On Hardball, Boyer claimed Webb "was not exactly a Daily Kos Democrat"
SUMMARY: On Hardball, The New Yorker's Peter Boyer asserted that "Jim Webb was not exactly a Daily Kos Democrat in Virginia." In fact, Webb is a Daily Kos member who has a diary at the website. He has also repeatedly credited bloggers -- including Daily Kos -- and Internet support for his 2006 Senate election. Further, Webb was endorsed by Daily Kos and others as one of their "Netroots Candidates" during the 2006 election cycle.
On the August 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, prefacing a panel discussion featuring TownHall.com columnist Amanda Carpenter, Atlantic senior writer Josh Green, and New Yorker staff writer Peter Boyer, host Chris Matthews asked, "Next up, this is a hot one: Is [Sen.] Hillary [Clinton (D-NY)] a drag on her party?" and referred to an August 12 Associated Press article, which, he said, "shows a party worried about the damage from such a polarizing politician." Green replied: "I don't know if [Clinton's] going to bring down the Democratic Congress, but if you talk to Democratic strategists in purple states ... these are the states where, you know, Democrats got their majority in 2006. It was folks like [Sen.] Jim Webb [D-VA]." Boyer later asserted: "Josh is right. Jim Webb was not exactly a Daily Kos Democrat in Virginia. It's a pretty thin margin in both houses, and Mrs. Clinton is ... her own wedge issue." In fact, Webb is a Daily Kos member who has a diary at the website. He has also repeatedly credited bloggers -- including Daily Kos -- and Internet support for his 2006 Senate election. Further, Webb was endorsed by Daily Kos, along with Swing State Project and MyDD, as one of their "Netroots Candidates" during the 2006 election cycle.
As Daily Kos contributor mcjoan noted in response to Boyer's comment, Webb published a June 16, 2006, diary entry titled, "My Netroots Victory," in which he cited the "support of an army of bloggers and 2,500 volunteers" for contributing to his election. In a later post on Daily Kos, Webb wrote: "I would not have run if I had not seen the spontaneous support that began on the internet and spilled over into a lot of civic groups." After winning his Virginia Senate seat, he wrote: "I would like to thank Daily Kos and the entire netroots community for all of the support for my campaign for U.S. Senate. Your efforts, energy, and contributions were a great help, and a major reason I am able to stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate and fight for the issues that we collectively care about."
Furthermore, as Media Matters for America Senior Fellow Duncan Black noted on his Eschaton blog, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas supported Webb early in his candidacy. From an April 11, 2006, post by Moulitsas:
I don't have the time for a full fighting Dem write up, only to note that tonight's edition (9:20 p.m. ET) will feature Jim Webb running for senate in Virginia.
I am extremely excited about his candidacy and I'll be taking a bigger role promoting it in the coming months.
People think that because Webb was a former Navy secretary under Reagan, and because he speaks, at least rhetorically, favorably about that era, that he is somehow a right-wing Democrat. Anyone who thinks that will be pleasently [sic] surprised over the next several months. Webb is the real deal and a real progressive.
Earlier on Hardball, Matthews had touted Boyer's "amazing" New Yorker article on Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani and asked: "Will voters focus on Rudy's record of cleaning up liberal urban New York and will his toughness against enemies overshadow his stance on social issues?" Boyer had replied that Giuliani is, "of course, famously the mayor of America for the September 11th heroics," adding: "But I was surprised by the degree to which so many people outside of New York knew about the pretty radical reform that he effected in New York City." Matthews then asserted that people "want the cities cleaned up so they can visit them," to which Carpenter replied: "Absolutely. There's an impression, if he can clean up New York, liberal New York City, he can come to Washington and clean that up." Contrary to Boyer's description of Giuliani as "famously the mayor of America for the September 11th heroics," Media Matters has documented numerous criticisms of Giuliani's record on national security, and in particular, his response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
From the August 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to Hardball -- time now to hash through the hottest political stories, sift through the best political news. And here to do it is our panel tonight, our round table; TownHall.com's Amanda Carpenter, Josh Green, who writes about Karl Rove in this month's The Atlantic Monthly, and Peter Boyer, who's written an amazing piece about Rudy Giuliani in this week's New Yorker magazine.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Next up, the other Giuliani -- in the latest issue of The New Yorker magazine, our own round table member, yourself, Peter Boyer, takes a look at Rudy Giuliani's courtship of the heartland and Republicans across the country. As the piece asks: Is what New York never liked about Rudy Giuliani exactly what the heartland loves? Will voters focus on Rudy's record of cleaning up liberal urban New York and will his toughness against enemies overshadow his stance on social issues?
I have a belief -- apparently you've written it -- that Rudy Giuliani has appeal in the South beyond where his values of abortion rights and perhaps gay rights prevail.
BOYER: Yeah. I mean, absolutely. So, I didn't -- I live in New York. I grew up in South Mississippi. I was at an Ole Miss-LSU game a couple of years ago and John McCain, whose granddaddy had gone to school at Ole Miss, was there and he stopped by before the game. And people were polite and glad to see him and shook his hand, and he left. And people started asking me about Rudy Giuliani. Is Giuliani going to run?
And the thing they said was: He can beat Hillary. And that's the thing I have heard in South Carolina, and I've heard all through the heartland, is this is the guy who can beat Hillary Clinton. The other piece of it is, he's, you know, of course, famously the mayor of America for the September 11th heroics. But I was surprised by the degree to which so many people outside of New York knew about the pretty radical reform that he effected in New York City. And that counts a lot to a lot of people outside of the city.
MATTHEWS: Amanda, I have my own views, which I will share at this moment, which is that anybody can end crime as a menacing factor, a big factor of life in the big city, is going to be a hero to people -- even people who don't live in the cities. They want the cities cleaned up so they can visit them.
CARPENTER: Absolutely. There's an impression, if he can clean up New York, liberal New York City, he can come to Washington and clean that up. And, you know, I think there's an appeal that Giuliani, even though he does have these issues with marriage and abortion, he will tell you what he's going to do, even when you don't want to hear it. And compared to Mitt Romney, who does have a credibility issue at this point in time, we know what we're going to get with him. And he's up front about it.
MATTHEWS: All the liberals I work with all say, "Oh, the Republicans will never buy Rudy because he's pro-choice." And I -- maybe because I grew up in a Republican family -- I know the Republicans. Well, Democrats like meetings; Republicans like leaders. They are a different culture. They want somebody to give them the orders, to run the thing. They don't want to have another collegiality session or tea group. They want a boss, a leader. And Rudy, whatever you think of him, gives orders.
[...]
MATTHEWS: We're back with TownHall.com's Amanda Carpenter, The Atlantic Monthly's Josh Green, and The New Yorker magazine's Peter Boyer. Next up, this is a hot one: Is Hillary a drag on her party? The Associated Press today looks into the effect that Hillary Clinton's candidacy could have on Democratic congressional candidates in 2008. In more than 40 interviews with top Democrats, the piece shows a party worried about the damage from such a polarizing politician. That's what they say.
With her unfavorable numbers high in places with key races, how much of a liability is she, Josh? Is Hillary going to bring down the Democratic Congress?
GREEN: I don't know if she's going to bring down the Democratic Congress, but if you talk to Democratic strategists in purple states -- I've been out in Colorado. I've been in Virginia. These are --
MATTHEWS: What are purple states? Half-and-half?
GREEN: Yeah, half-and-half.
MATTHEWS: Red and blue.
GREEN: Just like in crayons.
MATTHEWS: Right.
GREEN: But these are the states where, you know, Democrats got their majority in 2006. It was folks like Jim Webb. It was people in Colorado, like Salazar, you know, who were knocking off true, you know, Republicans --
MATTHEWS: But that's where Hillary hopes to win. She hopes to win in places like Colorado and Nevada and New Mexico.
GREEN: Well, if you talk to strategists, there is a lot of nervousness about that fact. I mean, they think that one of the reasons Democrats won in '06 was because there wasn't a, quote, unquote, "polarizing liberal" --
MATTHEWS: Oh, but they weren't -- they weren't picking --
GREEN: -- a Clinton or a John Kerry at the top of the ticket -- and if there is, a lot of those people think the dynamic could change a little bit.
MATTHEWS: Peter, it's one thing to register a criticism of the current regime or government, as they did in 2006, it's another to pick a new commander in chief. Isn't it?
BOYER: Yeah, it is. I mean, it's interesting. I think, in a way, Hillary has -- Mrs. Clinton has gone farther down the road of convincing people that she might be an effective commander in chief than she has in convincing Democrats that she can win -- and that is a real problem. I mean, Josh is right. Jim Webb was not exactly a Daily Kos Democrat in Virginia. It's a pretty thin margin in both houses, and Mrs. Clinton is, you know, she's her own wedge issue.
MATTHEWS: It's interesting, because John Kennedy, who we all grew up -- at least I grew up watching -- was able to win the Democratic nomination by winning primaries and proving to the political experts that he could win. He had to go out and prove it.
Clean up liberal New York. What the hell does that mean?
Maybe because the vast majority of felons are registered Democrats?
http://www.adversity.net/florida/Frame_Fla_Stories/Florida_Felons.htm
Why is that you feel compelled to link to something to malign Democrats every chance you get? I thought you might find the following information interesting:
Education commonly increases the chance of a person subscribing to liberal beliefs,[4] making liberals the best educated ideological demographic. In terms of income, liberals tend to be tied with pro-business conservatives.[5] Most mass affluent households and college-educated professionals tend to be either centrist or center-right on fiscal issues but liberal to left-wing on social issues.[6] A slight majority of college-eduated professionals, who compose 15% of the population and 20% of the electorate, favor the Democratic Party.[7] Academia and those with graduate degrees overall favor the Democratic Party.[9][10] In 2005, 72% of full-time faculty members at four year institutions, the majority of whom are upper middle class,[1] identified as liberal.[11] The population of the Northeastern United States, which had the smallest population of any region with thirty-six million residents, had the highest percentage of high-school and college graduates. The western United States had the highest percentage of those with some college or an Associates degree and ranked second for college graduates. The South which had by far the largest population with roughly sixty-six million people had the lowest educational attainment at every level. The proportion of high school graduates was the largest in the mid-west while the proportion of those with some college or an Associates degree was the second and that of those with a Bachelor's degree or higher was the third largest of any region. Overall it is fair to assume that the Northeast followed by the Western states were the most educated regions in the US on the college level, with the Mid-west leading on the High-school level and the South falling behind on all levels.[1]"In terms of income, liberals tend to be tied with pro-business conservatives"
Then I suppose you're differentiating between "liberals" and "disadvantaged democrats." Because most polls show that the majority of lower income earners vote Democrat and the majority of upper income earners vote Republican. And my point with the link about most felons being Democrats was meant to show that most felons support Democrats because they know they are softer on crime than Republicans. I didn't mean to imply that Democrats are bad people.
Weak argument, given the fact that most white collar crime and above is commited by republicans.
"And my point with the link about most felons being Democrats was meant to show that most felons support Democrats because they know they are softer on crime than Republicans. I didn't mean to imply that Democrats are bad people."
How do you know this?
Most felons are lower income earners (I don't know this for a fact; I'm guessing here). And you said in your post "most polls show that the majority of lower income earners vote Democrat".
Just look at how the Democrats vote. For example, it's been mostly Democrats who have been opposed to implementing Jessica's Law. Most ACLU type Democrats are more concerned with protecting "civil liberties" then they are with fighting crime. There are certainly some Democrats who are tough on crime, but many of the more liberal Democrats are more concerned with so called "civil liberties" than they are with fighting crime.
So you're basically saying you have no way to verify the claim; it's just your opinion.
"Most ACLU type Democrats are more concerned with protecting "civil liberties" then they are with fighting crime."
Protecting civil liberties and fighting crime are not at odds with each other.
Which civil liberties are the ACLU type Democrats more concerned with?
Funny, Loonz, I went to a luncheon today for work. The speakers were a cop and a lawyer, and the topic was Megan's law.
This young cop, nice enough guy, seemed to really be concerned about the kids, but made more than one mention of flaws with the system being connected to "appeasing the more liberal legislators".
These flaws included some "sexual offenders", depending on their crimes, not being compelled to have their info registered.
To me, this meant that a guy accused of date rape and convicted on testimony and circumstantial evidence was not classified as exactly the same as a monster who dragged a 5 year old off a playground and sexually assaulted her.
To this cop, it meant liberals were soft on crime, and he had to work too hard to protect the children. (I live in a very Repub. county)
BTW, my hypothetical case of a bogus rape charge should not be taken to imply that I think this is common, just that it's possible, and justifies erring on the side of civil liberties at times. It happened to a very nice man that I know.
Baseless opinion and straw men.
Provide some evidence rather than this nebulous "soft on crime Democrat" that you've fabricated.
"Most ACLU type Democrats are more concerned with protecting "civil liberties" then they are with fighting crime. There are certainly some Democrats who are tough on crime, but many of the more liberal Democrats are more concerned with so called "civil liberties" than they are with fighting crime." RH
To that quote, I give a resounding bull shoot! Liberal ACLU Democrats want to fight crime without breaking any more laws. Civil liberties were given to us by the Constitution and anyone who violates civil liberties are committing crimes. Why must someone not be concerned about civil liberties to be tough on crime? The two are not essentially bound.
For example, if someone raided your house illegally and planted some evidence, but because of their illegal invasion of your home, convicted you, I guarantee you would be furious about the violation of civil liberties that you had experienced. Would the "tough on crime" people be satisfied? Sure, they got their conviction, case closed.
When we lose our basic civil liberties, we fall closer and closer into what conservatives purport to hate: a big government who can arrest us for any reason.
That is the typical dumb argument I have come to expect from you. There are many procedural reasons to be against Jessicas law. Many PROSECUTERS oppose it. So you pull more BS directly out of your ass and make a completely inane argument. Your posts are more and more worthless
Whatever RHINNY baby. BTW I think you have won your fight. You have chased most the people out of the Republican party that won't march in lock step with your very narrow views.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-brook/where-have-all-the-young-_b_60519.html
From the site you linked to, Rinohunter;
"At least 445 Florida felons voted illegally on Nov. 7,"
The site, which bills itself as for victims of reverse discrimination (whiny entitled white people), also states that 75% of these, or 334, were registered Democrats.
The site also mentions that this figure is from a county that did not purge felons and dead people from the rolls.
It then extrapolates this very unique situation to counties in the rest of the state, which did purge ineligible voters.
You've been confused by propaganda.300 registeres Dems and 100 registered Repubs voted illegally in Fla. Somebody tricked you into believing that this means that the "vast majority" (you love that phrase, don't you?) of Felons are Democrats.
Get an adult who has taken some math classes to walk you through this. Here's some information you might get together beforehand;
-Population of the United States
- percentage of that population that equals 400 people
-statistical probability of felony arrest related to income level and geographic area (urban vs. rural)
Seriously, I'm a helpful guy, but it gets a little old holding your hand through all of this BS. This site is really designed for those who have already figured this crap out, you've got to start doing a bit of thinking for yourself.
what about the vast majority of global assholes being conservative?
And of course, I speak of global assholes in the modern world and throughout history.
And the majority of felons in Washington D.C. are Repulans
Not excluding the republican felons outside Washington.
Of course they can't be blamed, those "scary" black men force republicans to pay them for sex.
You are way off topic.
Why on earth would you provide a link to a thinly veiled racist website that provides misleading (at best) information to justify its goal? Why are you even aware of such a website? What other such wonderful sites do you frequent? Never mind - I don't want to know.
So, whats your point? Most registered republicans are WASP.
While the vast majority of MORONS tend to be registered Republicans.
Isn't it obvious what Boyer was implying ? He's saying Webb is a moderate, albeit using faulty terminology.
Of course, after seeing Harold Ford, Jr. praising the Kos on Meet the Press, I have come to a conclusion:
Every Democrat is a "Daily Kos Democrat."
I have come to a conclusion: Every Democrat is a "Daily Kos Democrat."
Conclusion: a judgement or opinion formed after thought.
Nah you didn't
Notice that at no time do my fingers leave my hand.
Mathews is claiming he works with liberals. curious, he appears to clam he knows their opinions. I'd like proof of both, somehow I'm suspicious of these claims.
The Democratic wins in 06 were due to the lack of a polorizing liberal. Ah right?
Jim Webb has roots with Daily Kos.
Mr. Green has concerns that Hillary will bring down the Democratic Congress as she is her own wedge issue.
I lie, a finger seems to be missing.
I've stared at the transcript of matthews boyer carpenter and green for several minutes now, and it seems like hours.
It's like staring into a void.
The things they are transcribed as saying are so empty and meaningless.
You noted where green said "...one of the reasons Democrats won in '06 was because there wasn't a, quote, unquote, "polarizing liberal"
In the '06 elections, 22 Democrats were elected to the Senate (not including Mr. Sanders of Vermont), and 233 Democrats were elected to the House: Which one of them elected that day "wasn't a, quote, unquote, "polarizing liberal"? All 255 of them?
You also noted boyer saying "Mrs. Clinton is, you know, she's her own wedge issue"
...and, you know, if the things you say are meaningless enough, then who can argue with you?
At the top of this thread, a poster noted the nonsense of "cleaning up liberal urban New York"...
Truly Roundhouse, what does that mean?
And we have matthews and green honing the leading edge in political discourse, analyzing for us in a new way, just what's going on out there in the American political spectrum...
green: ...if you talk to Democratic strategists in purple states -- I've been out in Colorado. I've been in Virginia. These are --
matthews: What are purple states? Half-and-half?
green: Yeah, half-and-half.
matthews: Red and blue.
green: Just like in crayons.
matthews: Right.
At the very top of the transcript, matthews introduces boyer as someone "who's written an amazing piece" in some magazine.
I say they're all "amazing", chris included...
I was amazed... I stared at the transcript for what seemed like an eternity, hypnotized by it; like a 10th grade Civics teacher staring at an essay, unbelieving...
...before putting a big red "F" on the paper, and adding:
"Empty and Meaningless... If you have nothing to write about, that's OK; but it's not OK to write about nothing!"
I will go out on a limb and predict that within one(1) month, the RightWing Radio crowd will somehow make the words "The Daily Kos" a bad phrase. Since the simple-minded sheep will follow along, the Repub mouthpieces cwill equate KOS to some Communist ideology and promote and promote their nonsense.
Also, it seems that the Talk-Jocks are concerned a little too much about the Democratic Partys' business. Shouldn't they be talking up THEIR people. Nope, they can only badmouth someone else. I have news for these cyst-jocks, the D's are priming the country for an all encompassing demolition of the Republan Party. A Hundred Years of Democratic Rule...that is Karl ,the Loser, Roves' legacy.
"I have news for these cyst-jocks, the D's are priming the country for an all encompassing demolition of the Republan Party"
I hate to break it to you, but the polls show that the Democratic front runners and the Republican front runners are dead even. The Democrats definetely aren't running away with it. The 2008 election is going to come down to the wire just like the two previous elections.
Rino, The Repubs are working to take the White House....they can have it because the intent of the D's is to first, gain a veto proof Congress and second, win the White House. Now that is a secret, don't tell anyone. And I never thought you were calling Democrats bad.
Rino
How is it that in Republican polls that include "None of the Above," that guy always wins? Haven't heard of him before, I guess he needs better ads
None of the Above for president in 08!
It probably will come down to the wire. But they are not running dead even.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htmYou just never let go of your delusions do you? The 2006 elections did NOT come down to the wire. The Dems were polling way ahead, I was telling anyone who would listen that the House was DEFINITLY going to be taken by Dems and the Senate was 50/50. It was an electoral bloodbath and 2008 is shaping up the same.
http://hominidviews.com/?p=1024
Prince, I'm probably checking out more righty media than you, but they've been demonizing The Kos for a few months now.
Mostly relying on the most inflammatory posts (not the Kos articles or diaries, but the visitors comments, which are not censored very much), they have been framing the site as a lfar eft-wing hate site for a while.
The same as they've been trying to do with this site, it just depends which one exposes more Republican bullsh*t in a given week.
In fact, the propaganda is far enough along that I'm going to join the WITH crowd, and say that the above item is not conservative misinformation.
Since a Kos Democrat has been defined by the media as a raging hate-filled lunatic, Webb is not a Kos Dem, regardless of any work he has done there.
They're actually reporting at a level where their propaganda supersedes reality.That is, Webb is a Democrat who has provided material for the Daily Kos, but he doesn't fit the conservatives media imaginary definition of a "Kos Dem", so it must be untrue that he is a Dem who is connected to the Kos,.
And there's people buying it.
I think it is conservative misinformation. Without being challenged, Boyer is allowed to say one of the strongest freshmen Senators in many years, who belongs to Daily Kos' membership and has said he owes his victory to Daily Kos, is not a "Daily Kos Democrat."
Gone unchallenged, Boyer has been allowed to take credit away from a community of people-powered politics that favor Democratic electoral victories.
Anybody interested in doing five minutes of research knows the philosophy of Daily Kos isn't that their Democrats match 39 of 39 litmus tests on issues. Disagreements on small issues are ideally buried, because a proud, electable Democrat brings a greater party voice in Washington -- meaning Democrats as a whole get more of what they want.
Webb said he wouldn't cross the street to see Jane Fonda slit her wrists.
He's not a Daily Kos Dem.
That's like saying that you're not a MMFA troll. Again, very slowly this time...Webb is a contributor and member of Daily Kos. He IS a Daily Kos Dem. Jane Fonda is a nonsequitur.
Dang, now they'll have to hate Jim Web too. Well they still have Harold Ford to hold up as a good Democrat.
I agree with you on the piece DEM. I was struggling with it. A vapourus flimsie thing that almost says something.
The corporate media are terrified of Net activism. They can't "frame the debate" here.
Bingo! We have a winner.
Ain't that the truth?
DFH, anyone? Wow, what a fool. Never let the truth get in the way of your own inaccurate, negative prejudices.
I imagine both Clinton and Jim Webb will have something to say to Boyer. He's just another hack for the right with a maniacal bias . He gives himself permission to blatantly lie at will. That's the state of MSM media today. I'm glad the truth squad is on his case.
C'mon, it's hardly fair to gang up on the guy for spewing grossly innacurate information about Webb's relationship with a website before that person has even purchased their first computer...