Don't Help the RWing Smear Machine Destroy Democratic Candidates

[Q]

- From where do all these negative stories about Democrats originate? Why is the American media suddenly so interested in Democratic candidates releasing their records and service in the military?

- To keep this in context: this is the same media that actually helped candidate Bush* hide and downplay his record during the 2000 campaign. This is the same media that didn't bother to dwell into why Bush* was hiding the Reagan/Poppy presidential papers or investigate why Cheney refused to release national energy policy documents. This is the same media that has nothing to say about the most secretive government in US history.

- For eight years before Bush*...the American media seemed to believe that no scandal about a Democratic president was too small or ridiculous to report. Then a Republican became 'president' in 2000 and the RWing Smear machine / American media intentionally ignored scandals in the White House while switching to attacking Democratic candidates.

- Which brings us back to the role Democrats play in the RWing strategy to sweep Republican scandals under the carpet and keep Democratic 'scandals' alive. It's strange that many Democrats have forgotten all about the dozens of active Bush*/Republican scandals and spend an inordinate amount of time discussing rumors and innuendo being spread by the RWing Smear Machine.

- In essence...you're giving the crooks in the White House another free ride if you're spending more time talking about what RWingers and detractors are saying about Democratic candidates than about the horrendous damage being done by the current administration. Keep your eye on the ball and don't do their dirty work FOR them.

[edzontar]

1. Agreed. And Thank you Skinner for the new p[olicy.

nt

[neuvocat]

2. Indeed.

So much bashing of the democrats by democrats around here is due to little more than RNC press releases.

[mmonk]

3. good post

[Jacobin]

4. mega dittos

(gulp.....did I just type that?) :freak:

[MarianJack]

5. Great Point

We're going to have to do MAJOR word of mouth and net based activity to offset this!

[cyclezealot]

6. smearing candidates

Democrats debating issues is not smearing one another...Issues need be debated to decided what we are about...
Smearing is a double edged sword..Smearing can easily become bickering..The public does not like that. Even though it seems the Repugs know how to get away with it and not push the public's buttons... I do think it important we find a candidate who can smear with taste because the repugs know how to do that.
I think the essence of smearing is have someone else do it for the candidate... Repugs scandals need be addressed.. Seems repugs have a generous source of teflon... Where is the kruptunite...
Example of how we let right wingers get away with b.s.' Look at California's Governor Goofball...He claims not to represent special interest..As he sells his fiscal bailout, he travels around with car dealers and developers raising money for whatever..But he is the terminator for the people..Amazing..
ANyone hear story of how his first act in office was firing a prosecutor in the insurance office who prosecutes unfair auto financing for car dealerships.. The prosecutor had just a little too much zeal for car finance swindlers.

[Q]

9. But you're not saying WHY they're issues for Dem candidates...

...and NOT an issue for those in control of this country?

- Why demand 'ethics' of one side and not the other? It's not 'debating' an issue when you demand something of a Dem candidate that you haven't demanded from those in the White House. That's a smear at worst and double-standard at best.

- We're helping the media give Bush* another free ride by not making THEIR many REAL scandals a priority.

[ACK]

12. Sure if they are actually debating

Instead of spreading RW smear material with a straight face and saying crap like I just hate that guy and he will destroy the Democratic party blah... blah ... blah.

I am for Clark ok right now this sec. Still, I hate every other thread where Dean is mentioned someone comes up with a much of smear crap and lots of junk on how his candidancy will cause the frickin' end of the world.

[Q]

14. Democrats need to stand back and at least question...

...where these 'issues' are being generated. Have you noticed that it's the RNC chairman that's one of the main sources keeping the 'Dean is hiding something' issue alive? CNN gave him a soapbox again today to throw more fuel on the fire.

- It shouldn't matter which candidate you support. We should be devoted to getting Bush* out of the White House. This can't be done unless we're willing to give candidate bashing a rest and concentrate on exposing Bush* lies and deceit.

[Q]

7. As some of you know...

...I'm 'guilty' of bashing the Democratic party. That is...I've tried to hold them accountable for their lack of a concerted effort against Bush* and many of his policies.

- But helping Republicans spread rumors about Democratic candidates should be off bounds for anyone interested in an even playing field in 2004.

- I'm at a loss to understand why a Democratic candidate should be compelled to release their records while literally no one on either side is demanding the same of the known criminals and liars in the White House. Why is it that Democratic candidates are taken to task on these issues while the Bush* White House is given a free ride?

[jpgray]

8. This goes on record as the best all-time Q post

In my opinion, of course.

:toast:

Great points throughout, especially how ironically eager we are to lap up the scandal stories about candidates we disapprove of when the stories about the greatest scandals--those involving George W. Bush--are ignored because they are not given the same amount of exposure. Exellent point, excellent post.

[Q]

11. The GOP/RWing smear machine can't be 'successful' by itself...

...it needs Democrats to help spread their rumors and stir up suspicion and distrust of other Democrats.

- And meanwhile...NO ONE is talking about Enron, Halliburtion...the outing of a CIA operative or Bush* lying this nation into war. What's on CNN right now? It's certainly not about Bushie corruption and lies.

[tom_paine]

10. Excellent post, Q

[Q]

13. Thanks...but we need to stop participating...

...in the New American Media's penchant for revisionism. We should be discussing Bush's* ethics and why he has never been held accountable for things that would have meant political death for ANY Democrat.

- The Right Wing Smear Machine's success depends on Democrats helping them to instill doubt and suspicion about Democratic candidates for president.

[Scott Lee]

15. Yuppers. And they have plenty of help here at DU.

This has to be discussed. I only came here about a month ago, but I am bowled over by the vicious, nasty tenacity of a very few here who possess the single goal of sliming one candidate or another. What a waste.

Watch out for this stuff. You can see who they are, stop being silent on the senseless attack stuff and call them on it. Isolate them and you isolate most of the problem. Let them know we have to beat Bush, not bolster individual egos over intercine bashfests.

[CarinKaryn]

16. Indeed

We should make it policy to NEVER contribute to any discussions which may harm progressive candidates. We can control what issues are relevant by control what issues are discussed. We should squelch discussion of any issue that may portray our candidates unfavorabley.

[Tellurian]

17. It Would be nice, Q...

If the Democratic candidates would use the opportunity the media is giving them to, for example,...say:

"We've released OUR military records to the media; what is Bush hiding that his military records are unavailable for public scrutiny?"

[Q]

18. RWingers have created an atmosphere...

...where the Democratic candidates can't criticize Bush* in any way. They're simply called 'partisan' and dismissed by the corporate media.

- Any message will be disregarded unless it comes from many voices on the Left.

[farmbo]

19. Draft-dodging Q (If that's his REAL name?) needs to come clean...

...on his High School gym class "itching powder in the jock straps" scandal. He has refused to release records of the incident, and his excuse for not doing so ("There ain't no records") was less than candid.

What is he trying to hide?

(Ignore his above post and concentrate on this issue, please. Otherwise people might have to actually contemplate his message)

:grr:

Great post, Q!

:)

[Q]

20. No comment...

- And meanwhile...as the American media tries to find out if I got the itching powder from Saddam...they have nothing to report about Bush* or Republicans.

- Most of the subjects we talk about here on DU are 'media driven'. That is...we tend to discuss what others are saying about us. If they call one of the candidates a 'draft dodger'...we automatically move into defensive mode and discuss draft dodging. Instead of dismissing it as absurd because the other side has so many draft dodgers...some tend to use this rumor/smear against Democratic candidates they don't like.

- This is how the Right frames the debate. They know they can bring up Dem 'draft dodging' because they've been assured that the American media won't talk about George's* pitiful service record.

[CWebster]

21. You scratch my back and i will scratch yours

Bush and the Republican machine does the bidding of the media conglomerates. You can thank deregulation for that and Clinton era pro corporate policies accelerated the process. Clark abides by the pro corporate DLC credo, Dean is more challenging to the trend. Which candidate is more likely to change the political landscape and which candidate is more likely to be punished for suggesting that we try?

"Howard Dean is asking for media trouble.

On Dec. 1, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination went where few national politicians have dared to go -- directly challenging the media conglomerates...

..."Yes, we're going to break up giant media enterprises," Dean responded. Moments later he went on: "What we're going to do is say that media enterprises can't be as big as they are today. I don't think we actually have to break them up, which Teddy Roosevelt had to do with the leftovers from the McKinley administration. ... If the state has an interest -- which it does -- in preserving democracy, then there has to be a limitation on how deeply the media companies can penetrate every single community. To the extent of even having two or three or four outlets in a single community, that kind of information control is not compatible with democracy."

That kind of talk is not compatible with media oligarchy.

As it happened, Dean was appearing on a cable channel partly owned by General Electric, which possesses the NBC network and many other outlets. His remarks were certain to raise hackles in the corporate boardrooms of GE and huge media firms such as AOL Time Warner, Disney, Viacom and News Corp.

Regardless of ideology, the top man in the White House has always been afraid of the broadcasting industry. While sometimes clashing with reporters, editors and even media owners, each president has routinely gone along with the handover of the "public" airwaves to private interests...

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1204-14.htm

If we can see the extend that our press has been monopolized and manuevered, why do we even consider a candidate who won't even challenge it, but prefers to maintain the status quo?

The media now has the ability to make any candidate who threatens their power base "un-electible". That is why grassroots matter so much as a rival force to the power bases and the politicians who sustain them.