Maybe listeners are not entertained by politicians who advocate even more government involvement in their lives.

Sunday is their day of rest, who wants to hear from Democrats about how much more of our work must go to pay off the cost of increasing government.

Don't know about this, but is it possible that the Obama transition team is so disciplined that there haven't been any people empowered with sufficient talking points to be able to make significant input this morning? - Ted

And Matt, conservative counter-blogger who doesn't like this site is on first to tell us something "real." This is precisely the problem. Conservatives have a sense of entitlement and control the media. That really has worked out well, eh, Matt? It will take a media crash like the car makers are experiencing before they see how short-sighted and daft their current business model is. They really aren't about making money on media, however. It has always been about controling the masses. Like that free-thinking Matt Young guy.

No.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

Since Obama isn't giving out much info our 24/7 meia will fill the void with examinations of how to get Repugs back in POWER!!!

the political winds shifted but the shows haven't changed.

For those who think the country is center-right, this is more evidence of the opposite. The voters essentially rejected the MM narrative. Even Reps nominated the seemingly least conservative candidate. And yet I would bet it was far more liberals who watched all the debates and all four of the main convention speeches (Biden, Obama, Palin and McCain). The talk shows are becoming the emperor's new clothes, and the emperor (conservativism) is becoming more and more transparent.

Doesn't seem to be helping the conservatives too much, does it? I really wonder who out there considers the McCain base relevant at this point.

"The Media" is a simplistic whipping boy most of the time for those of us on the left. But the DC press bigwigs really do seem to think as a herd. I think that the problem Steve describes is more of a problem for the DC pundits than it is for Obama. I doubt he is too concerned about this. He has the initiative, no matter what they expect, hope for, or think reasonable.

Won't be true forever, but Obama is expected to deliver results. If he does, there we go.

And then there's the other half of the story--with the obvious exception of C-SPAN, a list of the advertisers on all of these shows, scoundrels and robber barons every one.

Shorter MattYoung:

Must ... parrot ... ideology ...

Aren't the conservative viewers supposed to be in church on Sunday morning?

I think it's because that on these shows, the right is more apt to put their feet in their mouths, which makes for better television which brings in higher ratings which in turn increases revenue.

The demographic breakdowns of these shows would reveal, I suspect, that their audiences tend to be significantly more conservative than. Certainly more affluent and pro-business.

Yet my guess is that they tried to get some people from the Obama transition team and the Clinton camp to discuss the Clinton as SoS story, but that both camps are being very tight-lipped right now.

The Republicans were out there making lots of noise and lots of news this week, including having a governors' conference. Democrats not so much.

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you all here. The BIG STORY of the week, other than Obama's transition, which is well...Obama-like, is the coming conservative crack-up. To really talk about that, you need..well..conservatives.

Now, if they invite all those guests then ignore the BIG STORY, then I'll jump back on board what you're saying. But frankly, I think the story is too juicy to ignore.

And who ARE these advertisers? I'm happy to boycott. It's easy to remember what not to buy.

Turn that around Karmakin....You mean to say there isn't a Democrat around who would be willing and able to offer their own perspectives on the GOP dilemma between its current ideology and winning elections?

Of course there is another question here too.....are Democrats routinely prepared to heed a call? Is it just that the GOP makes themselves consistently available on Sunday, whereas Dems, as a group, have been more interested in making that a day of rest as opposed to another day of battle over shaping the landscape of national thought and opinion?

Or is it simply that bookers, across the spectrum of Sunday shows, all have an ideological bias to fill and their Rolodexes just naturally stop spinning at GOP listings?

The demographic breakdowns of these shows would reveal, I suspect, that their audiences tend to be significantly more conservative - Dan Kervick

More specifically, they're old.

I, for one, hope these sound bite driven insipid excuses for serious policy and political discourse continue to showcase increasingly irrelevant personalities so that their dominance will go the way of all flesh.

How about some carrot and stick?

Those talk shows that host a 2nd string liberal (Barney Frank) are the first in line for 1st stringers Biden/Dean. Heck, even Clinton might be willing to help the liberal cause if we ask real nice.

Fox hasn't been too healthy lately with the steady diet of bilge. Occasional opposition by the truth is GOOD for right wing radio. There's only so long you can listen to them pat themselves on the back after a model president that caused two recessions in 8 of the longest short years ever observed.

Leno and Letterman once competed for A-list guests convinced that good TV was only made using A-list talent. Maybe it's true, so let the "true believers" starve. They'll probably do so willingly.

Still - that's no reason to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

"Maybe listeners are not entertained by politicians who advocate even more government involvement in their lives.

Sunday is their day of rest, who wants to hear from Democrats about how much more of our work must go to pay off the cost of increasing government."

God you are a whiney bunch. It must suck to feel so put-upon all of the time.

And isn't it nice how the supposition is always that Democrats take, take, take, and don't actually contribute ?

Here's a news-flash dude, I'm a Democrat and I *guarantee* you that I've paid more in taxes in the last 8 years than you'll pay in the next 20.

Someone is surprised that the Mickey Mouse network (ABC), General Electric network (NBC), Sumner Redstone network (CBS), and Murdoch network (Fox) are busy promoting the corporate-conservative party line?? Heaven forbid! I am shocked - shocked! - to learn that gambling is going on in these establishments!!

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Democrats have had two incredibly successful election cycles in a row, and are now poised to control the White House, the Senate, the House, and a majority of governors

The "power of the media" argument is no more persuasive here than it is from the mouths and pens of Republican wags.

A generation of "liberal professors" produced more conservative young people than ever before. A history of "liberal media" resulted in the Reagan Revolution. And now, an overload of conservative talk show guests has given us two election cycles of liberal domination.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

Who cares? I'm a political junkie and I haven't watched a single sunday talking head show in over 20 years. They have become irrelevant.

Democrats have had two incredibly successful election cycles in a row, and are now poised to control the White House, the Senate, the House

I'll believe the Democrats are in control when the Senate stops claiming they can't do anything because they don't have the 60 votes needed to even consider doing anything.

Will bookers on the Sunday shows ever notice?

They won't notice until someone has the cojones to wield a re-instituted Fairness Doctrine like a cavalry saber---and starts lopping off some swollen egos like apples on the business-end of a pike. Until then, they can do whatever they like on the premise that there is no consequence to their misaction.

Since the election ended, I've gone back to not watching the Sunday morning shows, they're generally devoid of any meaningful liberal/progressive voice and are hosted by a bunch of blowhards. I HATE George Stephanapolis. What an obnoxious, self-absorbed little prick.

At this point it is only an assumption that the Democrats were frozen out this week. Maybe a lot of them are busy, or simply avoiding the need to not answer questions about the transition.

And one thing we could expect from every single one of the hosts of these shows is a constant attempt to get the guest to "make news" or "spill the beans", or simply hint, wink or nod in a particular direction.

We've just finished two years of this nonsense, the Democrats won and at the moment they don't need any more limelight.

Just remember how many reporters showed up at an event were Hillary was available.

Probably the only people available from the Democrats are those who have no idea was is going on.

I think that the Republicans and the pundits will give Obama until 2012 to fix everything, then the honeymoon will be over. That is Jan 20 at 12 pm.

Don't let the stinking T.V. conservatives ruin your Sunday or rain on your Obama parade!

I say we should all celebrate his win every day now in some small way...It is awesome he won, and I'm going to revel in it as much as possible.

Besides, I prefer Sunday Morning funnies, good coffee, the NYT and Steve Benen's blog!

Good day to unplug the T.V. and celebrate our democracy.

As long as Archer Daniels Midland and the like are prime sponsors of such programs, don't expect to see guests with a non-corporate perspective.

The political winds shift, but notice how the same media personalities (I hate referring to them as journalists) retain their jobs. The only new face to appear on television in the last 8 years has been Rachel Maddow. If David Gregory was any more to the right, he'd be broadcasting from Karl Rove's lap. Sam Donaldson is considered the liberal on ABC, and bigger apologist for Republicans would be hard to find.

Fairness Doctrine now. It's time.

Wouldn't it be funny if one of the guests pulled out a colorful pie chart showing everyone how many Democrats there have been on that show vs Republicans? Hold that up next to a chart showing Democratic vs Republican voter identification, then look at tha camera and say "These people obviously are a bunch of highly paid stooges, working for the corporations who advertise on this show and by some coincidence also give way more money to Republicans".

Then hold up a chart comparing the donations of the show's sponsors to Republicans vs Democrats, and they'll cut to a commerical for GE.