C-span on "Dem anger"

[Cocoa]

Here's my belated e-mail to Washington Journal on their program from yesterday. I'm in full "crank" mode today, I've already bothered Bob Schieffer and David Broder, and I'm not done. :-)

Dear Washington Journal,

When I watch C-span, I notice a stark contrast compared to commercial news networks. I can blow my mind just by changing the channel from C-span to MSNBC, just to see the sudden drop in intelligence and value between the two.

However, C-span for a brief period became the same as the commercial networks when it ran a Washington Journal segment based on the question "Are the Democrats an angry party?"

This is acutally an explicit strategy of the GOP, to characterize the dems this way. C-span does not usually frame its discussion topics in the way that the GOP has instructed its media outlets to do, normally C-span broadcasts in the interest of the viewer.

It was pretty disconcerting to see C-span temporarily become no better in this way than the commercial networks, even if it was just one segment.

Finally, one caller did point out that there was a problem with the question the show was based on, and I thought the host's answer was inadequate. I think the host's name is Steve. He said something to the effect that the question is valid because there are many reports about how angry the Democratic party is. My answer to that is that it very often happens that GOP talking points get reported as fact, so the presence of the idea in news reports is not evidence that there's anything there.

Thank you,

Chicago, IL

[Lefty48197]

1. Interesting point about American "Journalism"

say it enough, then the fact that you've said it becomes news itself, and an excuse to cover the topic. Unbelievable.

[Cocoa]

5. or an excuse NOT to cover it

a C-span caller asked a guest from the NYT why they haven't been reporting on the intelligence failures recently, and she gave the incredible answer, "because it hasn't been in the news." I said wtf?, Brian Lamb said nothing.

[BJ]

2. What's wrong with being angry?

I'm a third generation Democrat, my first presidential vote was for George McGovern, I attended the inaugural Iowa caucus in '76 and I'm angry as Hell!

Hyperventilating worked for the Repugs in the past, why can't it work for the Democrats too?

[aquart]

3. Love the letter.

Myself, I'm not apologetic for my anger. Are we supposed to blush and stutter and insist no we are not angry?

Angry? Why YES! I'm angry that American jobs are being outsourced to foreign nations on government contracts.

I'm angry that the Bush administration is selling every American resource it can to private interests which are NOT American interests.

I'm angry that this administration never tells the truth about anything, even little things like a platter of turkey.

I'm angry that our soldiers were sent to war to protect the interest of multinational corporations who fund Bush. And that Bush sent them unprotected and badly fed because of his no bid contracts with his cronies.

I'm angry that Americans are regarded with contempt all over the world because the Bush word is worthless.

I'm angry that he has alienated our oldest, most faithful allies because they told him the truth.

I'm angry that he gave a tax cut to his richer than rich cronies and lied that it would help people like me.

Angry? Anyone who isn't angry at George Bush is someone who doesn't love America. Anyone who isn't angry at George Bush is someone who doesn't respect the United States constitution.

Our freedom, our air, our water, our land are all being destroyed by this unfeeling liar.

Angry? I'm an American and I should be angry.

[Fovea]

4. The Angry Democrat

Is an exceedingly dangerous meme for Rove to float.
Sure, it plays well to the Conservative base, whom, now in power want to become the dominant party for a half century or so.

It is dangerous primarily because a butt load of swing voters are pretty damned angry too. Look at America a year ago. Every voter who showed up to protest the war somewhere is seething with anger. What we need to do is remind them to make the voting booth the protest that counts.

But the truth is that the Republican NeoCon wing is responsible for policies that will blow back fast and furious, domestically and internationally. I do not think one more attack absolutely equal a population willing to vote for the Fascist Party. I think that there are some voters out there who believe that they are somehow safe with * in office. Sadly, when their ignorance is lifted by the next big explosion, many of them will vote fascist, but lots more will be screaming to throw the bastards out.

I see a world where Norquist is tarred and feathered in the street, and Mellon Scaife is living in an undisclosed bunker for fear of his life. It could be here damned fast, with the right confluence of events...

What would happen if in 2004 the following happened.
1. another 2001 market crash.
2. an Iran stylee revolution in Saudi Arabia.
3. an OPEC counter attack against American petro developments in Central Asia.
4. A full disclosure of Cheney's files.

None of these are a terrorist attack, and any one of these has the potential to bring Bunnypants, Crash Cart, and the undead from PNAC down. That pool of anger out there was brought on by the party of personal responsibility, and it would not take much for denial on the right to turn into rage across the spectrum... the thing that brought Nixon down.

I suspect the Republican unity is crumbling under the weight of *, Cheney, Rummy, DeLay, etc.

[booksenkatz]

6. This idea is definitely sticking, sadly

A few weeks ago, I was emailing back and forth with a friend of mine ~ he is a gay Libertarian whom I'm trying to convince to vote Dem this time. I listed a few solid reasons, sans exclamation points, as to why America cannot survive another 4 years of Bush. No tinfoil, just simple economic/job/foreign policy points. He wrote back, "You know, this hysteria on the part of the Dems is what really turns me off about you guys." So the simple act of pointing out a few fact-based points got me labeled a Hysteric by a person that *should* be voting Dem by all measures.

Frankly, I've always felt that the Dems are not angry enough. How healthy it would be to have an ounce of the Republican anger that flooded this country for 8 years! I have a Repub friend who, if you even whisper the word "Clinton" in his presence, spurts blood from his ears and nostrils from pure, unadulterated, unreasoned hate and anger. And yet my calm, fact-based anger towards Bush over the destruction of everything this country stands for gets me labelled a Hysteric. I can't figure it out, but I know one thing: I don't plan to stop being angry anytime soon, so the GOP can kiss my ass!

[BuelahWitch]

7. Did anyone bring up the word "mirror"?

I mean, as one other post said, the GOP is still angry about Clinton, after their pResident (not mine) has been in office for three years. Heck all the nut-job pundits are always foaming at the mouth about something. And they're saying WE'RE angry??? :shrug:

[Landlord]

8. What goes around...

In 1994 the media called this "The angry white male." Will 2004 be any different?

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. I think the media ia also underestinating the power of ANGER

I am angry with what George is donig to this oountry

Now here is a difference between the Republicans and US... (and yes give them a F^^^ing mirror)

For them the visceral hate of Clinton is still making them go foaming at the mouth

Most of us are angry with the policies of Goerge teh lesser
but at least of us at times do feel sorry for uncurious Goerge... after all he is not in charge... and we know it.