Where is the Democratic Leadership?

[BlueIdaho]

The TeaPublicans are all over the MSM "framing" the S&P report as a condemnation of Democratic ideals. So where is the Democratic leadership pointing out the truth - that the report laid most of the blame at the feet of the right wing wackos?

Just complaining that the "math is wrong" is weak sauce. We need to hammer home the truth before Joe and Jane Q Voter fall for this right wing snow job.

We need push back and we need it NOW.

[spanone]

1. agreed....k&r

[placton]

2. Democratic leadership

is standing firm, from Obama, to Reid, to Pelosi. They enact anything the Goopers want them to!

[Demoiselle]

3. Barney Frank was on Rachel Maddow last night.

Very good as usual...and angrier than I've ever seen him. She had others on too.
I switched to Anderson Cooper for a moment and he was interviewing whatever high muckety muck at S&P had lead the firm in its findings.
The very first words out of H-Muckety were about political instability in Washington. Nothing about the actual ability of the US to make good on its bond debt. This was the point that Maddow, Frank and others on MSNBC were making. ("BULLSHIT!" in other words.)

From the White House...not so much, although the math mistake is a pretty strong argument, as long as it's accompanied by other points.

I don't think I'll watch the news today. It'll be easier to take second hand via DU.

Hendrick Hertzberg has an excellent essay in the Aug 8 New Yorker, by the way...

[slipslidingaway]

4. Anything in the weekly address? n/t

[kenny blankenship]

5. This is the Headline: S&P downgrades US Govt. credit, Obama alleges "bad math"

Down in the fifth paragraph or the fine print it says we got downgraded because our political parties refuse to pay for debts already incurred or refuse to hold each other to account for playing chicken with the national credit rating.

The fine print can't be heard over the shouting of the headline.

S&P KNOWS THIS.

The whole thing is political in motivation and impact. They made an accounting "error" to justify their downgrade. Now they have Obama punching back in the headlines saying stuff like "they can't add!" It makes him sound like a 3rd world autocrat who is upset with honest, impartial, buttoned-down accountants from the first world, who say his profligate govt is a bad credit risk.

[BlueIdaho]

6. Bingo!

Not much of a message is it... "Hey, they can't add!!!!"

Seriously?

[L0oniX]

19. OH NOES ....FUZZY MATH IS BACK!

[gulliver]

7. Yup, the finger of blame needs to be pointed at the GOP

When will the Dems understand that you can't opt out of the blame game? Americans are not that bright. They don't think it is "adult" not to engage in blame, they think it is an admission of guilt.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Actually the OP is talking about FRAMING

at which the democrats suck... and I have to ask the obligatory question at this point. IS THIS ON PURPOSE? Nobody can be this incompetent by accident all the time, on major stories.

[Karmadillo]

10. They know as much or more about framing as the rest of us, so

it would seem your conclusion makes sense. If the Democratic leadership wanted to frame the discussion around the ruinous cost of health care (Dean Baker writes about how simply bringing US costs in line with the costs in other industrial countries with saner policies would go a long way towards dealing with our debt) and the insane cost of our miliitary, they could. If they wanted to frame the job discussion around public works a la FDR instead of waiting for Godot private market solutions, they could. That they don't tells you where the interests of the Democratic leadership lie.

[gulliver]

13. Never attribute to malice...

I agree that Dems frame pathetically. Most of our leaders are blind to it and/or look down on it. We don't understand or respect rhetoric in general.

When I talk about blaming, I am talking about framing the situation as one in which the Republicans can be blamed and condemned. The prevailing frame is very close to supporting that now. The art of blaming is the art of framing. I just read a sad, sad example of the political malpractice of not blaming over at CNN.

Have a look at this if you want to barf.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/08/06/credit.rating.reaction.cnn/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[Whisp]

9. the democrats don't get invited on.

thats old news. you don't call up Blitzer and ask for an interview, at least that was what I was told and that certainly fits in well with all lopsided representation.

[Tesha]

11. That excuse is wearing thin.

We live in the future.

If the Democrats wished, they could video a series of statements, put
them up on YouTube, and circulate links to the videos through their
extensive mailing lists.

They could also organize protest outside the various media outlets.

Think they'll do either?

Tesha

[Whisp]

16. and only democrats would watch the youtubes.

No, that is not a solution at all.

The media is not here to help us, we know that. Why do some forget? Have they somehow got honesty in journalism since the Chimp left? They still work for the RW, just fyi.

[Tesha]

22. Well that would be several million more people than see Democrats now.

Today, *NONE OF US* routinely see Democrats regularly speaking
out against Republicans.

Tesha

[jeff47]

23. Attacking your opponents makes for more interesting TV.

So when a Democrat goes on and is all wishy-washy, it doesn't work well.

On the other hand, if a Democrat went on and got loud, that would result in lots of invitations back on the show.

I really don't understand so many people here buy into the passivity. "Oh, we're not invited on"...give up. "Oh we don't have the votes before proposing the legislation"...give up.

Fighting works. That's why the Republicans do it.

[Whisp]

26. just for an example.

during the runup to the Iraq war, the guests that were pro war were a huge percentage over the anti-wars. and a lot of military/ex-military were invited to speak.

do you really think the anti-wars just decided to sit out and not try to get the message out, that it was because they didn't try hard enough, or ask often enough of the media? Donahue was fired from his own show for being too anti-war. The same media, and worse are still at it.

didn't the world have people marching in the millions against the Iraq war and the news hardly covered it, but make a teabagger dozen seem like news?

Did we forget how they operate?

*astounded

[jeff47]

28. The anti-war politicians made for boring TV.

That's why they were not invited on the Sunday shows. None of them would create a massive on-camera confrontation with a pro-war politician.

News programs are no longer about informing the public. News programs are for entertainment. If you are not entertaining, you will not be on the program. Thus, you need to be entertaining while getting your message across.

If you start your answer with "Well, my Republican colleague has a point" you will not be back. If you start your answer with "my Republican colleague is an idiot" you will.

[Whisp]

31. Not sure about that

media outlets do not want any messages contrary to their masters agenda - thats why Begala and Carville are still employed at CNN, they sometimes get a shot in but generally obsequious and sometimes sickening. Carville is more a republican than anything.

Blitzer and Cooper would be down any throat that went against their message. and never invited back.

I just don't accept that there aren't enough interesting and controversial democrats to take up part of their schedule. They just don't want them there. people might actually have a different point of view hearing them.

[jeff47]

34. Perhaps if you listed the controversial democratic politicians they could have on.

'Cause I can't think of any with sufficient fire in their belly.

[Zenlitened]

27. Good point:

Attacking your opponents makes for more interesting TV.

So when a Democrat goes on and is all wishy-washy, it doesn't work well.

On the other hand, if a Democrat went on and got loud, that would result in lots of invitations back on the show.

Whether we like it or not, that's the way it is.

You simply have to be provocative and confrontational to get the invites and news coverage in general.

An no, folks, those are not dirty bad tewwible tewwible words.

It is possible to be provocative by speaking the plain, hard truth.

It is possible to be confrontational simply by saying, "You're flat-out wrong, and here's why..."

That's how you make the newscast, or the paper or whatever else.

Not by asking permission to disagree, or apologizing for having a different opinion, or couching criticisms with kind words about how sincere and well-meaning and gosh just plain kindhearted your opponent is.

This is a basic, basic component of political messaging.

(Another being, keep your answers short: say what you mean to say and then shut up until the reporter asks another question.)

Too many Democrats are unwilling or unable to do what the situation, what the REALITY of political and media life, requires.

And we're all paying the price.

[sabrina 1]

25. When the POTUS makes a speech the media will cover it.

The real reason why Democrats are now in a position of not being able to defend themselves is because THEY WENT ALONG with Republican ideas, like extending the Bush Tax Cuts when they HAD A MAJORITY and could have let them expire.

And so many other things they agreed to, like the President OFFERING to put SS, Medicare and Medicaid on the table.

Instead of drawing a clear line from the very beginning on the difference between both parties, it was decided that being 'bi-partisan' 'compromising' was the way to go. And as a result, we got more Republican policies than Progressive policies.

What are Democrats going to say to defend themselves now? 'They made us do it? They made us extend the Bush Tax Cuts'? You can be sure Republicans will point out how willing they were to 'cooperate'.

But it is Progressives who have 'retarded ideas'?? Do you think now, this WH will start listeing to the Progressive Wing of the party, who put forward many great ideas to help our economic situation only to be completely ignored? I hope so, because what they have done has not worked. Adapting Republican ideas was doomed to failure and I for one, am sick of the excuses for why they chose that path.

[dgibby]

12. Democratic leadership=ultimate oxymoron. n/t

[L0oniX]

18. +1,000,000,000,000,000

[RagAss]

14. Here I Am !!

[mmonk]

15. They thought if they came out saying the same things on the same day,

it might be bad form.

[L0oniX]

17. What is Democratic Leadership?

[merkins]

20. The Washington Generals

are owned and play for the Harlem Globetrotters.
It's all the same outfit, but your welcome to
pretend there is an actual game going on.

[Major Hogwash]

21. They're all at a tea party that Boehnor invited them to this week to celebrate fucking up America.

And we're going to have spiced triads and pickled worsteds and lots and lots of tea!!

Hee hee.

Who's crazy, not me.

Hee hee.

He signed it, you see.

Hee hee.

Mitch will appear, but then he disappears and his asshole is all that remains.

Hee hee.

[EFerrari]

24. It's August. n/t

[BlueIdaho]

29. Ok, how hard is this really?

"Since the first world war America has successfully managed the necessary business of raising the debt ceiling while maintaining it's AAA+ credit rating. For the first time in our nations history our creditworthiness has been called into question because of the reckless actions of a few House Republicans. These are serious times that call for serious actions not misguided litmus tests and preposterous party oaths.

[WinkyDink]

30. Having tea and crumpets, studying the Marquess of Queensbury rules.

[stevedeshazer]

32. The Democratic leadership is with YOU.

And ME.

And ALL of US.

Get the word out.

:thumbsup:

[blkmusclmachine]

33. I think they're keeping tabs on the Talibangelicals over in Houston today

with their self-anointed "King," Scarey Perry.

[TomCADem]

35. Attack Democrats, Give Republicans A Free Pass- Go Corporate Media Narrative!

Woot!

[Odin2005]

36. Busy helping the Republicans beat up hippies.

[tomp]

37. out in back of the white house playing political games. nt