| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| NYT: Donk's Newest Suicide Strategy - Bash Fox |
| 2006-10-01 |
| Original title, which is effectively disproven by the article: In Taking On Fox, Democrats See Reward in the Risk The Fox News Channel doesn’t officially turn 10 until this week, but the Democrats have already begun doing their best to spoil the celebrations. The party crashing began last Sunday, when former President Bill Clinton transformed an interview with Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” into a finger-pointing tirade against what he called a “conservative hit job.” Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, quickly released a statement applauding Mr. Clinton for standing up to what he described as a right-wing, bullying propaganda machine. In separate appearances on Fox News over the next two days, Lanny J. Davis, a former special counsel to Mr. Clinton, and Barbara Boxer, the Democratic senator from California, mocked the news channel’s trademarked motto of being “fair and balanced.” And on Wednesday Paul Begala and James Carville, Democratic commentators for CNN, engaged in more than five minutes of high-decibel debate on Fox with Bill O’Reilly about Mr. Clinton’s appearance, daring Mr. O’Reilly to “come out of the closet” and admit Fox News is a “right-leaning, anti-Clinton network.” The attacks represent a new twist on the Democrats’ complicated dance with the cable news channel. Though Fox News maintains that its reporting is down the middle, Democrats have long complained that the news channel operates like a public relations outpost of the Bush White House. But never before has that anger built into a mad-as-hell-and-not-going-to-take-it-any-more moment, and spilled over in such naked and sustained fashion onto Fox News itself. “The Republicans are using Fox News to gin up their base, and now — for the first time — the Democrats are doing it, too,” said Steve McMahon, a Democratic strategist with McMahon, Squier & Associates who handled Mr. Dean’s presidential campaign. Engaging Fox News in such an aggressive manner, however, may not be the smartest strategy. If there’s a base that needs energizing for these midterm elections, it belongs to the Republicans, and a Clinton-led attack may only revivify them. And so far, there is just one clear beneficiary: Fox News. The news channel has highlighted the contretemps on many of its programs, boosting the ratings in the process. Democrats do not view Chris Wallace as a partisan gunslinger, as they do some other Fox News personalities. But his questions about whether Mr. Clinton did enough to destroy Al Qaeda ignited simmering Democratic and Clintonian anger. Democrats had been furious with White House attempts over the last few months to to portray Democrats as weaker on national security than Republicans. And defenders of the Clinton administration were furious about “The Path to 9/11,” the ABC docudrama that they claimed depicted the administration in an unfair light. All this fed into last week’s reaction, Democratic officials and strategists say. “I think it’s important for us to call it what it is,” said Karen Finney, communications director for the Democratic National Committee, speaking about the recent incidents. “We can’t let conservatives and Republicans get away with painting us in a corner and mischaracterizing who we are and what we stand for.” The incendiary interview appeared on the same day the pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq was leaked. And the two events provided an opportune moment to strike, Ms. Finney said. Soon after the “Fox News Sunday” telecast, Mr. Dean mentioned both items in a combative statement. And the Democratic National Committee followed up Mr. Dean’s statement with an e-mail fundraising appeal, complete with a YouTube link to the interview. “I think you’re seeing the beginning of an alternative Democratic approach,” a desire to strike back hard, said Mr. Begala, a former Clinton adviser. “Clinton tapped into something in the Democratic zeitgeist,” Mr. Begala said. “We’re really tired of being bullied, particularly by Fox.” Democrats have believed, nearly from the moment Fox News began in October of 1996, that the news channel was institutionally biased against them. Fox News officials have disputed such charges, saying the network is merely a corrective to what they contend is a pervasive liberal bias in the news media. Nonetheless, most Democrats have believed the network could not be ignored. If no one appeared on their shows, who would make the Democratic case? The cable news channel, despite a fall-off in ratings over the past year, still towers over its competitors. And although the viewers who regularly watch Fox News are more likely to be Republican, Democrats and independents still turn up in significant numbers — 20 percent and 17 percent, respectively, compared with 34 percent who are Republicans — according to a recent survey from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Swing voters are important in some states, particularly the Northeast. How they react to the Democrats’ more confrontational approach could help determine how far the Democrats get in their efforts to gain control of the House and Senate. Some Democrats said they believe that a more muscular approach in taking on the Republicans could help them grab onto an issue that has been an Achilles’ heel for the Democrats in recent elections: national security. And that couldn’t make some Republicans happier. “I think it puts national security front and center and reminds people that this administration is taking the fight to the terrorists and recognizes the threat America faces,” something the Democrats do not, said Danny Diaz, Republican National Committee spokesman. The Republican National Committee is doing its bit to spread that point of view. After the Clinton interview, it sent talking points to its grassroots membership and to the news media, and ramped up efforts to book people on TV and radio programs to comment on the debate. And Fox News executives have not seemed to mind furnishing screen time to Democrats so they can bash the network. (Roger Ailes, the chairman and chief executive of Fox News and Fox Television Stations, was unavailable to comment for this article.) After all, the ratings don’t lie. The first three days of the week saw primetime and daily increases of 20 percent and 13 percent, respectively, compared with the average over the previous four weeks. And “Fox News Sunday” got its best ratings in three years. And thus the now-infamous "hit job" is, in fact, suicide. Brilliant. More, please. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #15 WAFFLE-CRATISM = CLINTONISM > LIBERTARIANISM = CONSERVATIVISM and vice versa as per the winds of blame. KONDRACHE + other DEM-leaning FNC pundits are doing more to save the credibility of what was once the [pro-America] DEMOCRATIC PARTY than anything Billary can ever do. AS LONG AS THE RADICAL/FAR/ULTRA-LEFT CONTROL THE DEMS, AMERICAN HIROSHIMA(S) WILL ALWAYS BE OFFICIALLY HATED-DENIED BUT SECRETLY DESIRED. The Commies came into power by REVOLUTION-CIVIL WAR-FACTIONALISM so why should Fascist = Limited Communist Clintonian America = Amerika go against the grain. *OIL STORM miniseries > RUSSIA-CHINA stayed RUSSIA-CHINA, but only America became the USR [United Socialist Republic(s)]. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-10-01 23:48 |
| #14 Calling Brit Hume a right-winger would probably be accurate. Calling Chris Wallace a right-winger is a real stretch. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2006-10-01 23:13 |
| #13 Thx for the heads-up - I look forward to seeing the interview, Mark Z. As for criticism of Scheurer here, he authored (originally anonymously) a Bush hit book ("Imperial Hubris Blah Blah Blah") and received his due for both his breach of oath as a (then) serving CIA employee of 22 yrs with a personal political agenda and for the bogus attempt to paint Bush as an imperious Neocon warmonger. He also authored an earlier book ("Through Our Enemies' Eyes Blah Blah Blah"), anonymously. His books were published through, who else?, the NYT. For his anti-sitting President / self-serving efforts, he deserved some thumping. Credit where due - on the topic of Clinton, he's calling it as he saw it first-hand while in the CIA - he was the chief of the Counterterrorist Center's bin Laden unit. He's buffing his creds as a professional analyst - not some political hack, someone who was there, by calling the spades when Clinton weasels. In a way, he is what Dickie Clark has claimed to be. Sometimes it seems the Michael Scheurers and Dickie Clarks and such seem to be singing in harmony, acting in league. That's false, of course. They (and similar ilk) are hawking books and looking for their piece of the Moonbat Money pie, to be sure, but also have differing degrees of actual knowledge, personal integrity, and personal agendas. Although both Scheurer and Clark would love to derail and (?) depose Bush, and find fame, glory, and Big Bux in the process, their reasons differ, IMHO. Scheurer was one of the people that Goss was sent to root out of the CIA, a Clintoonian holdover who fought to scuttle Bush admin policies, actively working against his President, by abusing his office. Clark is merely an asshole who, in seeking both a shiny place in history and a job with a future DhimmiDonk admin, has learned how to grovel and grandstand at the same time. A feat, yes, but not worthy of anything but derision, IMHO. Just my take, Mark. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-01 13:12 |
| #12 Another important point Scheuer made is that there are classified docs out there that prove his point and that the 9/11 commission either ignored the docs, buried them, or never saw them. |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2006-10-01 11:22 |
| #11 Speaking of Fox News, this morning I watched Chris Wallace interview Michael Scheurer (sp?), Lawrence Wright, and an unknown former NSC hack from the Clinton Admin. It was sort of a carryover from last week's Wallace interview with Clinton. Best part: Scheurer called Clinton, Clark, and Berger liars (more than once) for claiming they did all they could to take down OBL. Transcript not up yet at Fox, but IIRC Scheurer said "Bill Clinton is flat lying to the American people". I recall that Scheurer has come in for criticism on these boards, but this morning the guy went after Clinton big time and noted, in passing, that Bush never had any opportunity to take out OBL because we never had "eyes on" OBL during the 8 months of the Bush admin whereas we had "eyes on" OBL under Clinton numerous times. |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2006-10-01 11:15 |
| #10 When your walls are collapsing around you, you are bound to lash out. The subject of your lashing could very well be those who did not come to your side when the walls were merely cracking. Their next outburst should be 'help'. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-10-01 10:58 |
| #9 The donks are at war with Bush, Halliburton, Cheney, Rummy, Fox, Rush, etc. The donks are not at war with al Qaeda, terrorism, Iran, etc. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-10-01 10:49 |
| #8 Democrats are using the famous "Shoot the Messenger" strategy, usually employed as a last resort. |
| Posted by: john 2006-10-01 09:34 |
| #7 This can really backfire. More people will tune to fox to see what all the hubbub is about and find that its more balanced then the other MSM outlets. Why they have both Democratic and Republican commentators! They dont pre-digest the food for you? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-10-01 09:33 |
| #6 Can you imagine the bitter envy felt by the people in the Times' newsroom as they worked on this article. A fellow news organization that's having success! and they're not working on our agenda and not letting us set the tone and direction of the national debate, as is our right!! How dare they?!! I think a thought probably momentarily passes through their narrow minds 'perhaps we should adapt and try letting up a little on the elitist, anti-Conservativism.' But most of them would quickly banish such an idea from their head's and then feel slightly ashamed for even having thought it. None would dare mutter it aloud in front of his/her collegues. |
| Posted by: Monsieur Moonbat 2006-10-01 09:25 |
| #5 80% (not counting that $10 million off the books Staples Center donation to the Dems). |
| Posted by: ed 2006-10-01 08:21 |
| #4 CBS, NBC cash goes to Democrats CBS: Of over $111,000 given by network employees, just two $1,000 contributions went to President Bush's re-election campaign. NBC: NBC's contributions totaled $146,585, none of which went to Bush. Fox: Of the $25,383 total, $4,930 (just 20%) went to Republicans candidates or committees. THE POLITICS BEHIND FOX NEWS News Corporation and their families had given almost $350,000 in campaign contributions, 60 percent of which went to Democrats. Fox News Corp Chairman Rupert Murdoch served as vice finance chairman for a Gore fund-raiser in 2000, and contributed $50,000 to the Gore campaign. He also signed off on a deal allowing the Democrats to use the Staples Center for the 2000 Democratic Convention in Los Angeles at no charge. That was worth $10 million. It just seems that Fox is right wing in Begala's Bizzaro World because Fox employees gave only 80% of money to the Democratic Party vs nothing by NBC and CBS. That's the best logic the Feelings and Unbalanced Party can offer. Money talks. Bullshit walks. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-10-01 08:17 |
| #3 I don't think the Dem strategy of having temper tantrums is going to get them any more votes than they already have. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-10-01 07:46 |
| #2 Yeah! Somebody gimme another gallon of paint, and where's that first draft of "The Plan"™? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-10-01 07:33 |
| #1 I'll start taking Begala's claims of Dem bashing seriously when he and his fellow travellers call off their dogs (like Matthews, Olberman, Schneider, etc.) in the MSM. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2006-10-01 06:33 |