" God forbid they be called liberal....."

[seafan]

E. J. Dionne is on the money with these statements on Meet The Press today.

DIONNE:

....

Can we have a good discussion on race? We can't have a good discussion on race if the facts don't matter. And I think it's, it's not only that Shirley Sherrod was smeared, it was a perverse smear. Because, if you look at that speech, what she was giving is a speech about racial reconciliation. She was saying poor blacks and poor whites have a lot in common. And this was twisted into a, an allegation, false allegation that she was somehow a black racist.

Now, what's going on here? I think the traditional media are so afraid of being called liberal, God forbid they be called liberal, that they are willing to run with any kind of right-wing propaganda and treat it as news. Challenging propaganda, or not running it, or taking your time before you run with a story, that's not liberalism, that's journalism. And I think that the right has been running this campaign for 30 years, they've had a lot of success, and we should worry about it. With the--you got to look over both shoulders, and you got to look at the facts.

There is a plague of fear in the White House as well.


Maureen Dowd sharpened that discovery in an op-ed yesterday:

.....

(Obama's) closest advisers — some of the same ones who urged him not to make the race speech after the Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue exploded — are so terrified that Fox and the Tea Party will paint Obama as doing more for blacks that they tiptoe around and do less. “Who knew that the first black president would make it even harder on black people?” asked a top black Democratic official.

It’s the same impulse that caused Obama campaign workers to refuse to let Muslim women with head scarves sit in camera range during a rally. It’s the same impulse that has left the president light-years behind W. on development help for Africa. In their rush to counteract attempts to paint Obama as a radical/Muslim/socialist, Obama staffers can behave in insensitive ways themselves.
.....

And, by the way, it is that same impulse that drives the White House to infuriate liberals by insulting them and refusing to hear them on issues critical to the people of the country.


The White House, afraid of being associated with liberals. The same people who put him into office. Can't have THAT.



So, the bleak message from this is:



Not only do traditional media gallop fearfully in the opposite direction away from the facts to avoid accusations of "liberal", so do White House advisers, as they clearly demonstrate fear of propagandist FOX and its army of rabid screaming heads accusing them of favoring black people.



Both examples illustrate fear of the right wing propaganda steamroller. The outcome is an uninformed populace, a severely weakened democracy and a resulting threat to our national security.


This assault has been perfected by the right wing for the past 30 years.




This is beyond enough reason to break up this debased, money-driven, right-wing controlled media monopoly.



I wish someone would inquire of David Gregory and Chuck Todd whose side they are on.

[eleny]

1. I disagree with Dionne on is observation about the media and liberalism

I caught an interview late morning today on CNN. I can't recall the interviewee. Paraphrasing, he asserted that the issue of race and the first revelation about Sherrod was red meat to the media. It provided a hot issue to cover. So they leapt to show Breitbart's video without verifying it's truthfulness.

That's what I took away from his observations and I agree with him. I don't think the majority of the media is liberal but hiding. They pounced on this issue because it was going to bring them ratings which means revenue.

Seems like for the next sensational story, it would be better to turn off the news and wait a few days.

[Radical Activist]

2. Still nursing that grudge over Rahm's comment?

It wasn't "the White House" it was Rahm. It wasn't directed at liberals. It was about a specific tactic. Why do you exaggerate it into something it wasn't? Honestly, I'm really curious about what goes on in people's minds to make them exaggerate something stupid and keep throwing it out for months. It's the kind of thing I'd expect during the primary from someone who is actively campaigning against Obama.

Personally, I'm at the point where I can't take any post seriously when someone throws out the deceptive, cry-baby line about Obama insulting liberals.

[gratuitous]

10. Is your neck okay?

You prolly got whiplash sluing between "the White House", then "Rahm" (who, last time I checked, is still a highly placed official in the White House), and finishing with "someone" throwing out "the deceptive, cry-baby line about Obama." The line from the original post was about the White House, which indisputably employs Mr. Emanuel. It didn't attribute the insult to Obama at all.

I wonder why you conflated an insult from the White House into a direct attack on President Obama? Someone's grudge is probably teething by now.

[Radical Activist]

12. It is an odd thing when people conflate Rahm and Obama.

They're clearly two different people. But over and over again, bloggers and people at DU present the insult as though it came from Obama directly. Sometimes they drop the pretense of saying it was "the administration" (an obvious attempt to conflate the two) and just blame Obama by name.

It's intellectually dishonest. Yes, it does cause whiplash.

[gratuitous]

15. Almost refreshing

Not often one sees someone in such high dudgeon admit to being intellectually dishonest. I hope you do better in the future.

[Radical Activist]

16. So you really don't understand

that I was pointing out an intellectually dishonest tactic? Don't blame the propaganda on the guy who deconstructs it.

[Initech]

3. I think it's time we drop the term "liberal" and start calling ourselves something else.

Limbaugh and his merry band of fucking idiots have just completely demonized and destroyed the term. I think if we start calling ourselves something else, like progressive, I think we might start getting taken seriously again. I just saw the bookshelf at Target earlier - it was filled with disgusting conservative propaganda from the likes of Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, and so on. And flipping through, all they did was just trash liberalism and everything it stands for. I think the best thing we can do is change the name of liberalism.

[Mnemosyne]

4. Thinkers would work for me. n/t

[Initech]

6. Actually I like "educated people" for liberals and "TV viewers and talk radio listeners" for cons

[glitch]

17. "rational" vs. "irrational" works for me. Although I haven't abandoned "liberal" I have upped the

ante a bit and now call myself a "green socially democratic liberal progressive" -- I highly recommend it, it's genuinely worth the length to to see the apoplexies.

The last thing the Breitbarts of the world want is racial (or sexual, or any other artifically constructed "difference" for that matter) reconciliation. I believe that and the blatant recognition of their class war on us made Sherrod the perfect target for their attack.

[Mnemosyne]

20. I like those also! n/t

[sellitman]

7. I could not disagree more.

I proudly proclaim myself Liberal everywhere I go.

First of all I am.

Second of all it draws out whoever isn't out into the open where they can't hide.

[gtar100]

18. I agree. Liberal is a time-honored term and I am happy to call myself one.

These idiots who denegrate liberals and liberalism have done so at everyone's peril. So in truth, they need to pull their heads out of their collective behinds and see that liberalism works in public policy, from a national platform to local governance. That is if your goal is to care for the greatest number of people at the least cost to any one individual. It's clear that's not in their platform. Conservatives branded liberals wrong so we shouldn't give them the last word on this. Hell, they're even giving 'conservatism' a bad name so I wouldn't trust them to define anything.

[azul]

8. What? Liberals must buy media outlets to compete in this game

and brand conservatives as reactionary and bigots and etc. ?

The corporate conservative media is framing all the issues, including the media bias one. Supreme court says it's a money-talks political and business system. Put-up or stfu?

[Initech]

13. Supreme Court also said that corporations could spend unlimited money on campaigns.

So yeah they're saying money talks and bullshit walks. The tea party has shown the conservatives' true colors: racism. But the fact is that there is no liberal media, and if we are to regain control of our country, we need to regain control of the media. When the republicans bring up the term "liberal media" it sends me into a fucking rage.

[JHB]

11. I think that's been tried already....

...largely with "progressive", as it happens. It hasn't stopped them from continuing to trash liberalism, in fact they've used the point to further justify themselves ("liberals are trying to pretend they're not actually liberals", etc.)

[Initech]

14. All those assholes know how to is name-call.

Seriously I did that shit in kindergarten but I quickly outgrew it. Name-calling and pointing fingers gets you nowhere. All the republicans do is talk trash but they're angry at the wrong people. My favorite is Michael Savage who says that liberalism is a mental disorder. It isn't.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Well, trying not to appear liberal is the only "sensible" thing to do.

[azul]

9. Must don the corporate sell-out

rat-bastard costume and assume the stance? The price of success.

[glitch]

19. Don't you mean "practical"?

Geebus, they haven't switched to "sensible" now have they? What's next, "judicious", or maybe "knowing, logical, matter-of-fact, prudent, rational, sagacious, sage, sane, realistic, shrewd, sound..."
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/practical/

Who buys this shit? Don't answer.