The right has more and better mouthpieces for demonization--Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. That and, to a lesser extent, both the reasons you mentioned.

Demonization hurts more against Soros than it does against Scaife and company, because the corporate media are more willing to pick up on it.

It's the same thing as ever -- the media are deathly afraid to substantively criticize anything conservative because of the "liberal media" epithet. That fear, of course, has resulted in the media actually tilting conservative.

It's a depressing object lesson in how yelling louder and more abusively can achieve goals.

That an easy question. We don't have a Fox News. The only reason "Soros-funded" is an epithet is because of Fox News.

The simplest answer is that the right is willing to lie about Soros, and the left is unwilling to tell the truth about Scaife or Coors.

Most people don't know who Scaife is, and people like Coors Beer. (For reasons which escape me.) And there's something fundamentally creepy to most people about a foreign-born person wielding such power in American politics.

What's more remarkable is the right's transformation of Soros from a freedom-loving Communist-fighter to the enemy of all things American. It's truly an example of how memories can be forgotten and expunged.

But if the right's badgering of Soros is forcing him to scale back his efforts, I say good riddance. It's about time the Democratic party took a stand against the outsized influence of well-funded individuals with agendas, whether on the left or on the right.

Scaife and Coors and Co. just don't care.

Soros' money is usually process money.

You don't need process, whn you intend to rule, rather than to govern.

If you plan to govern, you have to worry about comity, about the consent of the governed, about the inevitable backlash when you return to opposition...

I expect at some point for e pluribus unum to be removed from our coinage and replaced with Al Davis' "Just win, baby!"

Also, the left doesn't defend, let alone laud, Soros. Not backing down isn't sufficient, nor is attacking Scaife et al -- you have to be willing to praise Soros too. Now *that's* something the pathetic left is too wimpy to do.

Liberals are sensitive to criticism, even from conservatives, listening to it, thinking about it, internalizing it. Conservatives laugh at criticism from liberals and use it as a badge of honor.

The right-wing lies. If you have any sense of decency, scruples, or fairness, you have a hard time matching the right in its relentless bid to obtain and retain power by any means necessary. They don't give a shit about facts.

We're wimps. And DR is right, it doesn't hurt that the right has the Murdoch-funded Fox "News" on its side, as well as the Moonie-funded Washington Times.

Soros isn't from HERE! Therefore, it's furren influence.

What we need is somebody to say: I'm proud to be Soros Funded! Soros has worked for openness and transparency in government, and he has been a tireless champion for Democracy abroad!

We're to busy dodging this crap, not busy enough pulling judo movies on those who fling it.

Maybe we look at the project and not necessarily the money behind the project. I tend to view liberals as having a more nuanced view of the world. And a view that understands that there are tangled webs and that's okay. This of course makes it harder for demonization to work for us. If you don't believe in the Devil, do you ever see pure evil?

It’s kind of hard to demonize Coors. Americans like beer.

My vote is B, liberals are more scared of the way they're perceived.

It doesn't seem to actually matter if a small subset of people really, really hates you. Rove, Scaife, Corsi, Ralph Reed...all hated, but I don't that's at all contributed to the Republicans recent decline.

Mrojo has got it right. Many Liberals constantly worry about whether they are hurting or offending somebody while the Right revels in it. Hell, read Michelle Malkin or Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. This gives Conservatives a huge advantage. I think a lot people in the political middle are turned off by this inability of the Left to fight hard for its own principles. Certainly the Right loses a bit with it's hard attacks, but it gains much more.

Ditto Harpo. The right will do ANYTHING to WIN. It doesn't matter if their "new" candidate may have in the past been the object of their derision or where the money to elect him comes from as long as they win. I (probably to the detriment of the left) refuse. I will not sell my "soul" for "victory." I can't speak for George or all of his benefactors but if they feel having his name associated with the cause will taint the cause, they will back down.

The Scaifes, Coorses, Murdochs and Sun Myung Moons of the world have heavily funded the right-wing extremist hate media. Rush Limbaugh was launched and heavily funded by such people until his program could build an audience and gain enough commercial sponsors to become self-sustaining. People who knowingly spend hundreds of millions of dollars to disseminate deliberate malicious lies don't care about being "demonized". They already know they are demons, and they are proud of it.

And as Kevin never fails to fail to point out, the corporate-owned mass media, from which most Americans get most of their information, works hand-in-glove with the right-wing extremist hate media to advance the agenda of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. Both the right-wing propaganda machine and the corporate-owned mass media serve the same masters.

That's why right-wing propaganda is reported as "news" by the corporate media, while anything that questions the dominance of the corporate ruling class is ignored, marginalized and/or branded as "extreme" and "un-American".

(b) definitely. Caving in is the Democratic way. It doesn't matter what the subject is. Republicans say "No money from rich liberals," Democrats say "Aye, Aye, Cap'n, Sir"; Republicans say "Liberal this or that BAD, disavow now!" Democrats say "Aye, Aye, Cap'n, Sir"; Republicans say "No race card," Democrats say "Aye, Aye, Cap'n, Sir"; Republicans say "Vote on drilling," Democrats say "Aye, Aye, Cap'n, Sir"; Republicans say "McCain's war years and past life and lobbyists and bribery and celebrity and extreme wealth will not be ad fodder," Democrats say "Aye, Aye, cap'n, Sir."

Democrats: The "Aye, Aye, Cap'n, Sir Party." (TM)

I'm so sick and tired of the lot of them, from legislating to campaigning, they are cowardly and stupid. They won the House in 2006 but nothing changed, Republicans still rule, torture and do renditions and spy on Americans. For a brief moment I had hopes for Obama, but he's a spineless quisling like the rest of them. I still can't believe he allowed McCain to become a viable candidate.

P.S. Please don't lecture me on how we must always support Democrats because they are not crazy like the Republicans. Crazy they may not be, but they're the Republicans pathological enablers.
____________________________________________

It's because the media gives more play, if not actual support, to Republican negative framing than to such attempts by the Democrats. This is a problem Obama's campaign is having right now. Despite the media's mostly positive coverage of him personally (certainly much more positive coverage than Democratic presidential candidates get generally), he is suffering from media unwillingness to support his negative framing of McCain. McCain's attempts to negatively redefine Obama's image get lots of media buzz. Obama's attempts to do the same to McCain do not.

Last night, for instance, the political framing of the night on CNN was that McCain "learned" how to attack Obama from Clinton. A frame that Modo used to an insane degree in her column this morning. Now this may thrill the hearts of Hillary haters, but it does NOTHING to further Obama's cause -- it totally obscures his arguments against McCain, absolves McCain from any responsibility for his negative attacks, and, once again, furthers an overall negative storyline about Democrats in general.

I'm just wondering...

For all the bluster of Soros illicitly funding political causes here in America...what causes has he actually FUNDED? I mean, in any serious way? What big massive movements are fed by the big Soros juggernaut that the Right has created a boogeyman out of?

I'm just wondering, because it seems like for all that Soros might be funding under the table, there are dozens more virulent, ugly causes being funded above the board on the right.

From where I sit, there is not "There" there, which makes the successful demonization of Soros all the more boggling.

The left, of course, has tried its best to demonize "Scaife-funded," "Coors-funded," etc.

I'm not sure that's true. I'm more inclined to agree with Ezra who writes more or less the opposite:

[L]iberals have never put much energy into marginalizing conservative donors... Sheldon Adelson, the gambling tycoon who's pumping tens of millions into the right wing advocacy group Freedom's Watch, isn't even a household name among liberal political professionals.

We allow the right wing media to define liberals as "wimps" or as "unpatriotic" or as what ever they want to say about liberals because each of us is scared to death they are going to call us a "liberal." Sorry I used the "l" word instead of the preferred "progressive." Until liberals come out of the closet and display some pride our country is screwed. We, you and me, have to stop being ashamed of not dragging our knuckles.

Is it because (a) the right is better at demonizing than we are (with help from their fellow travelers, of course), or (b) we get scared and back down a lot faster than they do? Or both?

Yes.

max
['As always, louder and more effective yelling would help.']

The "Soros-funded" attack works because Soros is Jewish and wasn't born here. It's old school anti-semitism -- demonizing the influence of the rootless Jew.

According to a piece in the Globe and Mail last week, Soros heavily funded the Georgians in the Rose Revolution. He pretty much backstabbed the former President and helped put Saak in office. With all the Israeli supplied arms in Georgia... hmm-mm.

It's not so much the extent of the demonizing by the right or the left, it's how sensitive we are to the demonizing, so I think it's "B". It feeds into our (Liberals' fear); as Mort Sal once said*, "Liberals feel guilty about the money they earn."

*Sal followed this up with, "Conservatives feel proud of the money they stole."

Christopher: I tend to view liberals as having a more nuanced view of the world.

He's right Which is why what Ron Byers says: the right wing media ... define liberals as "wimps" is true, and something that works for them. Being able to see both sides of an question, and seek a complex answer, is seen as a sign of weakness and the majority of Americans prefer simple "moral clarity," even from a dimwit like GW Bush.

I think the right has better memorized their talking points and repeat them endlessly. Eventually, something will stick--in the public's mind.

"The left, of course, has tried its best to demonize "Scaife-funded," "Coors-funded," etc."

Where? It takes about 2 minutes of listening to any number of supposedly non "mainstream media" like Limbaugh or Hannity or O Reilly to know how evil George Soros is. Show me any equivalent.

Don't overlook who the so-called mainstream TV shows book. The other night I caught a few minutes of the typical "Republican strategist" and "Democratic strategist" talk about the performance of McCain and Obama at the church forum. The Dem led off in a whiny voice with praise for both candidates and the Republican then slammed Obama and said McCain was a GOD. Response from the Dem? "Hey, this guy is mean."

The shit that the Right wing gets away with will continue until we find Democrats with balls and spines. Hell, I'll go on TV to defend Soros and anyone else who funds progressive causes. I can't do worse than the spineless whiners who usually represent us.

It all boils down to dirty fucking hippies. I was around when Woodstock, Nam, the Chicago 7, acid, free love, riots, streaking, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test etc were happening. You think conservatives hate the left now? And you had the "uppity niggers" wanting a place at the table. All hell was breaking loose. Traumatic times. Everywhere you turned was war and bigots. But you know what? We had a hell of a time! OMG, The Stones on some blotter. Jumping in a van and going to Mexico on a whim. Raising hell, getting arrested, what adventures! And all my uptight school mates thought we were a bunch a crazy, drug addled loonies. And we were. But they knew better, they were going to have a career, a house, a family and do it right, do it the American way. We were evil commies. We'd come to no good, ha ha,ha!! And they'd survive and see to it America endured. Guess what? We had our damned fun and still got careers, families, homes, grandkids, even elected to the goddamned Presidency! Take that! But oh, now they're pissed. Still pissed, pissed since Tet and before. Nobody is supposed to have that much fun, get high, get laid, trip out, get out of jail and still make it. It's not fricking fair! But most of us did. Ever go to a class reunion and listen to the old stories? Who the hell wants to hear about Tom's travails starting up his garage door business? I'll go with the guy that snuck 1000 hits of Mescaline through customs and spent a week afterwards on Mars with two nymphomaniac 16 year olds (not that I'd personally know anything about such depravity). Anyway, they hate dirty fucking hippies and they'll never get over it. We're everything that is wrong with America. Still. AND WE HAVE A LOT MORE INTERESTING GODDAMNED STORIES THAN YOU DO!

Their side are the ones who believe in demons, not us--that's why they're better at demonizing than we are.

For as smart as you lefties claim to be it is amazing you cannot tell the difference between Soros and Scaife.

Scaife is more reclusive and funds a variety of activities without running his mouth in public. So he does not get a lot of personal attention in the media.

Soros also funds all kinds of stuff. Probably spends more than Scaife but that is not an issue. His problem is that he is goes out and actively pursues beating Bush or any number of other conservative candidates and causes. He gives interviews and makes public statements pushing his political agenda which makes him an easier target for criticism than someone like Scaife that is more reclusive.

You guys can scrap your conspiracy theories because it boils down to Soros having a big mouth and Scafe keeping his mouth shut. I love it!

Good post Steve.

Some of the haters Steve mentions, own major media outlets and have editorial say. Coors and Scaife are their peers so they would never go after them, Soros has never been one of the boys so its fine to go after him, but you don't go after someone you may have to face at a dinner party. That would be gauche.

How do they do get away with it? Here:

John McCain is an angry, embittered old man, who will not physically handle all the pressures of being a President.

John McCain is an angry, embittered old man, who will not physically handle all the pressures of being a President.

John McCain is an angry, embittered old man, who will not physically handle all the pressures of being a President.

The left, of course, has tried its best to demonize "Scaife-funded," "Coors-funded," etc., but it's never really worked. They kept giving their money away with no problems. But why?

Because Soros is a leftist Jew, the conservatives all chant together, and their target audience is a bunch of vicious hicks looking for the next scapegoat to lynch.

What the fuck do you think it is?
.

I think anti-Semitism also plays a role. Soros is Jewish, but Coors and Scaife are not. The idea that liberal political change doesn't come from popular demand but comes from perverse financiers manipulating the masses is an anti-Semitic trope that goes back all the way to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The right has always been better at faking outrage.

But also, it boils down to they have nothing to offer except anger. BLOWHARDs

Kevin you've reached the bottom of the awareness barrel with this post. Who exactly is Soros demonized with? The rightwing nutjobs that's who. The rest of humanity could give a flying fart what Soros does or doesn't do.

C) They don't give a rat's ass.

And as Kevin never fails to fail to point out, the corporate-owned mass media, from which most Americans get most of their information, works hand-in-glove with the right-wing extremist hate media to advance the agenda of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. Both the right-wing propaganda machine and the corporate-owned mass media serve the same masters.

- secular animist

Really! Then please explain to me why more newspapers endorsed Kerry than Bush in '04 and the more newspapers endorsed Gore than Bush in 2000? And please explain to me if American voters are simply clay to be molded in the hands of the corporate America why Bush won twice?

Please explain to me why liberal has become a near pergorative even among Democrats.

In a contested Republican primary, candidates will point to themselves as being more conservative and more willing to defend "our conservative values" than their liberal-tainted opponents (even if their opponents are right of Ghengis Khan.

Conversely you rarely hear a Democrat running with the liberal label, even in a safely democratic. district.

The problem is that liberals have ceded the high ground, tactically speaking, to conservatives with out much of a fight. The conservatives do have a higher profile noise machine in Faux News, Rush Limbaugh et al, but effectively they preach to their own, with little influence on the majority of voters. They have demomized the term liberal to the point that even voters who hold liberal viewpoints on issues don't call themselves liberal.

I doubt seriously that most voters have any idea who George Soros is. Or Richard Mellon Scaife, for that matter.

Certainly Soros is a demon for Limbaugh and his listeners, just as Scaife is for most of us reading this blog. The difference is that Limbaugh et al have loud voices; we hear the noise and think that most people do too. The left meanwhile has nothing comparable with which to blast back so we think we've lost the battle and retreat.

FWG said:

Scaife is more reclusive and funds a variety of activities without running his mouth in public.

Really? Did you sleep through the 90s when Scaife was so publicly bent on destroying Bill Clinton?

Reading Frank's "What's the matter with Kansas" I clearly got it that the Right deals extensively in emotional propaganda. Liberals have become the new Jews. Whatever is wrong with the world liberals are responsible. There is no need for facts. They just repeat this over and over. It is in their DNA to attack and demonize.

The Left worries more about reality and hardly engages in this.

Please!?! Wanna take down a wingnut you have to go after the one thing they hold in the highest regard. The glue that, without it, their empire would fall like a western facade on an old Hollywood set. What I'm getting at, of course, is their incestuous pride in being inherently tough. Like all you have to do is call yourself a conservative and you get to be viewed as tough. HA! Challenge their intestinal fortitude for long enough and they go bonkers and their TRUE weakness shines like the sun. Point out their pure wussieness in everything they do. And if they want to fight, fight 'em. Aint nothin' wrong with punching a traitorous wingnut in the mouth every now and again.

And if they want to fight, fight 'em. Aint nothin' wrong with punching a traitorous wingnut in the mouth every now and again.
Posted by: elmo

Repeat with emphasis ... they really aren't up to fighting. In fact, they'll usually cower whilst complaining that it is the so-called liberal who is resorting to violence.

Break stereotype, and kick the pussies in the balls. After 8 years, they've certainly earned it.

Conservatives act out of rage. Liberals act out of caution. For both, it's sometimes a plus, sometimes a minus.

Editorial boards endorse candidates, but do they control the content of the newspaper? Consider the (pre-buyout) Wall Street Journal.

Soros should start a microbrewery.

Point out their pure wussieness in everything they do. And if they want to fight, fight 'em. Aint nothin' wrong with punching a traitorous wingnut in the mouth every now and again.

Posted by: elmo

Some lefty hiding behind a keyboard in a dark room somewhere threatening to kick somebodies ass. That is about par for the course and pretty funny stuff too. I love it!

It is rather surprising how many of you are unwilling to consider coldly and analytically the question Kevin asked. He asked why Soros money is a taint and Scaife money isn't. Most of you said it's because of the conservative media or because liberals are wimps. Sorry, but that's just a cop out.

IMHO, there are three reasons why it's so easy to cast Soros as a villain. First, he's not just rich, he made his money in a spectacularly disreputable way - as a currency speculator. He single handedly brought more than one central bank to its knees. Only illegal drug and arms dealers are lower in the public eye.

Second, he's Jewish, by birth if not belief or affiliation. If it were Michael Dell or Michael Bloomberg (to pick a couple of very rich Jews) who were pushing conservative causes rather than Mr. Scaife, you'd have a lot more success demonizing them.

Third, it appeared as if he was using his great wealth to acquire political power for extreme purposes. Indeed, it looked in 2004 like he was going to spend whatever it took to defeat Bush. People resent that kind of throw-your-weight around power. If all he was doing was just giving money to liberal think tanks like Brookings or the Economic Policy Institute, that wouldn't have aroused such public fear. But singlehandedly making an extreme group like MoveOn into a power broker in the Democratic Party scared people. So it's smart for Soros to dial back his involvement.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

DBL wrote: "Third, it appeared as if he was using his great wealth to acquire political power for extreme purposes. Indeed, it looked in 2004 like he was going to spend whatever it took to defeat Bush."

Only in the mind of a Bush-bootlicking mental slave would seeking to defeat Bush in 2004 (which, after all, approximately half of the voters also sought to do by voting for Kerry) be considered an "extreme" purpose.

Of course, in the mind of a Bush-bootlicking mental slave, anyone who doesn't fall to their knees and worship Dear Leader is by definition an "extremist".

DBL, Limbaugh unapologetically uses his vast resources and his recent 400 million dollar contract to impede the policies and causes of The Left yet few if any conservatives run away from him or disparage his efforts. If personal foibles or moral shortcomings are thrown in the mix ("Only illegal drug and arms dealers are lower in the public eye") I'd say his rampant prescription drug abuse and use of the servant staff to facilitate it reduce him to a level you feel worthy of aspersions. Yet his megaphone is respectable?

Man, this board is chock full of "truther" types.

Maybe the solution is as simple whom Soros supported versus whom Scaife did.

Or is it because an anti-american convicted criminal billionaire is stealthily using his ill-gotten gains to manipulate American politics?

hmm?

As for (a): Yes, they are. (1) The right is willing to go to extremes in ways the mainstream left (unlike the right, the left has some space between the mainstream and the fringe) is not -- think "Obama in Berlin = Hitler in Munich." (2)The right has many more sources of funds (individuals like Scaife, front groups like the AEI and legitimate interest groups like the NRA) while the left has a relative few (like Soros and MoveOn.org). Ironically, this makes the left's big-money donors bigger targets. One of your earlier commenters mentioned that Soros has a much higher public profile than his right-wing equivalents, making him a more obvious target. There may be something to this, but I don't take it as a negative. There may be much to gain from a strongly committed man putting his money where his mouth is.

Which leads to (b): Yes, they do. The fear that interests you oppose will attack what you are doing really shouldn't matter, but it does to the mainstream left. Whoever said that Democrats suffer from Stockholm Syndrome nailed it. Decades ago, clever and committed right-wingers understood that they would continue to lose elections while they organized and propagandized -- but they were looking decades ahead. They saw that leftist causes like labor rights and civil rights took a very long time to take root in law and public approval.

They learned from us, and it's time for the left to look back at its roots. Good people died so we could have unions and the right to vote -- and now we're afraid to offend those who would overturn every piece of progressive legislation?

Liberals don't do attack very well. Exhibit A - Kevin Drum.

This is a really blatant case of the conflict of interests in the news media. "Soros-Funded" is frequently repeated in major media while "Scaife-funded" is not. This is because Scaife owns so much major media. His name is always kept out of the news (as are most of the other conservative funders). The average person following politics knows who Soros is and what his political views, reputation an M.O. are but know nothing about Scaife or Coors beyond their Day-jobs. It's especially frustrating because Scaife's funding is far more influential (the think-tanks) or distasteful (the Arkansas Project).

Some lefty hiding behind a keyboard in a dark room somewhere threatening to kick somebodies ass. That is about par for the course and pretty funny stuff too. I love it!

Try again dick-lick(aka FWG). I got more cred than a barrel...nay...1,000 barrels of you pansy ass wingnuts. Test me bitch.

Both but mostly B.

Came here from Ezra.

I think part of the reason can be attributed to ignorance of the nonprofit and philanthropic sector in which these donors - Bradley, Devos, Coors, Scaife, and Soros - work.

When the right comes out with information about what Soros funds and how, nobody knows how to check the accuracy of what they say or how to say anything about his right-wing counterparts.

It's no secret what Soros funds. His Open Society Institute files a Form 990-PF every year with the IRS. Publicly available by law, the form contains who the trustees are, who got paid what, where the money goes, and more. The information isn't a secret. There is no conspiracy. We know exactly what he's up to. He's required to tell us every year.

Sunshine can do a lot. If people only knew the really good things the Soros is funding, and what some right-wing donors are up to, they might think differently.

The entire case against Soros relies on this false trope of working behind the scenes to nefariously influence our politics. He's not doing anything you or I couldn't do. And he's doing it in the open. Hell, the organization is called the Open Society Institute for a reason.

The "Soros-funded" attack works because Soros is Jewish and wasn't born here. It's old school anti-semitism -- demonizing the influence of the rootless Jew.

As a fellow rootles Jew I have to join a whole bunch of rootless Jews how think Soros is a schmuck and disagree.

Attributing every criticism to antisemitism is in itself a profound statement of prejudice and attempts to stifle discussion. We hear it more and more and it is BS. You debase the real issue of antisemtism.

It's no secret what Soros funds. His Open Society Institute files a Form 990-PF every year with the IRS. Publicly available by law, the form contains who the trustees are, who got paid what, where the money goes, and more. The information isn't a secret. There is no conspiracy. We know exactly what he's up to. He's required to tell us every year.

That is complete garbage. Soros funding of the ultra nationalist Georgian politicians, some o fhwom make Milosevic look tame, didn't show up on the 990-FB because Soros was actually paying them as employees! Yikes!