Wednesday, November 08, 2006
The Media Finally Gets It: Or Maybe Not
I guess the theme of today's blogging will be, naturally, the election (I guess I'm trying to steal the most banal blog title from Althouse?):
Heard last night on NPR (apprx): "when a party falls out of favor, the first people to be voted out are the moderates in that party. We're seeing that with the Republicans (e.g. in New England) tonight. And we saw it with the Dems. in 1994".
The media only now realize this? Michael Moore pointed this out ages ago (he also predicted another "cold war" ... I think the GWOT is close enough to his prediction for pundit work, nu?), but he's fat and he's from the wrong social class (btw ... we leftwing liberal moonbats desparately need to work out a code ... I heard Senator <> Bernie Sanders talking about these all important matters of class on the radio last night and he almost sounded too strong for me: just as the Republicans speak in such a manner that their base hears one thing, big business hears another, the punditocracy yet another and Joe and Jane Voter, yet another, we Dems -- and also Sen. Bernie Sanders -- need to have a code so that we don't scare away voters but rather subconciously persuade them to our side ... an easy example: instead of saying "let's role back the PBA ban" say "we need to ensure that, no matter what side of the abortion debate we're on, we have laws that first and formost protect the life, health and well-being of all citizens and legal residents of this country ... including pregnant women") ... so to our media snobs, he counts for nothin' (and some say we don't have a problem with social class in this country).
So we've had 12 some years of concern trollism from the SCLM telling us Dems. to moderate, and only now they realize that running to the center doesn't necessarily help your electoral chances?
*
And even now, the media is still spotty on this concept. Later last night, NPR had some "analyst" spinning the "Dems won 'cause they moved to the right on social issues" record. Yeah ... I believe that, as does Atrios (as does Ezra Klein, what's with all the Anteater-types in left-blogostan?). How did running as more of a social conservative work out for you Harold Ford, eh? The Democrats of course won, 'cause of frustration with GW Bush's imperial presidency (it took the electorate long enough) and the US equivalent of "Tory Sleeze". But the Dems. had, if they wanna win again in 2008 when GW Bush will be out of the picture and the sleeziest GOoPers are gone, better act as if (and start creating the "reality" of) they had a mandate to be constructive and push a Democratic agenda. Otherwise it'll be too easy for the GOP to "remind" voters that in 2006, they were mad at specific GOoPers and not the GOP agenda as a whole, and "remind" voters to victory.
In politics, you create your own reality. Alas, that seems to be too hard a lesson for members of the "reality based community" to learn. Hopefully we'll learn it soon ...
Heard last night on NPR (apprx): "when a party falls out of favor, the first people to be voted out are the moderates in that party. We're seeing that with the Republicans (e.g. in New England) tonight. And we saw it with the Dems. in 1994".
The media only now realize this? Michael Moore pointed this out ages ago (he also predicted another "cold war" ... I think the GWOT is close enough to his prediction for pundit work, nu?), but he's fat and he's from the wrong social class (btw ... we leftwing liberal moonbats desparately need to work out a code ... I heard Senator <> Bernie Sanders talking about these all important matters of class on the radio last night and he almost sounded too strong for me: just as the Republicans speak in such a manner that their base hears one thing, big business hears another, the punditocracy yet another and Joe and Jane Voter, yet another, we Dems -- and also Sen. Bernie Sanders -- need to have a code so that we don't scare away voters but rather subconciously persuade them to our side ... an easy example: instead of saying "let's role back the PBA ban" say "we need to ensure that, no matter what side of the abortion debate we're on, we have laws that first and formost protect the life, health and well-being of all citizens and legal residents of this country ... including pregnant women") ... so to our media snobs, he counts for nothin' (and some say we don't have a problem with social class in this country).
So we've had 12 some years of concern trollism from the SCLM telling us Dems. to moderate, and only now they realize that running to the center doesn't necessarily help your electoral chances?
*
And even now, the media is still spotty on this concept. Later last night, NPR had some "analyst" spinning the "Dems won 'cause they moved to the right on social issues" record. Yeah ... I believe that, as does Atrios (as does Ezra Klein, what's with all the Anteater-types in left-blogostan?). How did running as more of a social conservative work out for you Harold Ford, eh? The Democrats of course won, 'cause of frustration with GW Bush's imperial presidency (it took the electorate long enough) and the US equivalent of "Tory Sleeze". But the Dems. had, if they wanna win again in 2008 when GW Bush will be out of the picture and the sleeziest GOoPers are gone, better act as if (and start creating the "reality" of) they had a mandate to be constructive and push a Democratic agenda. Otherwise it'll be too easy for the GOP to "remind" voters that in 2006, they were mad at specific GOoPers and not the GOP agenda as a whole, and "remind" voters to victory.
In politics, you create your own reality. Alas, that seems to be too hard a lesson for members of the "reality based community" to learn. Hopefully we'll learn it soon ...
# posted by alberich @ 10:43 AM 
