Daily Howler: Case Study in How the Left Bungles Its Critique of the Right

[BurtWorm]

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

Just yesterday, we mentioned the need for the liberal web to develop controlling Master Narratives for liberals. Why do Dems, libs and centrists need Master Narratives? Consider what happened on Scarborough Country when USA Next was discussed just last night.

The stage was set for a Big Liberal Triumph. Amazingly, Scarborough had assembled a panel which featured two liberals and only one conservative. And how absurd was the conduct at issue? USA Next’s attacks on the AARP had been so absurd that even Scarborough rolled his eyes at the pseudo-con group as he introduced the discussion. (“They went so far as to say AARP supports gay marriage and is anti-soldier.”) Here was the perfect chance for liberal spokesmen to state the obvious: Conservatives keep making a joke of your discourse. These groups keep trying to treat us like fools. The controlling point for the liberals was obvious: There they go again, dear viewers! But liberals have failed, in the past many years, to establish any Master Narratives. So note what happened when Scarborough began by throwing to Air America’s Rachel Maddow:

MADDOW (2/24/05): USA Next has said they want to spend $10 million against AARP. Now, they don’t want to spend $10 million promoting the president’s plan on Social Security. They literally want to spend $10 million tearing down AARP. I do think it’s kind of funny that they decided to do it by saying that AARP loves gay marriage—that was a real surprise to me. I think that was an unusual choice. But you know, with $10 million, you can probably make anything stick. I just want to know who funds these guys.

At the very best, that gets a C-minus. Given the chance to state a Large Theme—conservatives constantly peddle this nonsense—Maddow fell back on a weak, tired line: I want to know where their money comes from. But readers, who gives a sh*t where their money comes from? Unless you explain what’s wrong with what they’re saying and doing, it just doesn’t matter who gives them their money! But Maddow made little attempt to say what was wrong with what USA Next said. (Her talking-point seemed to be: “USA Next has $10 million.” Why should a voter care?) This had been the Perfect Chance to say that they’re trying to treat you like fools, just the way the always do—but Maddow settled for a weak alternative. But then, so did liberal talker Joe Madison when he was asked to opine:

[Pepperbelly]

1. I am glad you posted this. I intended to myself but ...

the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Somerby is totally, 100% right about this.

[BurtWorm]

2. It is amazing that no one comes out and says, "They're full of shit."

(Or something like that. ;) ) I'm going to try to start paying attention to the number of times lefties flat out call righties on their shit, instead of trying to insinuate some deep dark conspiracy. There probably is a conspiracy, but the point is not the money. It's what they're doing to American political discourse.

[Gabi Hayes]

6. not 100percent....see post below this one

they don't get much chance to talk, so it's hard to get the right things on......maybe with more exposure

problem is, when somebody is really good (can't think of anybody who's consistently hardass, besides Holbrooke, but he's almost a neocon in some ways, himself), and when they DO hit hard, they tend to disappear

when's the last (first?) time you've EVER seen Bob Parry on any of these shows

he knows more about the swinishness of these scum than anybody else I can think of

he lost TWO JOBS because he wouldn't swallow their shit

love to see him on one of these shows

[Gabi Hayes]

3. unfit for command? hahahahaha....great linkage!

somerby is a bit harsh in his analysis, maybe

I'd give her a C+/B-, cause people DO care about where funding comes from, and she has a point about the uses to which they initially put said money

however, he's right about the need to hammer home what they say/do with the money

how much time do they give onair to lib proponents, though, and what's the most effective way to get their points across?

does he do anything more than criticize? what's his means of getting point across

btw, still pissed at him for being so amazingly out of touch with the Wilson affair

[BurtWorm]

5. He says Krugman is the gold standard:

By contrast, in this morning’s Times, Paul Krugman does what these two pundits didn’t; he clearly states the larger point about these attacks on the AARP. He ends up stating the key, clear point: They do this sh*t all the time:

KRUGMAN (2/25/05): It's tempting to dismiss this as an exceptional case in which right-wingers, unable to come up with a real cultural grievance to exploit, fabricated one out of thin air. But such fabrications are the rule, not the exception.
For example, for much of December viewers of Fox News were treated to a series of ominous warnings about "Christmas under siege”—the plot by secular humanists to take Christ out of America's favorite holiday. The evidence for such a plot consisted largely of occasions when someone in an official capacity said, "Happy holidays," instead of, "Merry Christmas."

So it doesn't matter that Social Security is a pro-family program that was created by and for America's greatest generation...Right-wingers will still find ways to claim that anyone who opposes privatization supports terrorists and hates family values.

Right-wingers do this sh*t all the time! We told you yesterday—the liberal web needs to develop some Master Narratives. Last night, Maddow and Madison showed how weak our spokesmen can be when they don’t have Large Stories to offer.

[Gabi Hayes]

7. agree, in print form but he's not effective on TV

ever seen him?

he's very uncomfortable, halting speech

OReilly almost beat him up on Russert's MSNBC weekend show, the dick

[Gabi Hayes]

9. also, Sam Seder did a GREAT job on this last night and the

night before on AAR.

he gets it, and doesn't pull punches

haven't seen him on TV

JM Marshall was on with him, too, and is making the USNext BS a special project

have you seen his blog on it?

I hope upon hope that somebody will come on there and be effective

[BurtWorm]

14. No I haven't seen Marshall on this.

I'll go check him out immediately. Thanks! :toast:

[IrateCitizen]

8. Somerby is far from overly harsh on this. His analysis is spot-on.

Maddow and that other guy were pitched up grapefruits, and the best they could manage was a slow-roller single to the opposite field. They had a big fat target to shoot at, but they were too busy discussing the weather to notice.

Do you honestly believe that the average person out there watching these shows gives a flying fuck where the funding comes from? If you do, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Somerby is EXACTLY RIGHT here -- when confronted with this kind of blatant lying, people on the left need to state it loudly and repeatedly, "This isn't anything new. This is just another example of how the right wing just makes shit up to confuse the debate and mislead the American people."

And yes, I would say it JUST LIKE THAT. They simply make shit up. It's high time they're called on it, especially if we ever want to see anything approaching a liberal resurgence in this country.

The right is playing for keeps, and all of its spokespeople act as if it is. The left is treating all of this like a playground game of tiddly winks.

[Pepperbelly]

10. thank you, sir.

It's like guard dogs chasing butterflies while the old racoon is busily stealing all the eggs.

[Gabi Hayes]

11. London or Tower?

we disagree on the extent of their fecklessness.

did you actually see it?

it sounds bad, I admit, but if they call them flat out on their LIES, they will NOT get axed back.

that's what happens.

It's OK if you're a pug....lookit Ann Coulter bemoaning the fact that reporters AREN'T being shot by our own soldiers

nothing happens to her, but what happened to that CNN guy (Jordan?)

the playing field is so tilted that it's almost counterproductive to go on those shows

that's why AAR and its like are so necessary: unfiltered message to be spread

[IrateCitizen]

15. I don't need to "see" it. It comes off even worse in print.

Nothing they said would provoke a visceral response in anybody watching it -- at least anybody that was sway-able.

As for not being asked back, who the fuck cares? I mean, where in the hell does this kind of rhetoric wrapped in kid gloves get us anyway? Seems to me it comes down to a choice between helping the cause and not being invited back, or being feckless and getting invited back. In the end analysis, helping the cause and not getting invited back has more of a net positive effect.

The playing field usually IS tilted, but this is one instance in which it was NOT. It's a shame that it just passed by without anyone invited even trying to take advantage of the opportunity.

Like I said above, the right wing is coming with knives, chains and lead pipes, ready for an all-out street brawl. The left is treating it like a game of tiddly winks.

[Pepperbelly]

16. this is the tragedy ...

The message that we most need to put out ... that these lying bastards will say ANYTHING in pursuit of their ends and that all of the grief of the last 15 years have been the result of their brazen lies and hustles.

The Swift Shits for Lies are just making shit up, like they always do. Like these outrage-factories do about every single thing they whine about. Lies, pure D horseshit from the get-go. When the smary bastards open their mouth to voice outrage, carry it to the bank ... they are lying through their fucking teeth.

[Padraig18]

4. Our 'barking moonbat' problem.

*nods*

[Gabi Hayes]

12. I remember....central Illinois

39-0?

[Padraig18]

13. Beg pardon?

???

[Armstead]

17. Good point but wrong targets

The point that liberals are weak in attacking right wing spin is a good one, and often applies to liberal pundits and politicos.

But he picked two of the people who do not represent that. Maddow and Madison are two of the strngest and least apologetic liberals on the air. And both have the presence (and vocal power) to hold their own.

They asked questions that needed to be raised. Where is this money coming from, and why?

So, wrong point, but in this case he is nitpicking.

[BurtWorm]

18. If you're going to ask the question, you'd better know the answer.

It would have been more powerful to say, the money is coming from the same people who manufactured the SwiftBoat hoax during the campaign: Republican dirty tricksters and disinformation operatives. The more important point, though, is what the ad "means." The Republicans are clearly going to try to equate opposition to the Bush plan with support for terrorism and gay marriage--in other words, they're going to try to change the subject because they don't want anyone looking too closely at their immensely faulty, anti-worker, pro-corporation plan.

All of this stuff needs to be said loud and clear.

[sandnsea]

19. We don't know that

It's the same ad agency, but not necessarily the same money source. As far as I know. We do need to start tracking the money. Like where Bobby Eberle got HIS money from. They're right on target and if the Daily Howler had wanted to make a point, he could have started by naming names so people would know where the funding comes from. We certainly know "George Soros" and "Warren Buffett". Why don't we have any names like that on their side? Believe me, we could destroy the Christian right in 6 months and it would be incredibly easy. Fliers that show the money and connections between their beloved organizations. Every Sunday, church after church across the country. Easy as pie. The one thing fundamentalists really do hate more than anything is money games.

[depakid]

21. Ya gotta go further than that- that's what Sommerby's saying

and what I've been saying for so long that I've damn near given up hope that progresives will ever get it.

You have to play the game like Republicans do. It's not enought to cite chapter and verse- 90% of the population doesn't know who these front groups are and if you use generalities like "right wing such and such groups,' they don't get it

The key question is:

"Why should people give shit where the money comes from?"

Welp, if the money is coming from the pharmacuetical industry, for example, you lay into PhRMA with some well reinforced "narratives." Most people are at the very least suspicious of drug companies- and they're pissed off at the high prices of their presriptions. A lot of peple hate 'em. With good reason.

So you marshal that hate.

You say, "these comapanies are making record profits by gouging us and our families- and they're turning around and using our own money to fund groups like this who lie to you." "Do you like being lied to?" Do you like being taken for a fool?"

Do you like finding out that they've known for years that some of their best selling drugs have been killing people (the pinto argument).

That's how use the larger narrative and you do it EVERY SINGLE TIME when an issue about PhArMA comes up (and maybe even sometimes when it doesn't).

You hang that albatross (and others like it) on the Republicans necks until it rots.

[sandnsea]

22. Howler doesn't say that

He says we need to say "they always do that". That isn't enough.

I agree with you. We need to name names, name the corporations who are contributing to the groups and name both. Saying "they always do that" isn't enough. When you name names, you're building a case. Then when you don't know where the money comes from, you already have credibility because you've been naming names for a while. I just got an email that "there is no crisis" has compiled a list of corporations that are behind Bush. I haven't read it yet, but that's what we need to do. Follow the money. That's why I think the two speakers weren't so bad and actually better than just saying "that's what Republicans always do".

[bpilgrim]

20. digit, shoot less than a year ago there wasn't even an AAR host to invite

the problem is that we don't have enough national orgs that represent populous progressive policies on a full-time basis, though i think that is changing it just wont happen over night.

but thank GORE he 'invented' the INTERNETs

and folks like Bob Somerby and his daily howler are out there :bounce:

peace