It Is TOTALLY Unrealistic To Believe Every Dem Will Ever Boycott FAUX

[DoveTurnedHawk]

Elected politicians are, at root, opportunistic creatures. If they have a chance to get on the air and increase their exposure in any way, odds are they'll leap at it. We Democrats, being as diverse as we are, have a hard time enforcing party discipline as it is. Does anyone really believe that an edict that essentially says, "Do not promote yourself," will ever be followed or enforced? It would be like trying to put restrictions on fundraisers. It would never, ever, ever happen.

Yes, FAUX is a bunch of RW shills. Yes, they have a RW agenda. Yes, they are unfair to Democrats. But the solution is not an unenforceable and unrealistic boycott. The solution is to make sure that Dems who show up on FAUX kick ass, take names, and represent our viewpoint strongly. We should rejoice when that happens.

Bringing this around to Clark, my guess is that FAUX fires him or lets his contract lapse when they find out he's no one's tame General, but until then I expect to enjoy the fireworks.

DTH

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I agree. It'd never happen.

I just wish we could pick which Dems represent us on Faux.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

3. TOTALLY

Fuckers have a habit of bringing on the weak ones. Another reason we need to start culling the elected herd of weak Democrats, IMO. I wish more primary challenges would be successful, but that would require a more educated, less lazy electorate.

DTH

[ElectroPrincess]

36. Not just FAUX, every day on CNN, I have to endure watching

Babe Buchanan figuratively handing our DINO spokeswoman her ass!

I'm so damn sick of seeing Donna Brazille as THE ONLY counter to Buchanan. Hello? She sucks! It's pure entertainment for the Right Wing Republicans.

[ibegurpard]

2. Appearing on it is one thing

Working for it is another. It gives legitimacy to their motto of being "fair and balanced." I find this disappointing.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

7. I Disagree With the Distinction You're Making

FAUX is already delegitimized on the left and legitimized on the right. The addition of certain staff is not going to be a major issue one way or the other when it comes to the overarching issue of FAUX credibility (or lack thereof).

DTH

[Xipe Totec]

4. I Watch FAUX News

How else can I know what products to boycott?

You want FAUX to spend money broadcasting, but you want to deny them the funding, so go after the sponsors.

Follow the money...

[Rainscents]

6. You can find out other way who sponsor FAUX. You don't need to

watch TV to know this.

[Xipe Totec]

18. Know thine enemy and face him squarely

You need to see the dribble so you can write to the sponsors and complain.

You must tell the sponsors how offensive you find the show, and how you hold them responsible for sponsoring the program. Tell them you won't buy their products because they sponsor the show. That always gets their attention.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

5. I agree.

After watching a few times recently, after not having watched little if any TV is a number of years, I can see the need for a few things:

1. The Dems need a media booking agency, to get their people on TV rapidly.

2. The people that go on must be prepared with message and frame.

3. The people that go on must be coached on how to deal with hosts and guests that scream over them or cut them off.

They know the rules, now they need to be prepared to play by those rules.

[siliconefreak]

8. Don't worry about FAUX

They're overrated by both their supporters and their dejectors. Barely 2 million people watch Fox. This is in a country of 300 million people. That's less than 1%.

Their bark is MUCH worse than their bite.

[CityDem]

9. One party nation

In many ways, we only have one party -- the corporatists. Dangle a little money and watch the politicians of both parties come running.

[Ganja Ninja]

10. I think it's also unrealistic to think a Democrat can ...

"kick ass" on FOX. That's why a boycott won't work because politicians have big egos and think they can hold their own against these shills. Sure once in a while they might score a few points but I don't think it's worth trying.

By totally boycotting FOX Democrats will be making the point that FOX is a Republican propaganda machine. They will eliminate any pretension that FOX presents both sides of an argument in a "fair and balanced" manner. If the GOP then wants to equate CBS or any other network as the left wing version of FOX let them boycott it. I would enjoy a network that is GOP free.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

12. Dems HAVE Kicked Ass on FAUX, and What You Seek Will Never Happen

It's like saying, "By totally boycotting fundraising, Democrats will be making the point that the system is corrupt." It will never happen, so we make do the best that we can, and on FAUX that means having our folks stand up strongly for Democratic principles.

As for asskicking on FAUX, it has absolutely happened, and the General has been responsible for more than one. Google "Clark Asman" and you'll find some great links to transcripts and video.

DTH

[KittyWampus]

24. Boycott Fox? Why Not Also Boycott CNN & The NYTimes As Well?

edit- or are you really going to say that CNN is liberal or even neutral.

It is no less an arm of the Bush Administration.

As for the Times- Janet Miller.

[Ganja Ninja]

25. Of course it's all right wing propaganda.

FOX just happens to be the worse and has been for the longest. You can't boycott all of them but I can't see any harm in declaring FOX for what it is. A boycott of FOX would help to dispel the myth that the media is wholly owned liberal machine. If it is then the GOP would have to boycott the most liberal network or admit(by default) that there is no liberal network let alone one as blatantly biased as FOX. Even if it's only for a little while it would make great press. Democrats need to stage a political stunt once in a while. It's good practice and it might give some people the impression that they have a spine.

The whole thing is a mute point anyway. I don't believe it will happen I just think it should.

[Larkspur]

11. I know that Lieberman won't. Faux news is the only place that will

stroke his ego as long as he bashes Dems who attack Repukes.

[Skwmom]

13. Opportunistic Creatures?

Clark is anything but an "opportunistic creature" which is what your post seems to imply.

I think there is A LOT of political downside for Clark in taking this position; however, I think this will provide him with an opportunity to help shape public opinion and to combat the politic theatrics displayed by so many of our lovely, self-serving political hacks. In giving his opinion on Iraq and what needs to be done I feel confident that Clark will ALWAYS put the soldiers and our country ahead of any future political plans.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

14. "Elected Politicians"

Not Clark.

DTH

[Skwmom]

15. I noticed the "elected" politicians qualifier but decided it is really

meaningless because if you didn't intend it as an inference to Clark you wouldn't have made it (how opportunistic people act) front and center in your post.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

19. You Are Mistaken

That's about all I can say. Clark is a man of the highest integrity. The fact that he's NOT an elected politician, but an outsider, is one of his strong selling points, as well.

DTH

[AaronforAmerica]

16. 2006 Elections

One thing we have not considered is if this is part of a larger Democratic strategy for the 2006 elections...the more spokesmen like General Clark we have to counter OReilly, the better...but also, for all we know, he was approached by other Democratic leaders with the idea..

www.stopjohnbolton.com

[Skwmom]

17. I wouldn't be surprised if he was because the "Blank Check Democrats"

are worried about how this war debacle will impact their 2006 (and 2008) plans.

[brindis_desala]

20. Clark may be breathing life in a dying dog. They need him- NOT

Vice versa.

"Fox News in Ratings Free Fall

Here's something you won't hear on Fox News -- ratings for the cable news channel have been plummeting since before the November election.

According to TV Newser, the number of people watching Fox during prime time in the 25 to 54 age bracket dropped in April for the sixth straight month.

TV Newser cited a CNN press release which gave these totals for Fox's primetime audience in the 25 to 54 age bracket: Oct. 04: 1,074,000; Nov. 04: 891,000; Dec. 04: 568,000; Jan. 05: 564,000; Feb. 05: 520,000; March 05: 498,000; April 05: 445,000. That amounts to a decline of 58 percent, with no sign of leveling off."
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/18/fox_news_in_ratings_free_fall.php

[DoveTurnedHawk]

21. As Much as I Love Clark

He alone will not prop up FAUX's ratings. He doesn't even have a show like O'Reilly or Hannity & Colmes do. He will only be an occasional commenter whose appearances will likely have little or no advance notice. People are not going to watch FAUX 24/7 just in the hopes of seeing Clark come on.

But I cannot wait to see those occasions when he does comment!

DTH

[lebkuchen]

22. I never watch FOX

I have no clue who any of their "news" people are, couldn't pick 'em out of a lineup. Their names may sound familiar, but only from this board.

It's refreshing, really, not to have been exposed to FOX, the same feeling, I suppose, as not to have been exposed to Small Pox.

[KittyWampus]

23. What's The Difference Between Fox & CNN? Except Fox Has More Viewers

all of whom are NOT Freepers/GOP'ers.

CNN is as much a Bush propaganda outlet as Fox except it's more dangerous cause too many STILL think it's neutral or liberal.

[mandyky]

26. One word - BULLSHIT!!!

Fox is a republican propoganda machine. Every non-GOPer that appears on FOX gives them a whiff of credibility! Of being fair and balanced. Dems need to boycott FOX!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

28. Stamping Your Foot Does Not Change the Reality

The reality is there will never be a boycott like you want.

DTH

[mandyky]

29. Is this post to justify Clark signing on?

Just wondering

[DoveTurnedHawk]

32. Umm...Duh?

Clue: I even mention Clark in my original post. That still doesn't change the reality of the situation, your foot stamping notwithstanding.

For all the Clark haters out there, how about we wait and see how it goes before throwing him under the bus? Or is that concept too just and reasonable for you?

DTH

[Crunchy Frog]

35. O c'mon. They throw him under the bus even when he's not

doing anything that could be construed by them as bad. Of course it would be way too reasonable to to expect them to refrain under any circumstances, but certainly when he's doing something that could be potentially interpreted in a negative light. Anyway, in these people's minds, if Clark's doing it, it's pretty much bad by definition. These people will never give him the benefit of the doubt, and I don't expect them to.

I love Wes, but I'm witholding my own judgement about this particular move until I see how it really plays out. I do believe that he will do what he thinks will be of greatest benefit to this country. I don't know how it will impact his future political plans.

[mandyky]

41. I don't hate Clark and I don't footstamp

I simply refuse to watch Fox and when people like Biden and Lieberman (DINOs) are regulars there, and interviews done are edited, I simply think Dems should boycott, not give credibility to these idiots.

FOX is almost as hated as Bush. Remember those marches in NYC before the RNC Convention? FOX needs to go out of business, pure and simple.
At the very least they need to ditch Brit Hume, Hannity, and O'Liely before I'd consider watching. CNN and MSNBC are bad enough, and I watch as little news other than CSpan as possible for that reason. My blood pressure does not take lies by coporate media too well.

They can put Bill Clinton himself on FOX, and I REPEAT, until they lose the O'Liely and his ilk, my eyes and ears will not be exposed to FOX.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

42. But No One Is Asking You To Watch

My point is that regardless of your feelings on the matter, a boycott of FAUX by Dems will never happen.

Personally, I'll feel better knowing that Clark is there fighting our fight and potentially reaching some independent voters. We don't need any Democrats watching for that to happen.

DTH

[mandyky]

43. What you are asking is that I not hold it against people who appear on FOX

Sorry most of the stuff I've heard about these appearances do not win my support.

Hopefully, Clark won't disappoint you in his new position there. Maybe the worm will really turn and he'll be allowed to speak his mind. Please keep us abreast of successes and/or failures.

[Tommymac]

27. So?

I don't watch..and won't watch...not Fox, not CNN, not any of them. It doesn't matter to me if I am the only liberal not watching...my conscience will not be assuaged by self-rationales and self-justifications. I also pass right by train wrecks...I have no desire to gawk over others misfortunes.

Turn off the tube...read, think and search out the truth yourself instead...you'll be surprised how those tapes running in your mind start to change....

[mandyky]

30. I haven't watched FOx except for the primary debates

since before the invasion of Iraq. And then I only watched the Sunday AM economic show they had on. I refuse to listen to O'Liely lie and Hannity to do Rush/O'Liely impressions. I hear enough right wing nonsense when Al Franken plays clips from the Lying Liars and the Fair and balanced look at the Right.

[JHBowden]

31. Whatever makes you feel good, buddy.

I suppose working for W's propaganda machine is less of a crime, than, let us say, voting for Reagan and Nixon or singing hymns of praise to Wolfowitz and Rummy.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

33. Voting for Reagan a "Crime"?

You are obviously one of the extremists that Michael Moore himself ridiculed, and justifiably so.

--

MICHAEL MOORE, ON GENERAL WESLEY CLARK

(audio of this transcript available at: www.liberalresurgent.com/mooreclark.mp3)

And then people say, well (in a mocking voice): "But Mike, but Mike, he voted for Reagan, Clark voted for Reagan!"

Yeah? So? So did most of America! You know? Do you wanna win? I mean, the only way you win, you see, is if you get most of America on your side. And if someone who voted for Reagan now says, "I'm joining your team, I don't believe in that any more," we have to open up our arms! This is why people don't like the left! This is why people don't like liberals! You know?

(In a mocking voice): "No, no, no, no, no, he, he voted for Reagan, no, no, not pure, not pure, don't like him, no, no!"

That's why nobody wants to join our side, we're so, like, up on our high horse! You know? What do you say to working class America, there's all these people who voted for Reagan, that now realize, they were duped! They were had! They're worse off now after 20 years of Republicanism!

You know? You, what do you say (in a mocking voice): "Nope, can't come to our side, you voted for Reagan!"

Jeez! I mean, come on, folks! You know? I don't know.

(In a mocking voice): "He was the Butcher of Kosovo!" That's the other one. (In a mocking voice): "He was the Butcher…Clark was the butcher of Kosovo!"

I've heard, I've heard an alternate version of the story, that was in the New York Times and the Washington Post last week. About why he was fired. Because he was trying to stop the genocide in Kosovo, in a way that would cost, even, that would cost, that would result in fewer civilian losses. I'd like to hear the story, I don't know, I mean, I'm just saying, I don't know, that's why I'm waiting to see, you know, what's being said here. I'd like to know.

But I'll tell you this much, folks. We're not fighting the Kosovo war right now. Don't let the professional left drag you into an argument that is a sideshow. We are fighting the Iraq war right now, that's the war we've gotta stop, and that's the war he says he will stop! That's the war he says he'll tell the American people the truth about how Bush has fought an immoral war! And that's what we need, we need that on our side.

DTH

[JHBowden]

34. Clark is improving.

Rather than voting for Republicans, he just works for their propaganda machine now. Wonderful.

I do not agree with the Democrats on a lot of issues, but since I am not the issue here, I fail to see how my stance, on, let us say, affirmative action, is relevant.

[KittyWampus]

37. What Mass Media Outlet Is NOT Part Of The Propaganda Machine? CNN

MSNBC?

And your suggestion is we just cede the airwaves to the GOP... along with the flag, patriotism, the armed forces, spirituality, government....

[David Zephyr]

38. Fox and/or Fox's money will not influence Wes Clark.

Wes Clark spoke out against the war BEFORE we went to war, as did Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean. It got him into trouble with CNN.

I'm not worried in the least about Wes Clark.

And there's something happening with Rupert Murdoch of late.

[bvar22]

39. The DLC Democrats won't boycott FOX....

because they have the same boss.

As for Wes Clark, why don't we wait and see?

[judy from nj]

40. Clark want to be a strong voice now

Most of the Democrats on TV are weak sisters. They drive me mad listening to them. Clark is not like that, he says what he thinks clearly and effectively.

From some of the things he had said lately, he is quite worried that Bush is going to attack Iran next June just before the elections. I think he feels an obligation to the troops and the Army to help stop this. If he can counter some of the propaganda that the Bush administration spouts, he may help prevent something bad from happening.

Before the Iraq war he tried the backdoor route talking to congressmen and Senators, testifying before Congress. Nothing worked. I think he is trying another tact this time.