Now this has got me thinking . . .

[Tony_Illinois]

This piece was referred to me by a friend this morning. Perhaps not likely, but what an impact if somehow it could be done!

---

Two Things the Democrats Should Do in 2005

January 1, 2005
by Eric Jaffa

We need to address the media and the voting machines.
A group of wealthy Democrats should:

1. Buy the CNN cable news channel from Time Warner.
   
2. Buy the Sequoia voting machine company from De La Rue.
   

CNN isn't for sale, but a group of Democrats should make an offer.
We need to counter the pro-Republican spin of Fox News.
CNN isn't doing that currently.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer(1) and Daryn Kagan(2) repeat Bush Administration spin.
If a group of Democrats owned CNN, they could replace Wolf Blitzer with Bill Moyers, and replace Daryn Kagan with Amy Goodman.

Regarding voting machines, Sequoia IS for sale by De La Rue.
If Democrats bought it, suddenly the Republicans in Congress would embrace verified-voting. Those Republicans would want a system to make sure voting machines owned by Democrats weren't rigged (just as currently Democrats want a system to make sure voting machines owned by Republicans aren't rigged.)

Congresspersons who are against requirements that electronic voting machines print paper ballots, and that at least a percentage of those paper ballots be hand-counted on Election Night, would suddenly reconsider.

If you're a Democratic billionaire, buy CNN and Sequoia!
If you know a Democratic billionaire, spread the word!

References

1. "Smear Without Fear" by Paul Krugman, New York Times, April 2, 2004.
2. "White House Spins The Boy Who Yawned" by Lisa de Moraes, Washington Post, April 2, 2004.

---

Source: http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_blog.asp

[femme.democratique]

1. I would love to see Soros purchase Sequoia....

Then there most certainly would be outrage!!!

[zann725]

7. Or Teresa H!

Then we can put Sequoia machines in all those Blue inner-city neighborhoods which had 10 hour waits for voting.

Let 'em try and "fix" OUR machines!

[NVMojo]

14. I'd love to see that too, since SOS Dean Heller has our state enslaved

to those machines now.

[Dr.Phool]

2. That would be awesome

Amy Goodman and Bill Moyers on a mainstream network!

[blm]

3. Hey, does Eric monitor DU? GOP control of media and voting machines

are the ONLY two problems the Democrats need to concentrate on, because the other stuff is bullshit meant to pull the party apart. The Dems and their platform are exactly where the country really is if the issues would be discussed honestly by the media.


And there will NEVER be a Democrat elected to the WH unless the voting machines are exposed as GOP tools.

[wellstone dem]

4. He is a du'er

I believe Ericj from MN

[blm]

5. Oh....heh....makes perfect sense.

Thanks.

[DaedelusNemo]

10. Doubts about effectiveness of liberal media approach

"The Dems and their platform are exactly where the country really is if the issues would be discussed honestly by the media."

Definitely.

I heartily agree with, and even chuckle over, the idea of Soros buying Sequoia. So long as the situation is a win-win for republicans we can expect status quo.

The idea of a liberal network i have some arguments with.

First, the idea that Wolf Blitzer et al. are republican toadies. What they are in fact, and almost inescapably, are establishment toadies. Most media will pass along the news that's written for them, because it saves them a lot of work. In addition, given that political reporting of anything but the official line depends heavily on sources, toadying to said sources is considered necessary to retain viability as a political reporter. This problem is bigger than theories of direct republican control of CNN and so forth.

Second, i don't know that a liberal channel will help the liberals nearly so much as a conservative channel helps the conservatives. In general, conservatives want to insulate themselves from other opinions; liberals want to respond to and factor in those other opinions. While liberals certainly do need outlets to express themselves, i think they would be better served with shows on existing channels for that purpose; a liberal channel would be viewed as suspect by anyone but people who already agreed with it.

What i think would help the liberal cause far more is simply a hard-news, objective channel that left out the tabloid stuff altogether, did its own investigation and considered its integrity to be its foundation. An internet presence would be handy for recieving and responding to challenges to factual accuracy. There is a great hunger for such a channel, not only among the public but among the journalists. Given that the facts, the arguments, and the issues are solidly on the side of the liberals, the most effective advocate could be simply someone who could be expected to tell the unvarnished truth.

What a liberal channel might be good for is to put competitive pressure on the other channels for the liberal viewers in the same way that Fox has influenced the other channels to compete for conservatives. If i had to choose between that and a 'hard-news' influence, though, i would choose the latter. Bah, there's room for both, isn't there?

[blm]

11. I never wanted a liberal network. I want a straight news network. No

bullshit spin by a lying, corrupt administration.

[DaedelusNemo]

13. Definitely... there's plenty of fact-checking out there... use it

and often enough to establish a new common wisdom! make the other networks deal with the fact that their 'customers' are horribly misinformed about even the most established facts. Stop simply being a conduit for political manipulation.

"Objective Balance" when one side is lying is to call them liars.

[newyawker99]

18. Hi DaedelusNemo!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[American Tragedy]

6. Dammit, why hasn't anybody done this?

If I were wealthy I would definitely chip in for it.

[Bouncy Ball]

8. Take care of those two things

and things get a LOT easier for the Dems.

I have a third item, though:

3. Get elected Dems who have balls.

[The Judged]

9. Immediately following Sequoia's sale, they will lose preferred status!

They will be blacklisted by the re-uglicans.

[Hello_Kitty]

12. Definitely want a news network

But I'd like to see funding from more sources than a few billionaires because Fox is a perfect example of what can happen there. We need something that WE fund, kinda like NPR should be (but isn't), and on TV. Commercial free. I think the biggest problem with our media is the intermingling of corporations and advertising with news. When I watch the news, I often feel as though I'm watching an hourlong advertisement for products. Because that's exactly what I'm doing.

[housewolf]

15. Al Gore should do this

If he can buy a cable tv station, he could buy Sequoia

[dkofos]

16. George Soros, Bill Gates here is the plan

Instead of CNN just get control of MSNBC.

Please

[GOPBasher]

17. Those are the best ideas I've heard so far.

Instead of beating ourselves on the head, saying, "We need to move to the center," or "We need to move left," or we need to change A, B, C and D," let's concentrate on the actual problems. The truth is, without the black box voting machines stealing it, we probably won this election. And that's with the media totally against us! Imagine if we had fair election AND a fair media!

[Buns_of_Fire]

19. If Sequoia was bought by an honest billionaire...

how long do you think it'd be before the company was decertified as a primary vendor by repug state legislatures and Supervisors of Elections?

You can build a better mousetrap, but these people like the mousetraps they've got (especially when they let most of the rats escape).