On Today, Russert baselessly asserted that Democrats have had difficulty being competitive" on foreign policy issues
While discussing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) trip to Syria on the April 6 edition of NBC's Today, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert asserted without evidence that "Democrats have always had a difficulty being competitive with the Republicans in the public voters' mind on national security and foreign policy issues." But despite Russert's assertion that Democrats "always" have difficulty competing with Republicans on these issues, several polls in the past year have found that Democrats had an advantage on national security and foreign policy issues:
- In a March 21-22 poll, Rasmussen Reports found that "[f]orty-six percent (46%) of voters trust the Democrats more on National Security while 44% prefer Republicans."
- In a March 7-11 New York Times poll, 45 percent of respondents said the Democratic Party was "more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq," while 32 percent said the Republican Party was more likely.
- A February 22-25 Washington Post/ABC News poll found 52 percent of respondents "trust[ed]" congressional Democrats "to do a better job handling ... terrorism" while 39 percent of respondents said they "trust[ed]" President Bush.
- An Associated Press poll conducted August 15-17, 2006, found that -- including "lean[ers]" -- 47 percent of respondents picked Democrats when asked, "Who do you trust to do a better job of protecting the country?" By contrast, 40 percent chose Republicans. Without "lean[ers]," 37 percent of respondents said chose Democrats and 32 percent chose Republicans.
- In a February 22-23, 2006, poll, Rasmussmen Reports found that respondents had "a slight preference for Democrats in Congress over the President on national security issues. Forty-three percent (43%) say they trust the Democrats more on this issue today while 41% prefer the President."
Prior to the 2006 congressional election, Media Matters for America noted that many in the media had either uncritically reported or asserted that "national security" or "terrorism" are Republican "strengths" -- ignoring polling that undermined those assertions. For instance, on the August 11, 2006, edition of NBC's Today, NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory said, "However bad things are in Iraq, the president's biggest political strength has always been leading the fight against terror," despite the fact that at the time, three of the four most recent Washington Post polls had found that a plurality of Americans trusted Democrats rather than Republicans to handle the "campaign against terrorism."
As the weblog Think Progress noted, while interviewing Russert, co-host Matt Lauer cited Vice President Dick Cheney, a misleading April 5 Washington Post editorial, and an April 6 Wall Street Journal op-ed as evidence that "a lot of people think" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "messed up" by flying to Syria and meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad on April 3. Lauer went on to ask Russert, "[I]s this the way the Democrats wanted to get off the mark in terms of foreign affairs?"
From the April 6 broadcast of NBC's Today:
LAUER: So, let's get to some of the comments here. Vice President Cheney called Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria, quote, "bad behavior." A Washington Post editorial on Thursday called it, quote, "counterproductive" and "foolish." An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning goes a step further and suggests her trip may have actually been a felony - that it may have violated something called the Logan Act. Tim, is this the way that Democrats wanted to get off the mark in terms of foreign affairs?
RUSSERT: No. They clearly wanted to distinguish themselves from the president's policies, but you have to be careful as [former] Congressman [Lee] Hamilton [D-IN] suggested. One ranking Democrat, Matt, said, "We have a Democratic alternative foreign policy." That is going to be very difficult to articulate and to put into place when you don't control the White House. On the other hand, Speaker Pelosi issued a statement last night on behalf of the bipartisan delegation that she is leading. Her delegation includes Republican congressmen. She is saying she has done nothing wrong or inconsistent with American foreign policy.
LAUER: Well, that's their side of the story. However, if you look back at the midterm elections, clearly some voters in this country were unhappy with the administration's foreign policy, specifically in Iraq. It's one of the reasons we think the Democrats took control of Congress, but if the Democrats and Speaker Pelosi appear to be acting irresponsibly or incompetently -- and let's face it, a lot of people think she messed up on this one -- what's the impact for Democrats overall?
RUSSERT: It's considerable. The Democrats have always had a difficulty being competitive with the Republicans in the public voters' mind on national security and foreign policy issues, and if the people perceive missteps, it's going to create and underscore that perceptual problem of Democrats.
LAUER: And -- and let's go back to -- what you -- the point you touched on a second ago. If it's seen -- what is the bigger and longer-term issue here if a political party is seen as usurping presidential power in designing and implementing foreign policy?
RUSSERT: As we learned in 1994, Matt, when the Republicans took control of Congress with the Republican Revolution, the Contract with America, people voted for change. But the voters are also willing to turn that around on its head if they believe people have gone too far. That's why this debate is so important.
LAUER: Let's talk about the presidential campaign.
Read again the high-lighted parts of what the potato-head russert is transcribed as saying, particularly:
"...going to create and underscore that perceptual problem of Democrats"
"...that perceptual problem of Democrats"
Why talk about perception, when reality bears on you so heavily... why discuss the Democrat's "perceptual problem", when the Bush administration conducts a Foreign Policy that the word 'problem' ridiculously understates.
George W. Bush' Foreign Policy disasters and negligence border on the criminal.
Let the potato-head discuss (and defend if he wishes) the actual (not perceptual) Foreign Policy of the Bush administration...
...and see how understated the word 'problem' is.
This jerk should pull his potato-head out of his Idaho, and discuss the real and true and life-threatening distaster of Foreign Policy that the Bush administration makes, and not the "perceptual problems" of Democrats.
The times are too real for such nonsense as that.
But these are the same foreign policies the Democrats keep voting to continue. Bush's policies are extensions of Clinton, which are extensions of Pappa Bush's, which are extensions of Reagans, which are....
Both parties have EXACTLY the same foreign policies, to kill arabs for Israel and to refuse to work towards actual peace in conflicts because of the campaign-funding influence of the US war industries.
If you'd like to know why the American people don't trust the Democrat party with foreign policy, go here for a prime example: http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD153707
What does that even mean? Competitive on foreign policy issues?
It's a competition, a game to see how many countries our military can invade? How many people we can kill? Who can install the best puppet government? That's the kind of competition conservative foreign policy has come to mean. And yes, in head to head competition of that sort, democrats do lag a short distance behind.
If Matt and Tim are talking about strength through diplomacy as foreign policy, well then there now, the republicans don't even want to play that game.
It's "COMPETITIVE" on the game of FALSE PREMISES.
The Rightwing "game" is to win at any cost, and this means perpetuating "perceptual" MYTHS. Such as, Republicans are GREAT on national defense, and Democrats are not. Or that America is dominated by a LIBERAL MEDIA. Or that it's "Class Warfare" to suggest the wealthy pay taxes, but it's NOT Class Warfare for the wealthy to rig the laws to increase their wealth exponentially while the rest of America slides into depression. Or that Republicans represent "Family Values".
It's all bullcrap IMAGE manufacturing, and shills like Russert are invested in continuing the MYTHS, because that is the nature of propaganda; UNTRUTHS repeated so often that they become, in perception, FACTS. At no time can actual EVIDENCE be allowed to interfere with repeating the false talking points. Good job, Russ!
Tex, are you trying to suggest that Oceania HASN'T always been at war with Eurasia?
why don't these shills just admit it's their stated goal to create that perception so dear leader can look tough.
Foreign policy doesn't come at the bottom of a cracker jacks box, dummy!
Can't be competitive when you offer exactly the same product at exactly the same price in exactly the same marketing. Dem and Repub foreign policy is exactly the SAME. Coke and Pepsi bottled in the same plant from the same ingredients.
Now we Greens on the other hand offer a very competitive foreign policy to the ones currently on offer. An end to US occupation of Iraq, actual infrastructure improvement in Afghanistan, a dismantling of the US empire and the removal of US forces and bases from foreign countries, no more secret prisons in Romania or Ethiopia to torture abductees, an end to Israeli domination of middle-eastern policy, a desire for actual mediation and conflict resolution in Colombia, a sunshine policy towards North Korea.
Compared to the Coke and Pepsi foreign policy of the Dems and Repubs, we Greens offer a vodka martini with a hand-picked fresh olive. Shaken, not stirred.
Do we look like we give a damn what the greens are offering?
Your characterization of the two parties' policies as "exactly the same" is where ya lost me. We heard that in 2000 and the result was the loss of Florida and a Bush presidency. President Gore would not have invaded Iraq.
Start from a different talking point, one that takes reality into consideration, and you might get a few converts.
Reality is that the Democrats have just funded this war crime for another two years and have refused to impeach Bush for torture and crimes against humanity. I glanced at an article in a local paper...Murtha's office is being inundated with demands from constituents to impeach Bush. His answer? "It would be too divisive". Putting a war criminal on trial would be divisive??? This from a Democrat!!!
I have a new name for the Democrats....Demo-cons. The neo-cons from the other side of the aisle. You want reality? How many more soldiers will die and get maimed in Iraq because the Democrats REFUSE to end this and bring Bush to justice? Hundreds? Thousands? Corpses and maimed men. There's your reality.
It's just the practicality of impeachment, at current Congressional levels of discontent. I agree we should impeach, as soon as possible (maybe 3 more months, to allow the numerous current Congressional investigations to bear fruit); but with a wing of the Dem Party leaning conservative (15-20% of them got elected for precisely that reason) there is at this instant, zero hope of getting the impeachment resolution through even the House, where the Dems have a margin.
At this moment, that would be the political upset of all time, since some Dems would sincerely vote against, even believing that Bungle is the worst President ever, to avoid the nastiness of the trial; and more would seek cover in that argument, who might merely be Lie-bermans in drag. However, if the Lurita Doan versus Hatch Act hearings provide revelations; if the Goodling testimony carries the flame of corruption higher into the Administration - even, if required, with limited immunity for her; if the security breakdowns in the DOE (lost ANOTHER 16-20 or more, DESKTOP/WORKSTATION computers with nuclear bombmaking on the hard drives - just since the previous quarterly audit) are adequately exposed; and when the public realizes that the "Surge" has already required a second, supporting, "surge" of combat units - Bungle slipped in more than the initial 7000 support unit, adding a 2nd deployment of 7000 combat troops amidst the confusion over whether we were sending 20,000 or 21,000 or 27,000 (actually ticketed 35,000 of our children and spouses although not all are yet in Iraq; and asking now for another 7-11,000 combat troops - with support units); without visible gains toward "getting the job done"; the Dems will have at least repaired the damage being done them daily in the Corporate Media.
Impeachment will then depend greatly on how many of the public become CSpan junkies during that given interval, and communicate their wishes and fervor to impeach, to their legislators.
But the House leaders refuse to impeach, period. Pelosi has bullied Conyers into withdrawing his call for impeachment. The Democrats have overwhelmingly voted to keep US troops in Iraq. They are not an opposition party, they are collaborators.
Thats not entirely accurate. What Dems have said is impeachment is off the table. This COULD be a smart tactic. See if they went straight to impeachment it could look like political theater. If they start investigations, as they have they can when they find smoking gun evidence THEN say wow, look at this, we are FORCED by our constitutional mandate to pursue impeachment for this heretofore unknown violation. I know, its still the dems who have for the last few years specialized in spinelessness, but its not cut and dried that there will be NO impeachment.
As long as Pelosi is House leader, there won't be any trials. What investigations we are seeing are pretty shallow and not about the real crimes. But then the Demo-cons would have to admit their complicity in all this. Democrats are collaborators. It's that simple.
Did you like how they pulled the language from the Iraq war crime funding bill that would have required Bush to ask Congress for permission to attack Iran? AIPAC paid for that to be taken out and the Demo-cons obeyed. Our present government is just plain disgusting. Can't make excuses for these people when they are helping kill children in foreign lands for a few campaign contributions. They're sick people and don't deserve the benefit of the doubt...there's nothing to doubt.
It is abundantly clear that you despise Pelosi (presumably for her political expression of "impeachment off the table"; but consider, if you can, the already considerable difficulty of dealing with Senate rules, to pass just the "100 hours (House)" promises there; and the battle that took place, to imbed even a "soft" timeline in the emergency funding bill. It would become clear that, in order to get anything at all done, some things that might be good (impeachment when ready definitely leading that group of things) must be postponed. Consider, if you can, the resistance of the Corporate Media to any impeachment - heck, they currently attack even the investigatory efforts of the Congress - and the crescendo of that Media were there an actual move to impeach afoot.
While I occasionally subscribe to your sentiments, frequently admire your zeal, politics is REAL. Are you able to set aside your fervor for a perfect union, in order to achieve a more nearly perfect union? If not, then explain in great detail why you believe the 50 Senators caucusing with the Dems, but including Lie-berman and short one who is still ill, can provide the 67 votes required to convict even just Bungle, let alone the overt overthrow of the pair, Bungle and Darth?
Excuses, excuses, and more excuses.....and the killing goes on.
So sit in the corner, as you are doing, and hold your breath as a ploy to stop it. You might be even more successful than the last time you tried, via Nader.
From Solon: "I am a poor typist so what. Yes I am picking on YOU. For your ignorance and your ongoing moronity. Its not my fault you are dumber than dirt. Its not my fault you have no functioning cerebral cortex. It isnt m fault you project your vast inadequacies on others. You are a worthless poster. Why dont you leave your mothers basement and go outside and play a while. When you see that big yellow shiny thing that gives light and warmth, dont be afraid of it or worship it. When you grow up get back to us. As for who YOU think is worthy to wipe peoples behind I will defer to the vast experience you must have with the only job you were ever qualified for."
Solon, "I am a poor typist so what." is a run-on sentence and you left out the question mark. "For your ignorance and your ongoing moronity." is an incomplete sentence. There should be apostrophes in "it's", "isn't", "don't", "mother's", "people's" and "m" isn't a word. But you knew that, didn't you, brainfart?
That is way off topic, strangely obsessive, cranky and a waste of your time.
Some friendly advice for you: if you can't post a retort on a thread before it's archived, do yourself a favor and let it go.
that's redking's mantra. both parties are exactly the same, they're both equally right wing, they support the same things. are the democrats as liberal as the greens? no, but to pretend they are no different from the republicans is provably untrue. redking also told me that he was from the "naderite" wing of the greens, who are apparently the only pure ones. i quoted him a statement by the 2004 nominee of the greens, cobb [forget his first name], who said that the voters in swing states had a duty to weigh the consequences of their vote when it came to bush v kerry. he informed me that the greens had been coopted by the democrats in 04.
You support a party that funds the war crimes in Palestine and Iraq. I don't. You support a party that furthers the neo-con agenda, including all the plans to loot Iraqi oil and attack Iran. I don't.
You're on the same side with the neo-cons. I'm not. Gud deadeloth.
you blather endless generalities.
Greens? LMAO. Oh, and moron, a vodka martini is best if it's STIRRED, not shaken. Of course, a buffoon like you, who's entrance into the world of sophistication has OBVIOUSLY only been through viewing James Bond films, wouldn't know that...lol
Third Party elitist idiots like you are PRECISELY why the Right-Wing scum in this nation are so effective. You've bought into their propaganda hook, line, and sinker. You're an enabler of evil, and actually think you're a defender of good. Such idiots as you are pathetic in the extreme.
Democrats have voted to keep US troops in Iraq since 2003. They voted to allow Bush to torture and to fund that torture. They vote to fund the Israeli occupation of Palestine. They are NOT pushing for health care reform.
What are you voting for? Fascism. Corporate and AIPAC domination of your government. You vote for people who commit evil. YOU are the enabler. Don't blame me when Pelosi refuses impeachment and Reid votes to keep US troops in Iraq. YOU support them, YOU support the crimes they are enabling, that they are committing. I don't.
You Demo-cons simply refuse to admit that your agenda is the same as the neo-cons. Just phony liberals voting for war criminals. We real liberals see right through you. If the Democrat party kills children, which they do, you'd blame it on someone else....just like the Repubs do. Absolutely no difference.
An op-ed in the WSJ said it may have been a felony??!! Are they friggin' serious?!?!
The WSJ is using the Logan act as their basis. The Logan act was passed in 1799 and has resulted in zero convictions and one indictment. Posters on the free republic, an extreme right wing sight, state that the Logan act does not apply to speaker of the house. Open mind, a poster on this site, believes that it does apply to Pelosi because she does not have constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs. The law itself refers to "priviate citizens," not elected officials. I personally doubt that the law was intended for someone of Pelosi's statue, but I'm not an expert on the law.
Since there have been dozens, if not hundreds of such congressional delegations, it is ludicrous for anyone to pretend that this law anything other than an outdated statue.
Like a lawn jockey?
A cracked pitted lawn jockey with moss.
George McGovern and William Polk offer a complex plain to get out of Iraq. At least one of them is a democratic standard barer. There are real differencies in republican (do it our way or we'll hurt you) and democratic ( Let's talk) foreign policy. We have sufficient examples of talking points here. You have some as well. Neither deal with our complex reality. To be honst neither do mine but I'm not going to pretend that they do.
Why didn't MMFA ciriticize Matt Lauer's leading comments, which in my opinion were way worse than what Russert said. It sounded like Laurer was Hannity himself. He quotes 3 very right-wing sources to prove that Pelosi's trip is unpopular. That is just plain stupid. Why didn't MMFA highlight this?
Perception vs. Reality
Unfortunately, our country runs on it, and it's right out in the open. I hear commentators casually mention that people vote GOP "because they see them as the lower taxes/ security/ tough on(boogeyman du jour) party.
Without adding that they've never proven themselves to be these things.Our media accepts that the leadership is a BS contest, and while the Dems aren't antwhere near BS-free, that model is going to favor the GOP as long as the average American remains as uninformed as they currently are.
If our collective memories ever work well enough to go back more than 24 hours, both of our major parties will have to some major renovations or make way for something completely different.
Maybe. But Dems just swept congress in Minnesota and immediately passed a $1 billion dollar tax increase aimed at the wealthiest Minnesotans giving Minnesota the top tax rate of any state in the country. If you don't like that perception then don't walk the reality.
From the article: DFLers powered a nearly $1 billion income tax increase through the Minnesota Senate on Saturday, virtually guaranteeing a showdown with Gov. Tim Pawlenty on his signature issue of holding down taxes.
The bill would create a top Minnesota tax rate of 9.7 percent, giving the state the highest top income tax rate in the nation. It passed the Senate on a 35-29 vote, with seven DFLers defecting.
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1092482.html
Although you voice a complaint, you seem determined to ignore the reality: the top earners are not overly taxed, even at Minnesota's rates; nor would they be Federally, if sanity were to regain a foothold in Washington, and cuts for the "middle class" were paid for by raising the rates on the top 10% of earners (along with elimination of idiotic wars and Corporate Welfare).
Any response from Minnesotans who work for a living ?
Especially those without rich parents. Any effect?
I don't know. Minnesota has been undergoing massive property tax increases of over 10% per year in order to NOT raise the state tax rate. So that has affected the middle class quite a bit. Most of the complaining has been about that. But, it remains to be seen whether or not passing a massive tax increase on the rich will result in the lowering of property taxes across the board. And I doubt this tax increase passed by the congress will be signed as is by the governor, in fact I strongly think it will not pass.
Because Russert says it does not make it true.
Because Russert says it makes it likely UNtrue.
Not Timmy's biggest fan.
MEET THE TRUTH?
Orrin Hatch's blatant smear on US Attorney Carol Lam is basically what Hatch used to save himself from total embarrassment on Tim Russert’s Meet the Press last week.
See http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/06/hatch-correction-mtp/
Hatch was going down hard. Russert letting Hatch get away with this just sends a message to other Republicans - when your lifeboat is sinking on this show throw the truth overboard.
Suggest everyone email Russert to ask for a correction and some accountability. It's quite simple. And you might cut and paste this message or some version of it:
I saw MTP last week. Hatch's smear on Lam is basically what he used to save himself. He was going down hard. Russert letting Hatch get away with this just sends a message to other Republicans - when your lifeboat is sinking on this show throw the truth overboard.
Suggest Russert issue correction about the lies on his show and hold his guests to some accountability to the truth when they are talking to him. Here are all the details about Hatch's lies which need to be corrected: \[link to thinkprogress.org]
Unrelated specifically to this thread but can't resist. Russ is an Imus butt boy. Imus helps Russ sell his books and Russ shines his boots.
"what is the bigger and longer-term issue here if a political party is seen as usurping presidential power in designing and implementing foreign policy?"
Congress by that little old thing called the Constitution are the only ones that can declare war on a foreign country. If declaring war is not designing foreign policy than what the hell is. Who authorized the president to us force against the Iraq? CONGRESS. Where did this myth come from that only the President can design foreign policy and how does Lauer land on moronic statements like Congress is usupring power?
"if the people perceive missteps, it's going to create and underscore that perceptual problem of Democrats."
Timmy missed the memo, there has been 6 years of missteps under Republican rule, and the public has been slow to come around to that partly because of self-serving vacuous commetators like himself. Let me make it clear for Tim: The republican leadership have f'd up big time, and "perceptual problems" doesn't begin to describe their sorry state.
Typical stuff -- these days the last people to know what is actually going on are the people who get paid to report it.
Just more evidence of Tim Russert's pathetic Right-Wing bias. What makes me laugh the most is how many people actually buy into the propaganda that these scum like Russert, Koppel, Sheaffer, Chris Matthews, Gibson and Kouric are "Left-Wingers" when at EVERY chance they get they mouth Right-Wing and Repuglikkkunt talking points, especially ones defining Democrats and Liberals as weak.
We truly have entered an Orwellian age where up is down, black is white, etc. The propaganda machine of the Right-Wing is incredibly effective, and if we don't stand up to them at every opportunity, our world is doomed.
I usually don't watch Today, but I did see this interview and indeed Lauer was a first-rate water carrier of misinformation and right-wing talking points. Very disappointing as well as a slap in the face of what is the truth.
When did diplomacy become a bad thing?
It has happened, it does happen. Reasons come to grips as easy as catching a greased pig. Reagan is probably the father of this iteration. I remember a coworker exclaiming how wonderful it was that we felt good about ourselves again after he was elected. I about unloaded on him and his vacuous statment. The reasons why we didn't feel good about ourselves previous to Raygun had not been resolved. Macho seemed to be the answer. The questions and positions taken with regard to international relations are not best done from this "macho" position. Add our "self evident" moral superiority and diplomacy is for good timing and glad handing with our special allies. Dealing with complex issues and compromising with opponet's is not macho. Ergo we don't do it.
Macho is not cool. It is a twisted crippled version of masculinity. Regardless of which sex pratices it. At least as a life style. As comedy it is looking at ourselves and showing our idiocies and laughing honestly about them.
Assuming Tony Snow's health precludes him from reclaiming his position of White House Press Secretary, Tim Russert should consider applying for the job. His loyalty to Dubya' & the neocon cause is beyond question at this point, as has been evidenced by the Scooter Libbey trial & his unceasing efforts to subtly regurgitate all neocon talking points. This would be his opportunity to shed the decidedly schizophrenic pretensions of journalistic objectivity & unsheathe, instead, his adoration for imperialism the massive rewarding of those who have already been massively rewarded, & all other such things neocon.
It would be, I suppose, a crushing burden that would be asked of him, for Administration employees... particularly cheap propagandists... are financially compensated at FAR lower levels then they could expect to receive in the private sector... to the tune of MILLIONS. This, in itself, is in direct conflict with such hallowed neocon sacraments of venality, indifference to their presumed inferiors, & voracious self indulgence... but they've always managed to make allowances for a few gleaming, bulging-eyed right wing shamans. His neocon constituency would surely understand his TEMPORARY abandonment of the MILLIONS that he now receives for schlepping their blindingly fragrant bullsh*t for the MILLIONS MORE that he'd be sure to receive on the back end in cable shows & book deals.
We should also consider that... EVEN FOR A COMMITTED NEOCON... there are SOME things that are MORE IMPORTANT THAN MONEY... or, at least, are somewhere in the same ballpark. They do, despite the what many of us choose to believe, appreciate some of the finer subtleties of life, some of those undefinable moments of grace that money... once its purchasing powers have passed well into the abstract... can only point one towards.
Where else in this life is Russert ever going to experience such a fragrant & undiluted whiff of neocon presidential ass?
Let me just say it was extremely funny to see the Liberals of America go up against the Liberals of America. Green vs. Dems. One accuses the other of being collaborationists, the other responds by using the word "elite". It'd be funny if it weren't so sad. That argument is possibly part of the reason why the Neocons are doing so well. If the greens wouldn't accuse the Dems of being no better than the Repugnants, and maybe the Democrats stopped accusing Nader of stealing their election (which was clearly lost due to Bush cheating and the Dems doing nothing about it).
Then maybe they could turn their combined attention to the fact that they really believe the same thing and that the real problem are the media and the moderate Democratic politicians, not the people.
So instead of arguing like little children, you should all apologize and become friends.
You can then either:
a. try to replace the democratic party with the greens.
or b. get the democratic party to do the will of it's voters
in addition, you might want to remind the media of it's duty...
Your prescription approximates the typical "2 aspirin" without even the "drink lots of fluids", while absent some stronger agent than "remind the media". Hey, at least mix in a little "beat the Corporations until they set the Media free" - say, brand name, MORA? With or without the Fairness Doctrine, whichever flavor you prefer - just de-consolidate the Media by force of law, and reverse all the swing to the Corporate stance that has been building since the Repugnants ate the FCC.
Yeah - one of the BEST parts of being progressive, or liberal, is the freedom to plot one's own course, to one's own end. And if we so plot to fight first among ourselves, we only hope to entertain a little while. If we must become the lockstep braindead of the Repugnants, in order to overthrow the Repugnants, what will we have gained except damnation?
"Yeah - one of the BEST parts of being progressive, or liberal, is the freedom to plot one's own course, to one's own end." - Conley
Oh really Conley? How do you square you rhetoric with your endorsement of MORA?
Easily: MORA attacks the primary cause of all evil extant in this universe: the Corporation. Any attack on evil, without employment of evil to foster that attack, is virtue perfected. The Corporate Media Oligopoly is the enemy of every individual, every citizen, and as such, our very freedom demands that we re-institute the press as it was envisioned, vigorous and diverse. To that end, MORA is one means of address; an alternative is simply to execute the entire board and executive branch of every Corporation and the Federal Government, redistribute the stolen wealth, and start over without the concept of immortal concentrations of wealth and power, blessed unwisely with a semblance of personhood by some idiotic interpretation of law and judicial issuance.
Oh, now that you have afforded me this opportunity to expand my rant (which I welcome so hugely that I don't even mind that you provided no real question), what, exactly, was your point? Did I cover it? Or were you attempting inarticulately merely to jape?
I'm not saying go lockstep or anything. But it'd be nice if you could stop throwing baseless insults and accusations at each other. THAT's a repugnant tactic.