As I understood the news reports last week on what Murdoch said, he does not want the Google News site to link to his sites for free. http://rawstory.com/2009/11/fox-news...ogle-searches/ "... The company has routinely lambasted Google News for "stealing" content, by allowing excerpts of articles on its pages and including a link to the story. ..." Google news is a left favoring news aggregator site:
http://news.google.com/

I'm glad to see Sanchez finally come back for another diavlog.

I quite enjoyed this one. (50:00) Julian, this progressive is angry at the Obama Administration. If he doesn't deliver on his promise to end Don't Ask Don't Tell, for example, I will not meekly crawl back into the Democratic tent in 2012.

Quoting Winspur: I quite enjoyed this one.

(50:00) Julian, this progressive is angry at the Obama Administration. If he doesn't deliver on his promise to end Don't Ask Don't Tell, for example, I will not meekly crawl back into the Democratic tent in 2012.

So, you'd rather have a Republican run administration than a Democratic administration, if you can't dictate to the Democrat exactly what the priorities are? Doesn't it make more sense to strengthen your side and nurture it, hoping to move the Overton Window, and gradually get more of what's on your agenda, than to demand everything now, and piss on the parade if you don't get it all, right now? That sounds like a Tea-Bag Republican approach to politics to me.

How apropos that you would use the term tea-bagging in a derogatory slur at Republicans in response to a commenter whose primary concerns apparently revolve around gay issues.

Quoting piscivorous: How apropos that you would use the term tea-bagging in a derogatory slur at Republicans in response to a commenter whose primary concerns apparently revolve around gay issues.

One. "Tea-bagger" was a label applied by the members of the movement itself, early on. Two. The "slur" such as it is, derives from the comical ineptitude displayed by the choice to use the term in the first place. Three. You'll never hear me moralizing about other people's sexual practices (within the limits set by formal consent.) Four. It was intended as a kick in the behind, and I stand by that impulse. I'm tired of purists snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Quoting AemJeff: So, you'd rather have a Republican run administration than a Democratic administration, if you can't dictate to the Democrat exactly what the priorities are? Doesn't it make more sense to strengthen your side and nurture it, hoping to move the Overton Window, and gradually get more of what's on your agenda, than to demand everything now, and piss on the parade if you don't get it all, right now?

That sounds like a Tea-Bag Republican approach to politics to me.

It'd be a good strategy if there were only two periods in your game. But since the future goes on for, well, forever, I think it's better to maximize long-term progressive goals. I think it's better to repeal DADT slowly, at bureaucratic speed, so the military feels like they own it. If it's done "at the stroke of a pen" then it can be undone by the next Republican president. If non-discrimination is something the military is actually proud of it'll be here to stay. I'm not saying that's exactly how this is going to happen, but that Obama's strategy is worth spending a year or two on. If that doesn't work then fire all the generals.

Quoting AemJeff: One. "Tea-bagger" was a label applied the members of the movement itself, early on. Two. The "slur" such as it is, derives from the comical ineptitude displayed by the choice to use the term in the first place. Three. You'll never hear me moralizing about other people's sexual practices (within the limits set by formal consent.) Four. It was intended as a kick in the behind, and I stand by that impulse. I'm tired of purists snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Teabagger is too funny not to use. They opened the door. Besides, is teapartier any better? You know who has tea parties? Little girls and their dolls!

Quoting claymisher: It'd be a good strategy if there were only two periods in your game. But since the future goes on for, well, forever, I think it's better to maximize long-term progressive goals. I think it's better to repeal DADT slowly, at bureaucratic speed, so the military feels like they own it. If it's done "at the stroke of a pen" then it can be undone by the next Republican president. If non-discrimination is something the military is actually proud of it'll be here to stay.

I'm not saying that's exactly how this is going to happen, but that Obama's strategy is worth spending a year or two on. If that doesn't work then fire all the generals.

Though I won't sign onto that final prescription, this is pretty much what I believe, too. And I think you can generalize it to goals other than repealing DADT. Don't try to get every damn thing you want today. Understand that there's a system, and that system is bigger and stronger than any given player, regardless of who or what they are. Work strategically, and be content with baby steps.

To clarify, I do want to see Congress repeal DADT eventually. I am angry because Obama could stop the discharge of gay servicemembers now with an executive order. This is not just a "gay issue," it impacts the character of our military profoundly, and when "the system" (the older generals and senators whose feelings are so fragile and must be coddled) has so signally failed to understand the problem, then unilateral action from the president is necessary.

Quoting Winspur: To clarify, I do want to see Congress repeal DADT eventually. I am angry because Obama could stop the discharge of gay servicemembers now with an executive order. This is not just a "gay issue," it impacts the character of our military profoundly, and when "the system" (the older generals and senators whose feelings are so fragile and must be coddled) has so signally failed to understand the problem, then unilateral action from the president is necessary.

I guarantee that that plan would hurt your cause far more than it would help. Things don't happen in a vacuum; and the propaganda opportunities provided by allowing the opposition to frame it as undemocratic, or worse, would open the door to a backlash. Just because you're sure your cause is morally just, doesn't mean that that's the point of view that will eventually prevail.

I thought Anderson Cooper meant "tea-bagger" as a compliment. Only someone who had coughed up their own share of hairballs would make such a reference. It's hilarious. BTW, Conor is absolutely correct: one must engage the other side or lose all credibility/relevance. This is why pusillanimous MSNBC is going the way of the tree-sloth. They're too afraid they'll wind up like Theo Van Gogh to even use a word like "Muslim" in the context of Fort Hood. Isolation is starving them.

Yup. http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...pitol_tea.html My personal favorite:

Kudos AEM. Cool pics.

Quoting claymisher: You know who has tea parties? Little girls and their dolls!

It isn't just apoplectic reactionaries and little girls who have tea parties!

For your next tea-party, girls:
Q: How do we know the Obamas weren't aware of Maj Hasan's jihad rantings?
A: He was only promoted to Major, not Green Jobs Tsar.
Q: What did Rahm Emanuel say when he saw Maj Hasan's jihad powerpoint?
A: "Darn! If only he'd have given Mao a shout-out we could use him to replace Anita Dunn next month."
Q: Three minutes into his press conference, what was Barack's first reference to Fort Hood?
A: "Don't Skip to conclusions everybody! Er, I mean, don't shut the Gates after the horse has . . . . Hope."

Quoting AemJeff: One. "Tea-bagger" was a label applied by the members of the movement itself, early on.

Yup. And there's no use in crying about it any longer, because it has become about as mainstream as it is possible for a word to become. Cue DenvilleSteve: Why are teh Democrat-owned dictionaries so liberally biased? in 5..., 4..., 3...

Quoting AemJeff: I'm glad to see Sanchez finally come back for another diavlog.

Agreed. I'd have preferred to see him with someone less earnest than Conor, though. Julian is funnier -- and sharper -- when the other person is a little irreverent. I liked the discussion about Murdoch, and journalism overall, and there were some good points made about dealing with the fringe characters, but the endless woe-is-us-reasonable-independents reuptook all my afternoon caffeine.

Soon you'll have a job at the New York Times as a "Reasonable" conservative. Conor has checked all the boxes: 1) Constantly attack Rush, Coulter, Buchanan, Palin, R.S. McCain, Malkin, Beck, Fox News, - that is anyone actually standing up for conservative values in an effective way. 2) Utter the standard general cliches about needing a strong defense, strong support for Israel, how bad socialism is, the need for fiscal responsibility blah blah. Be internationalist, but not too much. 3) Never, ever, attack any Liberal strongly held belief. Be neutral or take the liberal position on Affirmative action, illegal immigration, Evolution, trade policy, abortion, gay marriage, hate laws, the "Christian Right", etc. 4) Take the Republican side - but be mild mannered and reasonable! - in all the minor political disputes that dominate our news coverage. 5) Talk a lot about racism and the danger of the "Right wing." Constantly advise that the Republicans need to be moderate, move to center, attract minorities, get rid of the all those "Religious right" types, etc. 6) Babble a lot about Burke and how Conservatives need to avoid "populism" at all costs. (Liberals love these bow-tied anti-populists since they are harmless and have zero appeal to average people)

Quoting rcocean: 1) Constantly attack Rush, Coulter, Buchanan, Palin, R.S. McCain, Malkin, Beck, Fox News, - that is anyone actually standing up for conservative values in an effective way.

Wait, you think having the people above is a boon to the right? Here I was thinking I was being nice by not associating the above people with thoughtful conservatism.

3) Never, ever, attack any Liberal strongly held belief. Be neutral or take the liberal position on Affirmative action, illegal immigration, Evolution, trade policy, abortion, gay marriage, hate laws, the "Christian Right", etc.

I don't even know what the difference between the parties are in relation to trade policy. Seems to me that both parties have a free trade and protectionist wing. I can see room for debate about illegal immigration, affirmative action, and abortion. About the other stuff, since I like to think of myself as a centrist, I am going to just assume that being a conservative does not make someone as backwards as you seem to think it does. Edit:
Forgot to put hate laws up there with things that are reasonable to debate about.

Conor says "You never hear the cocktail charge leveled against Kristol". Funny, because I think it was in reference to him that some wag (either a neocon or liberal) defined a neoconservative as being a conservative a liberal is comfortable inviting to a cocktail party. It fits David Brooks pretty well, and whaddayaknow, both Kristol and Brooks have written for the Weekly Standard and NYT. Who are we left with completely immune to cocktail accusations? People who started writing for movement conservative publications but got kicked out (maverick!) and never rose up. I never cared for Palin (or McCain, for that matter), but here's my defense: the president should not be so focused on foreign policy. It's president of the United States, not the world. The ideal president is like Harding or Coolidge, who realizes their own limitations and let's the country flourish in normalcy without being subjected to their ambitions.

Quoting rcocean: ...

Do you really, seriously, think the belief in "evolution" has any left/right valence whatsoever?

Quoting rcocean: Soon you'll have a job at the New York Times as a "Reasonable" conservative.

Conor has checked all the boxes:

1) Constantly attack Rush, Coulter, Buchanan, Palin, R.S. McCain, Malkin, Beck, Fox News, - that is anyone actually standing up for conservative values in an effective way.

How do you define "effective?" Seems to me that those people you list have done little more than marginalize the image of "conservative values," and, importantly, given the reality of our two-party system, the Republican brand. Most of the names you list, to the extent they're well-known, have negatives that outweigh their approval ratings (e.g., e.g., e.g., e.g., e.g.) About the only thing on the upswing lately that I'm aware of is the percentage of people in surveys identifying themselves as conservatives; on the other hand, we have the results of the last two national elections in 2006 and 2008, wins by the Dems "in five consecutive contested special elections — the political version of going one on one" (source, see also), and plummeting percentages of people who self-identify as Republicans (e.g.). I expect you would like to think of the growth in self-described Independents as entirely composed of conservatives who think the GOP has become "too moderate," but somehow, I doubt that's true. Some, sure, but far

Conor has no clue what the Tea Party protests are about. They are not pro-Palin rallies. Nobody I talk to thinks just electing the right honest people would fix everything. The Tea Party protestors completely understand the "systemic" problem that Conor and Julian talk about: when government intrudes into all aspects of the economy, businesses well spend like hell to influence government decisions. The Tea Party masses are far from perfect, but they are not nearly as stupid as Conor wants everyone to believe.

"Conor - The New Andrew Sullivan" Exactly. Conor is right that now is the time for cleaning house in the conservative movement. But he is more self serving troll than true believer.
Take his Human Events criticism. What is he trying to accomplish?
Drving Human Events out of business?
Convincing them to use better advisters?
Improving their reporting and analysis? There are constructive ways to accomplish any of the goals above but I don't think Conor has even picked one. Instead he chooses to carp from the sidelines to raise his Sullivanesque lefty street cred.

Quoting conncarroll: Exactly. Conor is right that now is the time for cleaning house in the conservative movement. But ...

What, specifically, do you recommend, Conn?

Quoting conncarroll: Conor has no clue what the Tea Party protests are about. They are not pro-Palin rallies.

Granted, or, at least I'd agree that that's not all they are. But suppose you could survey the people at a rally on their first choice for next president. Do you not think Palin would win? Seems to me that Palin is what many, if not most, of these people are looking for as THE answer to their grievances.

Quoting bjkeefe: Granted, or, at least I'd agree that that's not all they are. But suppose you could survey the people at a rally on their first choice for next president. Do you not think Palin would win?

Seems to me that Palin is what many, if not most, of these people are looking for as THE answer to their grievances.

I think you are wrong. I woke up the morning of the Palin announcement and was very dissappointed. If McCain was going to head the ticket, I wanted one of the others who were running for it to be #2. Many of us grew to like Sarah, and we might even love her for the fact that the left is SO afraid of her, but I really think most of us "Tea-Partiers" (I am one) don't see her as President.

Quoting Whatfur: I think you are wrong. I woke up the morning of the Palin announcement and was very dissappointed. If McCain was going to head the ticket, I wanted one of the others who were running for it to be #2. Many of us grew to like Sarah, and we might even love her for the fact that the left is SO afraid of her, but I really think most of us "Tea-Partiers" (I am one) don't see her as President.

Okay. Thanks for your perspective. Who would you say is the TP's dream candidate, then? And realistic first choice, if different?

Quoting Whatfur: I woke up the morning of the Palin announcement and was very dissappointed. If McCain was going to head the ticket, I wanted one of the others who were running for it to be #2. Many of us grew to like Sarah, and we might even love her for the fact that the left is SO afraid of her

QFT She's kind of like the Harlem Globetrotters. Here are two articles that basically capture how I feel: http://http://latimesblogs.latimes.c...ommittee-.html http://http://www.realclearpolitics....nce_99201.html

Quoting rcocean: 6) Babble a lot about Burke and how Conservatives need to avoid "populism" at all costs. (Liberals love these bow-tied anti-populists since they are harmless and have zero appeal to average people)

LOL, good one. Great post, RC. I understand how frustrating this pheomenon must feel, and I expect most of my comrades on the left side do as well. It's essentially a reverse of the "EvenTheLiberalNewRepublic" pheomenon, where right-wing "democrats" and "liberals" are heralded by the MSM as brave truth tellers. The media has a fetish for those who criticize their own side; witness, for example, Andrew Sullivan's inane "Yglesias" award. It's clearly a wise career move.

Quoting look: QFT

She's kind of like the Harlem Globetrotters.

Here are two articles that basically capture how I feel:

http://http://latimesblogs.latimes.c...ommittee-.html

http://http://www.realclearpolitics....nce_99201.html

As for Harsanyi's piece, it's always entertaining, isn't it, when self-declared freedom-loving glibertarians indulge their inner Puritans and start telling the rest of the country how to behave. And why am I not surprised that you're on the same page with Laura Bush's former press secretary? (Personally, I think netiquette demands that we come up with a warning analogous to "NSFW," to be used whenever someone links to Andrew Malcolm.)

Quoting nikkibong: ...

The media has a fetish for those who criticize their own side; witness, for example, Andrew Sullivan's inane "Yglesias" award. It's clearly a wise career move.

Hmmmm

Quoting look: QFT
...
Here are two articles that basically capture how I feel:

You and many others...thanks for the articles in spite of their faulty linkages. ;o)

Quoting nikkibong: The media has a fetish for those who criticize their own side; witness, for example, Andrew Sullivan's inane "Yglesias" award. It's clearly a wise career move.

I take from this you would rather have everyone marching in lockstep, not daring to voice their own opinions?

Quoting bjkeefe: I take from this you would rather have everyone marching in lockstep, not daring to voice their own opinions?

For someone in lockstep, that is quite a leap.

that seems like a misreading of nikki's comment. Nikki was saying that those that attack their own side (however stretched the association may be) are given a disproportionately loud voice in the msm. i don't get how that implies that nobody should dissent or have to toe some party line.

Quoting conncarroll: Conor has no clue what the Tea Party protests are about. They are not pro-Palin rallies. Nobody I talk to thinks just electing the right honest people would fix everything.

The Tea Party protestors completely understand the "systemic" problem that Conor and Julian talk about: when government intrudes into all aspects of the economy, businesses well spend like hell to influence government decisions.

The Tea Party masses are far from perfect, but they are not nearly as stupid as Conor wants everyone to believe.

Conn, My argument isn't that the tea parties are merely pro-Sarah Palin rallies -- it is that BOTH Sarah Palin supporters AND tea party attendees (and Ron Paul supporters, for that matter) focus far more on personalities than on actual policy changes. They'll talk about people they can trust (Palin, Paul, Beck, Limbaugh, Levin), people who are untrustworthy (Obama), and policies they don't like (health care reform, immigration amnesty, etc.) but if you're right, and they understand perfectly well systemic nature of the problem, then they surely don't show it by proposing policies that actually fix the problem. Nor do the media personalities they site. What is the Tea Party attendee solution to the systemic problems

Quoting conncarroll: "Conor - The New Andrew Sullivan"

Exactly. Conor is right that now is the time for cleaning house in the conservative movement. But he is more self serving troll than true believer.
Take his Human Events criticism. What is he trying to accomplish?
Drving Human Events out of business?
Convincing them to use better advisters?
Improving their reporting and analysis?

There are constructive ways to accomplish any of the goals above but I don't think Conor has even picked one. Instead he chooses to carp from the sidelines to raise his Sullivanesque lefty street cred.

Conn, What am I trying to accomplish by pointing out that Human Events sends advertisements to its largely elderly subscribers that cynically try to fleece them of their money? Why, I am trying to shame the publication into running advertisements that are less despicable, or if they continue on this course, to point out that they are selling out conservatives, and don't deserve a reputation for serving their interests. Were I actually self-serving, as you assert, I'd probably ignore the Human Events advertising e-mails, generally refrain from criticizing anything with ties to Tom Phillips, and thereby increase my chances for landing one

Quoting bjkeefe: What, specifically, do you recommend, Conn?

That could be whole diavlog. For now, this:
http://volokh.com/2009/11/17/bush-co...erbert-hoover/ and this:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/1...learly-is-not/ are good starts.

I think it was Conor who used Michael Moore as a measure of how irrelevant Ann Coulter had become. I think this is wrong and inaccurate regarding Michael Moore's status and stature. Michael Moore has a lot more reasoned and intelligent social analyses and cogent, rational, sincere commentary to offer than Coulter. And I don't say this merely because I agree with a lot of what he says. Yes, Moore has had his various antics. But he is also a much more serious and humanely orientated social critic than Coulter.

Quoting conor friedersdorf: Must victim status always be invoked in every argument that involves the grassroots right?

Apparently so. It's likely to continue unabated - just as it's unlikely that Conn will concede your point. That's politics. It certainly works to keep the base simmering, while also eliciting mockery from many left-leaning sources (as evidenced in this forum). In such a climate, gut instincts and denial replace reason and fair-mindedness. Everyone is culpable, many are pleased and few really suffer any consequence.

Were I actually self-serving, as you assert, I'd probably ignore the Human Events advertising e-mails, generally refrain from criticizing anything with ties to Tom Phillips, and thereby increase my chances for landing one of those Phillips Foundation reporting grants.

By implication you could be referring to Conn's perch at Heritage. His paymasters have nothing to fault him for.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: About the other stuff, since I like to think of myself as a centrist...

A quick question: do you think of yourself as a centrist because you believe in consensus politics and not rocking the boat. Or is it an ideological position: e.g. you're a free-market liberal who supports the Republicans on trade and the size of government, but Democrats on social issues?

Quoting Toryentalist: A quick question: do you think of yourself as a centrist because you believe in consensus politics and not rocking the boat. Or is it an ideological position: e.g. you're a free-market liberal who supports the Republicans on trade and the size of government, but Democrats on social issues?

I don't really care about consensus, so I am not generally for watered down policies. If I had to describe myself, I would say I am part of the "radical center", though my radical center is probably different from other people's radical center. Generally, I tentatively agree that tax cuts are probably more effective then deficit Gov't spending, so I am with the right there. I am generally with the left on social issues, but occasionally think the left takes their social policy's to far. I believe in certain forms of redistribution that even the playing field for kids*, but am against things that are hand-outs to people that already have had their shot. Probably my most radical position, is that I think our military should be (literally) 10x smaller. If you spend billions upon billions on a military, there will always be forces that push for conflict as a way of justifying the

Quoting Starwatcher162536: ...Generally, I tentatively agree that tax cuts are probably more effective then deficit Gov't spending, so I am with the right there. I am generally with the left on social issues, but occasionally think the left takes their social policy's to far. I believe in certain forms of redistribution that even the playing field for kids*, but am against things that are hand-outs to people that already have had their shot.

While I would second most of this but I would disagree with the "but am against things that are hand-outs to people that already have had their shot." While I would agree with the no " hand-outs" the highlighted text, by implication, says that all those that have failed did so because it was their own fault and therefore are undeserving. While the old adage of "try and try again" is often a prelude to success even extraordinary effort and extreme persistence can be negated by both timing and "luck". For some there will always be a need of a "hand-up"

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Probably my most radical position, is that I think our military should be (literally) 10x smaller. If you spend billions upon billions on a military, there

Quoting Markos: .... And I don't say this merely because I agree with a lot of what he says. ....

Oh course you don't.

Quoting Markos: I think it was Conor who used Michael Moore as a measure of how irrelevant Ann Coulter had become. I think this is wrong and inaccurate regarding Michael Moore's status and stature. Michael Moore has a lot more reasoned and intelligent social analyses and cogent, rational, sincere commentary to offer than Coulter. And I don't say this merely because I agree with a lot of what he says. Yes, Moore has had his various antics. But he is also a much more serious and humanely orientated social critic than Coulter.

Yes, I agree, while stipulating that he's a bit of a propagandist. The other thing about Moore, that occurs to me every time he's held up by someone trying to support a "both sides are just the same" claim: notice that he is almost always the only lefty name given. So, even if you said, okay, I'll give you Moore to cancel out Coulter or whomever, what about Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity, Ingraham, Dobbs, etc., etc., etc.?

What planet are you on? What Tea Party protests have focused on immigration and amnesty? I have no doubt that if you polled the crowd they would not be supportive of Bush-style amnesty but that has not been an animating factor of the Tea Parties at all.
"Back during the Gingrich Revolution, the grassroots on the right rallied behind the Contract with America, a coherent statement of an agenda that would be enacted if its candidates won."
This is just false. the Contract with America wasn't unveiled until less than a month before the election. The base was rallied way before that.
"Can you point me to something similar that I am missing today? Or any evidence that the folks we're talking about are grappling with the systemic problem?"
Yeah, every sign that says "End TARP" and "End the Stimulus" are specific policy solutions that go to the heart of the problem with Washington. I just don't agree with your underlying premise that the Tea Parties are all about electing "the people they can trust" and everything will be honky dory. Quite the opposite. The signs I see say "vote them all

Quoting AemJeff: Four. It was intended as a kick in the behind, and I stand by that impulse. I'm tired of purists snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

So the analogy doesn't hold up. The teabaggers were trying to defeat the left.....not wanting the left to be more left.

Quoting badhatharry: So the analogy doesn't hold up. The teabaggers were trying to defeat the left.....not wanting the left to be more left.

But they weren't the object of the "kick" in question. That was intended for my correspondent.

Quoting Whatfur: I think you are wrong. I woke up the morning of the Palin announcement and was very dissappointed. If McCain was going to head the ticket, I wanted one of the others who were running for it to be #2. Many of us grew to like Sarah, and we might even love her for the fact that the left is SO afraid of her, but I really think most of us "Tea-Partiers" (I am one) don't see her as President.

I don't think the left is afraid of her in the slightest. But what Dennis Miller said sums it up for me. "I like her because she pisses-off the right people".

Quoting bjkeefe: Yes, I agree, while stipulating that he's a bit of a propagandist.

The other thing about Moore, that occurs to me every time he's held up by someone trying to support a "both sides are just the same" claim: notice that he is almost always the only lefty name given. So, even if you said, okay, I'll give you Moore to cancel out Coulter or whomever, what about Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity, Ingraham, Dobbs, etc., etc., etc.?

So here's my attempt at answering your query. Just because Air America and MSNBC aren't as popular as right wing radio doesn't mean there aren't any propagandists on the left. Sane people on the right would say that anyone who is in favor of a leftist agenda is equal to Beck et al, except they're wrong while Beck et al at least get some things right. It's Al Gore saying that the debate has been settled about AGW and we should just move on. It's the democrats in the Senate and House calling this debacle a health care bill and that 47 million people are not able to get health care. It's Obama saying that illegals wouldn't be covered by the bill when

Quoting badhatharry: So here's my attempt at answering your query. Just because Air America and MSNBC aren't as popular as right wing radio doesn't mean there aren't any propagandists on the left.

I'll give you that much, although a big part of my point is that the amount of clout doesn't begin to compare. Air America isn't even on the radar compared to the right's presence on radio, and Fox News has a far larger audience than MSNBC. Further, Fox is has an entire unified organization that is committed to staying on message 24/7, unlike MSNBC (e.g.). As to the rest: no, I just disagree. It is ridiculous to say that "anyone who is in favor of a leftist agenda is equal to Beck et al." It is ridiculous to compare the Democratic Party's policy goals with the way the right-wing noise machine portrays them. And it is dishonest to pretend that Al Gore represents the comprehensive final view of those of us who believe AGW is a problem, which is how the denialists invariably try to frame the debate.

Quoting badhatharry: So here's my attempt at answering your query. Just because Air America and MSNBC aren't as popular as right wing radio doesn't mean there aren't any propagandists on the left. Sane people on the right would say that anyone who is in favor of a leftist agenda is equal to Beck et al, except they're wrong while Beck et al at least get some things right.

It's Al Gore saying that the debate has been settled about AGW and we should just move on. It's the democrats in the Senate and House calling this debacle a health care bill and that 47 million people are not able to get health care. It's Obama saying that illegals wouldn't be covered by the bill when he knew that they already were covered for emergency room care. It's the same guy saying that we would all get the same coverage and not pay any more and in fact would pay less. It's anyone who is trying to convince the American people that this reform will solve anything. It's the same people saying we will borrow

Quoting badhatharry: Sane people on the right would say that anyone who is in favor of a leftist agenda is equal to Beck et al,

no, those would be the moronic and/or insane on the right that have no ability to distinguish between hateful propaganda and a differences of opinions.

Substantively I probably agree with Dorf on a lot of issues; but his style is anathema to me. He's an elite coaster who is just ignorant of 2/3s of America, if not more. He thinks he is smart, doesn't realize how ignorant he is and therefore has made a royal fool of himself with some of the superficial nonsense he has written about the other conservatives. I don't see him being a Republican or a conservative for too much longer. The guy has way too much hate for too many people on his side of the aisle. His reputation among conservatives is already ruined, I think. Dorf should just be an Independent and be honest about it, instead of pretending to be a Republican journalist. He wants to be a player though, I guess. I don't respect him.

Count me in with this crowd.

Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts... so of course he's going to be the poster boy for global warming scaremongering.

Quoting Lyle: Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts... so of course he's going to be the poster boy for global warming scaremongering.

Same answer.

Aww... someone's not happy that Al Gore is on their team.

Quoting bjkeefe: [...] Fox ... an entire unified organization that is committed to staying on message 24/7 ...

Which is an attitude so deeply ingrained, it even extends to the choice of filenames. [Added] Also, too.

How is this a defensible approach to politics? I understand the emotional appeal fine, but that doesn't mean that it's wise way to think. I don't like Michael Moore or Keith Olbermann just because Conservatives hate them. This is the kind of thinking that gets you to follow idiots and blowhards that happen to share your side of the spectrum, rather than intelligent or reasonable people.

I would suggest that someone isn't happy that we wind up talking about Al Gore's house, waistline, and Nobel Prize in lieu of doing anything about AGW, but I suppose your theory has merit too. Also, do you really not believe that carbon dioxide emissions will have serious negative ecological consequences in the medium and long term? Do you not think that carbon emissions have unpriced externalities? Do you think that it is foolish to develop energy efficiency or renewable energy sources? if so, why?

What are you talking about? Did I say something that suggests I believe global warming isn't happening or that we shouldn't figure out how to use cleaner energy? You crazy people and your love of projecting ideas on to people based on nothing. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Quoting Lyle: ... your love of projecting ideas on to people based on nothing.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Not for the first time do I marvel at the lack of self-awareness.

Quoting Lyle: What are you talking about? Did I say something that suggests I believe global warming isn't happening or that we shouldn't figure out how to use cleaner energy?

You crazy people and your love of projecting ideas on to people based on nothing.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Quoting Lyle: Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts... so of course he's going to be the poster boy for global warming scaremongering.

Nope, nothing to see here. You've given me absolutely no reason to believe that you're at least partially in the denialist camp, no sir, none at all.

So calling Al Gore a global warming scaremonger ipso facto means that person denies global warming? Really? Did you not get why I was picking on bjkeefe to begin with? He complained about framing the GW debate with Al Gore. Why? Cause Al Gore has said a lot of wrong things about GW and is hard to defend at times. Do you get that now?

Aww, what can I say... I'm not perfect. Boo hoo, boo hoo.

Quoting Lyle: Aww, what can I say... I'm not perfect. Boo hoo, boo hoo.

Self awareness is the first step...