A little advice for Dems: fresh, new Democrats, and old hands, too–shut your mouths and do your jobs. Let your subpoenas speak for you. Dig into that simmering stew of corruption and illegality and Republican stink and make the press and the public smell it, taste it, sense the genuine awfulness of it. Make `em gag on it. Especially the Beltway pundits and the Chatty Kathys on cable news. If they’re busy retching, they’re too occupied to clown around trying to make you look silly.

This is right on! Dean and Pelosi are doing their jobs. Must pick their fights carefully and keep moving.

What can possibly account for the post-election victory party pummeling of Howard Dean by inside-the-beltway Democrats? Prominent Democratic consultants (James Carville, Stan Greenberg) go on the record (“you can quote me”) with complaints barely two weeks from a Democratic sweep. Leading congressional Democrats (Rahm Emmanuel) vent their anger vociferously (“on background”). Why? Dems now control both Houses and have twenty-eight governorships. Dean ought to be congratulated. So what’s the underlying agenda here? Three theories:

1. The only way a Dem gets on television after such a sweet victory isn’t by criticizing Republicans – it’s by criticizing fellow Dems. Stirring up clear waters grabs attention. Attention draws crowds. Crowds create power. Power is the name of the game in Washington, especially when formal control of Congress changes hands.

2. Dean’s strategy of putting money into state party infrastructure takes money out of the pockets of Washington insiders – away form Democratic consultants and key congressional party activists. That makes insiders angry.

3. Dean is an independent DNC chair, not under the sway of the Clintons. Unlike Ron Brown, who guided the DNC toward a Clinton victory in 1992, Dean doesn’t play the usual power games. Hence, the Clintons would like him out, and the sooner the better. Carville, Greenberg, and Emmanuel, among others, are doing their bidding.

Which is it? I’m not so cynical or conspiratorial as to believe any one of them. But you come up with a more credible theory.

posted by Robert Reich | 5:38 PM

And I’m certain you can guess why.

99 percent of all the powder-filled envelopes sent through our postal system since late 2001 and meant to terrorize other U.S. citizens (or corporations) into submission to a certain ideology have been sent by right-wing nut jobs.

99 percent.

And first John Ashcroft and then Alberto Gonzales at the Justice Department have been keeping a lid on the extent of right-wing Republican terrorist mailings that have occurred over the past five years.

For instance, how many powder-filled terrorist letters has Fox News received? None?

How many powder-filled terrorist letters has Air America received during the same time? Hundreds? Thousands?

In other words, news commentators say or report on something that upsets the right-wing terrorists in our midst and the commentator gets a surprise in the mail and death threats.

A judge rules against the right-wing terorist agenda and they get a surprise in the mail as well as death threats.

This is one of the most closely guarded secrets of the Bush administration, that some (many?) of it’s most crazed supporters (after getting pumped up with lies and smear tactics by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Neil Boortz, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and a slew of other hate-mongering right-wing media hacks) sprinkle some powder in an envelope (envelopes?) and head down to the post office to mail them.

Thus, until this “hidden” campaign to subvert our democratic institutions is uncovered and exposed, some people might be left scratching their heads about why the main stream news media (in general) seem to be hard on the Democrats while playing softball with the Republicans.

Anyone playing “fair and balanced” with the Democrats, as well as telling the truth about the lies and corruption of today’s Republican Party, keeps getting surprises in the mail.

Thus, it takes great courage to stand up, speak the truth and defend our democracy from the worst, anti-democracy elements of the Republithug Party.

So, my hat’s off to y’all at Firedoglake. Your courage sets a shining example for the rest of us. Thank you.

One way of fighting corporate media might be to shrink it enough to drown it in the bathtub.

How?

Make advertising no longer tax deductible.

It’s one thing to be screwed by corporate media. Quite another to be allowing them to do it with the public purse.

Brilliant!

Just the threat is a big stick…can’t wait to see it proposed for the Tax Code.

How?

Make advertising no longer tax deductible.

It’s one thing to be screwed by corporate media. Quite another to be allowing them to do it with the public purse.

Susan @ 74

I apologize if this has already been suggested but I was reading the earlier post about the media problems … Fox News is really ghastly, ubiquitously aired, and panders to those who do not want their beliefs challenged and who hope that someone smarter than them is in charge.

We can complain about it but the reality is that a lot of people watch it and … a lot of advertisers support it.

We actually can do something about it. We can complain to those advertisers. We can develop a mass mailing list of email addresses and send out links to contact those advertisers and complain about specific offensive programs or guests or themes. We can tell those advertisers we won’t buy their products or use their services.

The true believers who do watch aren’t telling those advertisers they will buy what is advertised but if enough of us say we won’t … wouldn’t that make a difference?

The Mighty Wurlitzer has used this tactic because it gets them results. I’d love to see sustained progressive pushback on “sponsors” grow from the progressive media monitoring discussed here today.

Murdoch is changing his tactics currently. His viewership in Europe has dropped significantly – they seem not like Fox’s war reporting!His viewership in the US is also down. Currently, he is in Australia endeavouring to shore up his audiences there.

You may be interested to read this:

“Murdoch and Australia/American Relations”

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9685

Phoebe is a “media person” in Australia and has been a Clark supporter for about three years (I met her 2005 in Little Rock).

Also, some people, including me, have noticed that several of the Fox reporters are treating Wes Clark with great respect now. John Gibson, in this interview for instance amazed me. He’s usually very rude to people:

http://securingamerica.com/node/1948

I suggest that we all take a reporter out to lunch. Not to nail them for being tools but instead to cultivate them like politicians and money people do.

Let them see we are just folks and give them a chance to interact, we can even give them a story or two.

This is a long term grassroots project no media is to large or to small. I’ve already got a coffee date with the editor of my twice weekly home town paper.

But I will caution you that reporters will do an unfavorable story just to prove to you they are unbiased, but that’s just part of the dance.