Good response. I'm not sure we need more hacks though - we lack people who are willing to study up before they go on Sunday TV to combat lies. We lack coherent, simplified responses to obvious questions and attacks.

    The $716 billion attack went on for weeks - the Democratic responses on the whole didn't get any better - they couldn't even explain it to themselves. Presumably, Obama had saved $716 billion in Medicare costs without cutting Medicare services - something he should be cheered for doing, something reform should do. Why is this difficult to communicate?

    Benghazi could allow a teachable moment - Conservative Republicans have been cutting State Department spending, including embassy security. And we can't create a Green Zone in every troubled country. Benghazi wasn't even an embassy, in a country just out of civil war. And the attacks don't appear internationally coordinated as was speculated early on.

    In short, there's plenty to slap Romney around on, in terms of foreign policy being an art, unpredictable but essential to control as well as possible, to work with difficult alliances and not just jingoist calls to bomb Iran and support Israel. What do Romney's thoughts on Libya forebode for the Syrian conflict? Because that one's difficult - Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, US, Saudi, Qatar, Egypt and local Shiites & Sunnis all competing for influence. How to make it through that maze, without providing arms to the wrong people, keeping a number of immoral "allies" somewhat happy, helping assure stability, long-term democracy as well as western values - contradictory but necessary goals?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 5:01pm

    Why not more hacks, i.e., sales, marketing and messaging people?  Is a wonk really needed describe Romney's accusation that Obama robbed $716 billion from Medicare an outrageous lie that outside the political arena would be considered slander? And would a wonk even be able to feel much less fake said outrage?  It boggles my mind that the fact-checks I found in  newspapers described the accusation as mostly false!  A sitting President accused of robbery!  Hyperbole, sure, but still outrageous -- and they got away with it.

     


    by EmmaZahn on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 6:18pm

    I distinguish between hacks and pros.

    We don't really need a will-say-anything hack to manage Democratic messaging.  Nothing wrong with credibility and competence in one jacket. But too much trying to treat GOP ideas as worth considering rather than slapping down hard with solid research & retort.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 6:30pm

    Its all about the money. Rich guys spent billions buying new think tanks, paying hacks, and buying up pre-existing ones and purging the moderate republicans and conservative intellectuals. When news programs needed a conservative "expert" they got them from the conservative think tanks. Then they went and bought themselves a whole damn television network and in a stunning act of dishonesty, called it, "fair and balanced."

    The wealthy will simply buy the whole damn political process if we let them.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 6:00pm

    Rich guys buy news organizations and come up with stuff like this, the US deaths in Libya were part of Obama policy, C & L reported from Fox News, Roger Ailes personal attorney Peter Johnson:

    Johnson said:

    Have we become eyewitnesses, mere eyewitnesses to the attacks on America, without any action by us at all? Nothing… Did we trade off, and I have no evidence for this. Did we trade off the lives of our ambassador and three other Americans for that crowd? Were we afraid to fire into that crowd from above? (Were) we afraid to take on the militants in that crowd for killing other folks that were on the perimeter? Were these people expendable as part of a Mid East foreign policy? Were we afraid of inflaming the Arab street when we’re so concerned about the resilience of the Arab spring? These are the questions that need to be asked.

    Amazing? I guess no one with foreign policy credentials would make such a remark so they used the seedy lawyer who has kept Ailes out of prison for all these years.

    Apparently there was a rumor there may have been a drone in the area. Most likely not armed.  Even if it was armed, the first Libyans brought Stevens to the hospital, and I don't think you would blow up the place with the ambassadors location unknown.

    Yet, I guess if Romney was in they would nuke Benghazi from orbit, and nasty corrupt Mr. Murdoch would salivate over a possible WW3, and the increased ratings he could bank on with his empire of sleazy propaganda rags.


    by NCD on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 6:36pm

    When Liberals do attacked back in kind, such as Lawrence O'Donnell calling Mitt Romney a liar and daring Tagg to a face to face challenge, O'Donnell gets attacked by Liberals.

    If you have watched Conservatives like John Fund Michael Steele and Ron Christie o recently, you note that they are willing to double down on the delusion that Onbama did not call the embassy attack a terrorist attack. 

    Some Liberals are schizophrenic they want Obama to go "gangsta", but complain when Liberals in the media take an in your face approach.

    The race is still close because Mitt Romney and GOP lies are supported by stenographers in the main stream media and subset of Liberals that really do not want to take the gloves off. 

    MSNBC outdistanced CNN because they took a position. Partisan media is part and parcel of life in many countries.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 6:12pm

    I don't want liberals to act juvenile like challenging Tagg to a fight. (I can't see how paying attention to Tagg gets 1 vote more on Nov 6 - just free advertising)

    I want liberals to take solid facts and shove them rhetorically up GOP ass. Not physically.

    Why are we debating whether Obama called the *consulate* attack a "terrorist attack"? Of course it was a terrorist attack - militants fired mortars and killed the Ambassador. Was it an Al Qaeda attack? well you'd be a dumbfuck to just start spouting connections before you know, but that's what the GOP's proposing - government by posse.

    Susan Rice gave a reasonable summation, based on CIA reports - so use this to make the GOP look completely stupid and craven on foreign policy already. Don't debate Obama's words in a speech the next day - those were generic (ok, for a debate slapdown, fine). Rise above the question - why is answering GOP stupid questions like this an insult to serious foreign affairs work?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 6:41pm

    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.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 6:58pm

    No, liberals don't attack MSMBC when those pundits attack. I saw the vast majority of liberals backing Chris Matthews when he took on Priebus. We cheered him on. But Matthews was talking about something real and serious in a strong convincing serious way. Tagg Romney made a silly stupid statement. If a hypothetical Barack jr had said it it would have been just as silly and stupid. Sure faux would have pushed it. That doesn't make it serious, faux is stupid. So yeah, I don't want O'Donnell to be as stupid as faux. "Come punch me" jeezz, you really think that's what we need on our liberal channel? That won't win us votes or change people's minds.

     


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 6:49pm

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

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 7:01pm

    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.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 7:10pm

    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.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 7:07pm

    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.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 7:31pm

    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.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 9:06pm

    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.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 10:39pm

    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.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 10/22/2012 - 10:10am

    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.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 10/22/2012 - 1:20pm

     

    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.


    by EmmaZahn on Mon, 10/22/2012 - 2:54pm