CNN's Crowley on Dems' "old message": "[W]e don't support the troops and we're not tough on national security"
On the February 26 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley claimed that Democrats looking toward the 2008 presidential elections have to say, "We cannot send that old Democratic message about how we don't support the troops and we're not tough on national security."
As Media Matters for America noted, in October 2006, Crowley presented a segment on CNN looking at the Democrats' prospects in the midterm elections in which she made the baseless assertion that Democrats have been "on the losing side of the values debate, the defense debate and, oh yes, the guns debate." In the segment, Crowley aired only negative opinions of the Democratic Party, such as those of an Asheville, North Carolina, resident who called the Democrats "losers." At no point during the segment did Crowley say, air, or quote anything positive about Democrats. Additionally, in the wake of the 2004 presidential election, Crowley portrayed Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) as out of touch because he drinks green tea, suggesting that green tea is a rare and exotic beverage unfamiliar to "most of America."
From the February 26 edition of CNN's The Situation Room at 4 p.m. ET:
WOLF BLITZER (host): And so, Candy, how does all this debate right now over the war, the authorization for the war, the funding for the war, the surge -- how does it play out in the 2008 presidential election?
CROWLEY: Well, what's going to be interesting here is you now have probably all five of the Democrats out there with their variations of what is generally the same plan, but they do have some different ones when it gets down to [Sen. Christopher J.] Dodd [D-CT] and [Sen. Joseph R.] Biden [D-DE].
So what they have to do is once again show that they are tough on the president, that they understand the message of the '06 election. But they also have to look toward '08 and say, "We cannot send that old Democratic message about how we don't support the troops and we're not tough on national security."
So they're walking that same line, only in a much more public way and much more individually.
BLITZER: On the Democratic side.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
i missed that mesage.
NOTE: Crowley puts WORDS ... and implies historical TRUTH ... into the mouths of Democrats, portraying them as ACCEPTING the premise that this is their "old message".
CROWLEY: "We cannot send that old Democratic message about how we don't support the troops and we're not tough on national security."
DEMOCRATS might well say, "We cannot allow that old Republican smear and lie about how we Democrats "don't support the troops and we're not tough on national security" to go unchallenged, in any instance, but we're still dealing with the same MEDIA which promotes the rightwing SPIN while refusing to accurately portray our true positions. We have to be ten times as determined and forceful, because we're up against the Republican AND their sycophantic media."
Do we really expect the media to take time out from endlessly repeating "cut and run", "Slow Bleed", or whatever today's ROVE talking point happens to be? Ain't gonna happen.
i missed that message.
thought i caught it.
At least he said "Democratic".
I mean, come on... Who doesn't support the troops? Oh right. Bush and his cabinet. Sorry. Forgot that for a moment.
Thinking that I am usually astute enough to dechiper things said in the public, I ask for your help. I missed the part about ANY DEMOCRATIC party member saying that they don't support the troops and that they are weak on national security. Please, if LeatherHelmet or the Colonel are dropping by, please help this knowledge seeking member of the Democratic party. I know that you will find the exact quotes by my fellow party members. Or is Candy just guessing? Maybe she heard someone say these things when she was in contact with the MotherShip. HELP!!!
P.S. Rush, Sean and Annie are members of the Repubic Party so it can't be those people.
I swear I saw an ad with a famous jock and his strapping blonde son promoting green tea. I think he used to work on the monday nite football show.
Crowley portrayed Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) as out of touch because he drinks green tea, suggesting that green tea is a rare and exotic beverage unfamiliar to "most of America."
WTF????? What kinda logic is that? Is this what passes for "analysis" on our airwaves nowadays?????
What is this green tea you speak of? A rare and exotic beverage, no doubt!
I don't even know what tea is, Bransby. If it ain't beer or gatorade, I don't even want to know about it.
And the only colors I know are black and white.Except when I'm calling out Pinkos like you ! ;o)
According to the transcription, when this big TV star gave her tremendous insights on presidential campaigns, she spoke largely in terms of "we"...
"We cannot send... we don't support... we're not tough"
What's with this "we"?
What, you have an elephant in your pocket or something?
'...Democrats have been "on the losing side of the values debate, the defense debate and, oh yes, the guns debate." '
Were those debates televised, and how did Satan get appointed to judge them?
My favorite among those debate topics is "values".
What is that supposed to mean, "values"? It sounds too vague and undefined to be admitted into discourse and debate on National Policy or any other policy of Law and Government...
It opens the door to more rhetoric, just as vague and undefined: "The values candidate", "A values agenda", "Values Policy", and "A values administration" or a "Values Party".
But I can't seem to find that word "values" anywhere among the functions of Government... nowhere among the various Departments and Agencies of our Federal Government do I find the word "values"... and nowhere among the many Committees of our Congress is that word found.
If "values" means the values set forth in the Preamble of our Constitution, namely Union and Justice and Domestic Tranquility (peace at home) and common defence and General Welfare and the Blessings of Liberty (to ourselves and our Posterity!)...
...then sure, those then are the "values" admitted into discourse and debate on National Policy and on Law and Government, because there is a Department of Justice and a Department of Defense, and there are the many General Welfare functions of our Government (Education seeming first among them), and there are the Liberties enumerated in our Constitution and other Laws.
So why then cannot those "values" be spoken of and debated by name?
Who thinks the umbrella word "values" covers any idea at all?
It doesn't... it's a meaningless word used by snake oil politicians and preachers practicing politics...
...and disgusting monsters masquerading as "media" pundits (like the one cited in this item), who have neither the wits to discourse on matters of Justice and National Security and Liberties et al...
...nor the language skills to even use those words (for who is it that ever hears these pundits say "National Security" when mentioning Iraq? I'd think that "value" to be mentioned, when mentioning Iraq).
No, these idiots can't find National Security or Justice or Liberty in their vocabulary ("Liberty" only when talking about Iraq... as if Iraqis were ourselves or our Posterity... as if the Values enumerated in the Preamble of the Constitution were designed for them)...
No, these idiots use the word "values", and then think themselves to have said something meaningful.
That's what idiots do, they make sounds and then think those sounds mean something... mean something insightful and wise and true regards National Policy and Law.
That's what the idiot pundits who stain the Public Airwaves do: They discourse stupidly about "values", and say nothing about Justice and National Security et al.
"Support the troops" = to use them as disposable weapons of mass destruction against the enemies of fundamentalist Christianity and Israel, and to make more contracts for the War Industry by engaging in perpetual warfare
"Tough on national security" = to turn us into a fascist police state with the world's largest prison population and spend all taxation on imperialist adventures instead of infrastructure or the welfare of the citizens..well, just on the rich ones.