Archive for the 'Harry Reid' Category

Do you approve of the way Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is doing his job?

It's important to remember that as much progress as we seem to make, the long-term struggle is by no means over nor even close to being finished.

We have worked hard to build a movement to do battle against the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. That machine has chewed up and spit out countless Democrats, rendering them a hollow shell of what they used to be. For decades, it was easier for a Democrat to go along with the right-wing agenda than to face the wrath of the combined might of the right-wing Mighty Wurlitzer.

Then we bloggers came along, and Air America, and ... well, that's it. We're laughably small compared to what the Right can throw at our side. But we're growing and have shown Democrats that there's reward for standing for strong progressive principles. We have shown that we can also deliver some measure of pain to the other side. We've shown that the political and media landscapes are changing, and that we no longer have to pretend that Fox News is a serious news operation.

The best thing Barack Obama may have done this young primary season was to freeze out Fox News after their "Madrassas" smear of him. I don't know if he's still cutting them off, but fact is, he sent an unmistakable message -- he'll only deal with legitimate news operations, and Fox News ain't one of them.

This was a huge step forward. Fox News is unabashedly movement oriented -- focused on promoting Republicans at the expense of Democrats. Every decision they make, from top to bottom, is predicated on that very simply mission.

But they cannot exert serious pressure on media narratives unless it creates some semblance of respectability. Its so-called "fair and balanced" nonsense. It's much easier to ignore Newsmax as partisan dribble. But when reporting news, any "serious" news operation gets deference by its peers. And Fox News has taken advantage of that deference to promote some of the worst smears against Democrats. Yet for years, Democrats have helped fuel this right-wing propaganda arm by appearing on their various programs, lending it an air of legitimacy.

But I suppose politics is about measuring baby steps. And the Nevada Democratic Party's decision to give Fox News rights to one of our field's debates sets back much of our hard work.

Would Republicans hold a debate on Air America? Would they live blog on Daily Kos? Only if they were idiots. But apparently, that very simple notion eludes our top Democrats.

And not just in Nevada. Howard Dean has endorsed the effort as a way to, um, let Fox News talking heads make fun of Democrats to a large audience:

But the Nevada party organizers -- and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean -- said Thursday that while they may not think much of Fox's reporting, they want to reach out to viewers of the largest cable news network, one with double the number of prime-time viewers of CNN. And one whose believability is much higher with Republicans than Democrats, according to a 2005 study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

First of all, the number of people who watch cable news is tiny. O'Reilly's show draws just a bit over 2 million people. Not exactly the masses. Cable news is literally just a couple of notches above the blogosphere in terms of overall audience. And I don't say that to puff up the blogosphere, but to deflate cable news.

But more importantly, why do you think conservatives watch Fox News? Because they worship at the altar of their pundit heroes -- Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Brit Hume, John Gibson, and their special little friends like Bill Bennett, Ann Coulter and the like.

That's who the viewers tune in to hear. That's who they trust.

So logic would dictate an easy answer to this question --

It's not a trick question.

So where does that leave us? The genius at the Nevada Democratic Party who negotiated the agreement with Fox is stepping down, so he doesn't give a shit what people think. It's no longer his problem.

Harry Reid is playing stupid and passing the buck, wondering why anyone would think that he, the highest-ranking Democrat in the land, might have any influence in his own state of Nevada. Don't look to him for leadership on this. He's apparently perfectly happy helping legitimize Fox News. Apparently, he has no problems with them trashing him like this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.

Howard Dean has forgotten his own battles with Fox, and is now eagerly helping legitimize the right-wing's smear machine. Perhaps there's a limit to how long one spends in DC before they lose common sense.

So it comes down to the candidates.

The second- and third-tier candidates are desperate for any exposure, and won't turn down the debate. But a couple of the top-tier candidates have complained about the heavy debate schedule. So once again, here's a chance to clear up some of that calendar for more productive endeavors.

Skipping this debate will have a second positive effect -- gratitude from lots like me who don't appreciate Democrats bolstering the enemy's smear propaganda machine.

 Our top stories tonight:

1. Anna Nicole Smith is still dead.

2. Britney Spears is still bald.

3. And Dick Cheney is still a traitor.

Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.

George Bush Sr.: "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."April 26, 1999

Inside:

1. (Vid) Countdown - Farewell To Arms

2. (Vid) Sunday Romance: "Good Will Hunting" and more

As mentioned earlier today, the Nevada Democratic Party is trying to justify it's efforts to host a presidential debate to be aired by the conservative propagandists over at Fox News.

"FOX News' viewership in Western states and across the country does not always get to hear directly from Democrats in an unedited and uninterrupted fashion. The August debate in Reno will allow the Democratic Presidential candidates to speak to the Fox audience who may be hearing from them for the first time for ninety minutes unfiltered and directly."

Unedited and uninterrupted, huh?

Here's how "fair and balanced" Fox was the last time they did one of these:

For an example of how disrespectful and counterproductive such Fox News-sponsored Democratic debates are, consider the September 9, 2003 Democratic debate in Baltimore, Maryland, hosted by Fox News in partnership with the Congressional Black Caucus. Fox News graphics, as well as a banner over the stage, titled the event as the "Democrat Candidate Presidential Debate," a misconstruction of "Democrat" used as an an epithet Fox News then summarized the debate with a story titled, "Democratic Candidates Offer Grim View of America," continuing with such jabs as, "The depiction of the president as the root of all evil began at the top of Tuesday night's debate...."  Controversial questions included the accusation that Howard Dean had a racist gun policy by Fox News analyst Juan Williams.  There were also multiple interruptions by protesters throughout the debate, leading to four arrests.

Bowers adds:

Insulting graphics, biased post-debate spin, loaded questions, conservative protesters--none of that sounds very "unfiltered" to me. Further, how much of the debate will Fox cut off entirely in order to have their in-house pundits offer negative commentary while the Democratic candidates are still speaking? Four years ago, in typically unfiltered fashion, Fox cut away from the Democratic debate they hosted a couple of minutes before it ended, in order to give arch-conservative William Bennett the first shot at post-debate spin.

MoveOn is joining the effort, while local blogger Myrna thinks Harry Reid should get pressure, as Nevada Dems won't do anything without his approval.

I’m sure the conversation went something like this:

Harry Reid: We need a nationally televised, prime time debate in Northern Nevada before the caucus. CNN declined, Fox said okay.

[State Democratic Party Chair] Tom Collins: yes sir Mr. Senate Majority Leader. You’re the boss. But might some Democrats not like the idea of a Democratic debate on Fox News?

Harry Reid: Couldn’t hear you……

Tom Collins: Where’s my gin?

Good point. I'm on it.

Update: BlogPAC has a petition form up.

Update II: A spokesman from Reid's office says the agreement for the debate was "negotiated between Fox and the Nevada Democratic Party". I asked, "So Reid played no role at all?" The spokesman demurred. He couldn't confirm or deny that.

Part of it is that Reid and much of his staff is in Nevada for the AFSCME conference today, so the lines of communication are slow.

Update III: Another quick update, Reid's office is now saying that "Reid was not personally involved in the negotiations."

Nice move, Senator Reid:

Reid Schedules Saturday Vote on House's Iraq Resolution

Senate Democratic leaders abruptly switched course in the Iraq war debate today, shelving a complicated non-binding resolution that has run into procedural hurdles, in favor of a House version that simply states Congress's objections to President Bush's troop escalation plan.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this afternoon announced that the Senate would take a rare Saturday vote on whether to consider the House resolution, which is expected to pass that chamber Friday, with some Republican support.

If the Saturday vote succeeds, Reid said he may cancel the upcoming week-long recess, scrambling campaign plans for at least six presidential candidates.

Just look at how that week will be spent if the Saturday vote succeeds:

"We are determined to give our troops and the American people the debate they deserve," Reid said.

In particular, Democrats are calling the bluff of a group of Republican senators who oppose the escalation, but who joined with their GOP leadership to block the earlier Democratic-led resolution from coming to a vote, in an effort to force Democrats to allow a pro-administration measure to be offered.

The Republicans must be scrambling around in a panic at this news. Remember, just two short days ago they were circulating a "Dear Colleague" letter among themselves that clearly stated:

If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.

Is this where we say, "Bring it on?"

Is there anything more pathetic than Senators fighting tooth and nail over wording over a non-binding resolution that does absolutely nothing?

Well, Feingold is done playing that silly game.

I oppose the weak Warner-Levin resolution as currently written because it misunderstands the situation in Iraq and shortchanges our national security interests. The resolution rejects redeploying U.S. troops and supports moving a misguided military strategy from one part of Iraq to another. The American people have rejected the President’s Iraq strategy and it’s time for Congress to end our military involvement in this war. We must redeploy our troops from Iraq so that we can focus on the global threats that face us.

Yesterday, Feingold introduced the Iraq Redeployment Act of 2007. Feingold’s bill would force the President to safely redeploy U.S. troops out of Iraq by prohibiting further funding of military operations in Iraq six months after enactment.

Dodd will also oppose the useless Warner-Levin amendment.

Dodd, D-Conn., became the second Democrat to say he would vote against the measure. Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisc., is also against the bill, which is expected to be debated in the Senate next week.

Dodd's central argument was that a non-binding resolution is meaningless.

This complicates Reid's efforts to get to 60 votes, and it's a good thing. Kill this piece of crap dead.

What's the point of a useless amendment? Is Reid really that desperate to give Jon Stewart more material for the Daily Show.

Reid should introduce BINDING legislation. Let the Republicans vote against it. It'll give us grist to use in the 2008 elections. The American people didn't elect a Democratic Congress to waste time passing useless, non-binding resolutions that Bush can easily (and gleefully) ignore.

A successful non-binding resolution will be no more useful in ending this disastrous war than a failed binding one. So let's make a real statement on the war, not empty platitudes and rhetoric.