Obama can try to help put an issue on the national radar, but there is no liberal noise machine to keep it there

And, as noted, there's a powerful conservative noise machine to pump out the message that whatever Mr. Obama has tried to put on the national radar is evidence of his socialist, America-hating, weak-on-terrorism agenda.

Dems lose if they speak or if they don't. "This is Good News for Republicans" isn't just a catch phrase, it's the law.

I'm old enough to remember when people called "reporters" asked questions and when politician gave stupid answer, the stupidity of the answer was the story. Somehow "reporters" transformed into spectators who ask each side to yell at one another; then have one or two supporters of each side repeat their side's claim. Despite the wildly dishonest claims of "keeping them honest" this rarely happens. why?
Is this the root of the problem?

It is a relief that Alito and company have provided a means for a comprehensive voice for the otherwise powerless corporate waifs .

At last this blog is getting to the heart of the matter.

there's no noise machine because....there's no constituency for the noise.

Teabaggers can raise holy hell, get people calling, topple candidates etc ***because their people show up*** and care about their issues. Sure they're wrong but at least they tune in, show up and can change the outcome of local elections.

The folks who vote democrat really don't care that much. Mainly because the Dems don't really stand for anything. It's a "big tent" where Lieberman or Bayh can be VP candidates or near candidates yet be obstructionist on health care.

The other way to tell that Dems don't really stand for anything is that when the Dem elected official is on TV they *never* make the philosophical argument for why something should be done.

It's not just the megaphone of the Repubs; Teabaggers can *count* on their elected officials saying their kind of crazy talking points ON THE AIR ON TV. They do this because they want their vote.

Just never going to happen with the Dems.

Interesting how the network broadcast news - where must Americans actually get their "news" I think isn't even brought up. But it wasn't always thus - in the days before cable decentralized the media, the broadcast network news actually educated and lead public opinion on big issues such as the Vietnam War and Civil Rights. It's a pretty good accident of history that the rise and success of the Civil Rights movement co-incided with the centralization of broadcast network news in New York when the broadcasters actually took their positions seriously. If the Civil Rights movement had waited 30 or 40 years, there's absolutely no guaranty that it would have been successful. I really think that that is the real "liberal media" that conservatives constantly rail against. Too bad it died about 30 years ago.

While what you say about the noise machine is true enough, I find the tone of the article signals submission. Democrats need to try harder. Doesn't Alan Grayson get headlines? Doesn't Robert Gibbs meet with the press every day? Aren't there plenty of Senators and Representatives who could make some noise? Say something outrageous but true? A good offense is the best defense.

New leadership would help. Schumer and Sherrod Brown should become Majority Leader and whip respectively. Second, the Dems need a few designated goons (think hockey). I get that Obama doesn't want to brawl, but he needs someone or two who are willing to throw elbows in his place. Maybe wasserman-shultz is the best man for the job.

There's no noise machine for us because the Democratic leadership in Congress has not pushed for it.

They can squeeze the networks to have supportive members on the Sunday shows simply by calling for it whenever the cameras are rolling. Asking "many members support President Obama's agenda. Why aren't more of us on your show" will work wonders. If the leadership actually wants to support the President and build up the party, that is.

I think Al needs to step up with his piercing wit. It'd be like having stewart and Colbert on the Senate floor. And it would get press.

I second IndigoJoe.

The Dems need to adopt the Grayson strategy, but they're afraid of the fallout. They need to channel FDR: "They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred."

That applies to the GOP, the Banks and all other members of the plutocracy.

I third IndigoJoe! Part of the problem is that Democrats think they're governing, and Republicans know they're fighting. You can't win a gutter fight by being governmental. Democrats need to go on the offensive every single day and make the Republican noise machine react to them. It takes a lot of energy -- energy that would be better used governing the country -- but it's the only way to turn their strength into their weakness.

Complaining about the conservative media is a bit trite, but maybe I'm just speaking out of idealism and wanting to believe that there must be a creative solution.

Just for brainstorming purposes -- why aren't we more aggressive about finding examples of egregious pro-GOP "journalism" and promoting boycotts of the companies that sponsor it? It seems to me that this is the best way a minority of citizens can be heard. (And face it, that we even follow this stuff between elections makes us a tiny tiny minority.)

Also, it's easy to put down the influence of new media -- "may find a sympathetic ear among progressive bloggers" -- but consider how many people under 40 simply DON'T get their news from the evening news. Online social networking provides unprecedented opportunities for an exchange of views. Learning to be persuasive but not overbearing would pay off for anyone who cares about this stuff. (I think by now my Facebook friends know that they can expect an occasional article about torture, but I don't sense that anyone's unfriended me because of it.) Developing interests that attract a wide variety of political views, so that you actually have friends who are undecided centrists, should go without saying.

That's just some brainstorming. Granted, I come here just to read about the problems, but I'm tired of the paucity of solutions.

I just disagree with this post. The right has Fox and talk radio, but the left has the presidency and control of both legislative chambers. The notion that the Dems couldn't get media attention on this issue if they wanted it is just another example of ridiculous whining. It's a question of message discipline from the party leadership, which the Dems have absolutely ZERO of. Obama wants to look post-partisan. Reid wants to preserve his precious filibuster for himself and the other Lords of the Senate. And Pelosi is ... well, she's trying, but there's only so much she can do. If the Dems understood the cause and effect between not getting s**t done and losing in 2010/2012 (which it doesn't look like they do), then you'd see the filibuster raised in answer to every question on every sunday talk show ... and in every local newspaper interview ... and in every presidential interview ... and in every Gibbs briefing. This is entirely doable and the it would change the national conversation, but Dems don't have the balls to do it. Sigh.

The other possibility--distatsteful though it may be--is for the Dems to become more showmen than they are. Grayson has figured this out to a degree. Congressmen and Senators of the liberal stripe tend to stick by decorum. You pointed out the problem when you said they can "give speeches," which will invariably be ignored. Speeches alone don't capture the public's attention. They need "Events," or perhaps they need to shout their speeches. If they do the same-old, same-old, don't expect press coverage.

In the '60s, we had "Happenings." They captured a lot of attention because they were designed to capture a lot of attention. Where is the imagination of the left? Perhaps a sit-down strike on the steps of Congress by the majority in protest? I know they will be accused of being clowns, but it can get people talking, that is for sure.

Steve's right that we don't have the noise machine, but we can borrow some of the Republican tactics.

One example is coordinated media talking points. Republicans sound the same note all day long, day after day, until their nonsense becomes urban myth (e.g., nuclear power is safe [it isn't], the constitution gives us the right to own a gun [it doesn't], people shouldn't be taxed when they die [they aren't], the stimulus didn't work [it did],...)

Dems, on the other hand, might mention their individual complaints in passing, which may or may not overlap with a complaint that a fellow Dem made when he was also talking to a reporter or pundit. Republicans are relentless with their coordinated media talking points--and when the work, they use them for years. Dems have no such rhetorical strategy. (FYI, the GOP is still using Newt Gingrich's word list--distributed during the Clinton years: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1276)

The other tactic that Republicans use is to go on offense. The traditional media loves a fight, and Dems can get more attention by going on offense and and keeping the GOP on defense...forever. Dems won the '08 elections handily and assumed the victory would last indefinitely. Allowing themselves to be on defense continually is political malpractice

"The president isn't a talk-show host and the White House isn't a cable network."

Why not? What prevents the White House from hosting it's own cable network and Obama doing a segment? They have a web site. They answer phone calls. They hold daily press briefings? They do tours of the place.

The people that want to see the program can tune-in just as if you want to see the White House's point-of-view on subjects you go to their web sites.

It becomes a hugh megaphone for a democratic president and just another outlet for a republican.

If this presents a problem then have the DNC do a cable network and the White House and Obama do segments on the DNC network.

Has anyone visited Huffington Post or Salon lately? Its non-stop Obama bashing.

Part of the problem is liberal or progressive news outfits love nothing better than eating their own.

"Obama can try to help put an issue on the national radar"
He can, but he doesn't! The SOTU address was the perfect opinion to make a big stink about rethuglican obstructionism, presenting the scandalous filibuster numbers which show the full extent of the right wingers blocking everything they don't want. When he would have made this a big deal, media would have to cover it!

But, alas, once again his irrational desire for bipartisanship got the upper hand. And os, another wasted oportunity to change anything. That guy is so totally clueless, he'll never make it into a second term. It's pathetic.

asymmetric warfare

Given a choice, the liberal commetariat prefers to say, "How come no one hears our outrage?" rather than, "I am outraged"

The megaphone gap is the price you pay for not being a blatantly dishonest, hypocritical, ignorant and unreasonable hack, or a party of same.

I wish we could have better push-back, but I would never wish for us to become like the other side to do so.

1. Look up at the sky right now. Is it blue? Now try to get three Democrats to agree on that.
"It's really more of an azure, don't you think?"
"I'd go with cornflower."
"Blue is offensive to women."

2. Our only effective "megaphones" are, in order:
Stewart. Colbert. Maddow. Olbermann.

What do they all have in common? Humor. You'll notice KO is last in that list because he's the least funny. Stewart is first not because he's the funniest - Colbert is - but because he has the serious-to-funny ration just right.

3. So let's take it a step further and say that humor is our most effective weapon. SEE: Fey, Tina. Here's a thought - Perhaps we should be doing more of it?

We're good at it. Orders of magnitude better than the GOP.
We control Hollywood. (Or so they tell us.)

What if we funneled cash to groups like Billionaires for Bush to stage-and-promote "happenings" that really make news? IMHO, it's the express lane to the medulla oblongata - or whatever part of the national psyche the goopers are so good at tapping into.

If you whisper into a megaphone, no one will hear it anyway. Grayson has figured this out. But Dems always seem to beat about the bushes, making their points softly and indirectly. For example, during the TSA director fiasco, why didn't Dems say "The next time there is an attack on an airliner, thank Jim DeMint?" Why not start taking swings like that, instead of talking around the issue? Republicans know how to do that. It's also the kind of message that the megaphone owners love to report.

The 'noise' on the right is nothing more then a carnival barker getting the audience worked up over nothing. We will never have the circuitry to get a similar 'noise' because we aren't going to start telling people about internment camps, death panels, or Nazi analogies. Their noise rarely has anything to do with policy or truth, they can have it.

Who cares what the fuck the right is doing, we won a lot of elections by not being like them, yet everyone keeps acting like we should mimic their clearly flawed political advantages/strategies.

Steve's earlier post on the "impunity" with which the Republican block Democratic reform efforts is in point here, as Quaker above, and others, point out. Ken Auletta explaned in last week's NYer -- in appalling clarity -- some of the pressures driving the superficial reporting even by reporters who try, or know better. And, of course, there is the absence of a progressive (or what used to be middle of the road, before Clinton yanked the party rightward) public forum on TV except for MSNBC (some of the time). The good news: there is YouTube, there are blogs, legions now get their news on blogs, and more and more devices offer hand-held access.

This dynamic extends to the supposedly non-partisan news networks as well. When Republicans were in power, the Sunday talk shows booked more Republicans than Democrats because, well, they were in power. Now that Democrats are in power, the Sunday talk shows book more Republicans than Democrats because, well, it's useful to get a different perspective. There's no winning.

Unfortunately, amping the volume isn't going help the Dems. It'll make the Republicans scream even louder. Independents and some Democrats will get turned off by the whole thing. The Republican base will come out in droves because they think the Democrats dissed Sarah Palin's kid's morals, or something. Thirty percent of the population is nuts and there's nothing you can do about it. It's like being married to a crazy person.

Following up on my previous post, James O'Keefe provides a perfect example of how seemingly disgraced conservatives go on attack and stay on attack. Here is part of a statement he put out, after being arrested for breaking federal laws:

"...On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building. The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator. We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I’m eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media...The public will judge whether reporters who can’t get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist."

Notice how O'Keefe recasts his federal crime as simply a matter of being insensitive, and then pivots to attack both Landrieu and the media? O'Keefe, who doctored his ACORN video before releasing it, won't stand there and play defense all day. Like most right-wingers, he knows how to go on offense and stay on offense. Dems could learn a thing or two from him.

http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/29/statement-from-james-okeefe/

Cable news wants a grudge match. If they gave equal time to Democrats, our far better "brains to assholes" ratio would reduce Republicans to rubble. And the media can't have that. The talent may have different political views and in the more tolerant media corporations, they may get to express them, but the owners of those corporations are all Republicans.

Do the Democrats raise the issue consistently when going on the Sunday morning shows?

Do the Democrats try to build progressive media infrastructure?

Convince me the Democrats are trying to win at this game.

I don't know about anyone else but I'm so tired of the noise machine; I can't imagine why so few others aren't. Indigo Joe FTW! I'll continue to dream of an ecumenical second place comment where noise is considered a pollutant.

"Unfortunately, amping the volume isn't going help the Dems. It'll make the Republicans scream even louder. Independents and some Democrats will get turned off by the whole thing. The Republican base will come out in droves because they think the Democrats dissed Sarah Palin's kid's morals, or something."

The '08 election demonstrates that this is wrong. We were on offense, we made them talk about our issues, and we won handily. The problem is that GOP pols are still campaigning while Dem pols are sitting at home by the fire, sipping hot chocolate, and patting themselves on the back for a job well done (e.g., Martha Coakly in MA).

So now please explain to me why it's a bad idea to put the Fairness Doctrine back in place?

There seems to be a reoccurant theme among Steve's posts today.

"PAYGO...."
"STRONGEST ECONOMIC GROWTH IN SIX YEARS...."
"SCREAM BLOODY MURDER...."
"HOW TO ACCOMMODATE AN UNINFORMED ELECTORATE...."
"THE MEGAPHONE GAP...."

All of these revolve around the simple fact that good news for democrats and bad news for republicans are seldom presented to the Amerikan publik by the corporate media.

It is time for Steve to come to the realization that the corporate media are CORPORATELY OWNED. All of what has been referred to as MSM may be the same media, but they are all corporately owned. Fox Noise is not an exception, it is just the loudest and most obvious of the corporate media. The goals of the corporate media are to present all of the news that is fit for the unwashes masses, in a format that preserves the image of news and the actuality of corporate propaganda.

If/when the dumbocrats, as a group, yell and scream louder about this disparity; the only likely corporate publishing of it will be another editorial from David Gergen decrying the partisanship of the democrats.

For those searching for a solution to this, forget it. Last week's Citizens United (Not Timid) vs FEC ruling assures that corporate control of our government is only to get tighter. As of last Wednesday, corporations will likely find it easier (and less expensive) to intimidate politicians rather than buy them.

If you want to be further scared about the direction that our country is going, read the following NY Times 'opinion' which points out that the probable next goal for our Supremes is to rule as unconstitutional the 1964 Civil Rights Act! http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/the-next-time/

Schumer as majority leader?

Nothing sends the message that the Dems are standing against the banks like electing the senator most closely tied to the banks as majority leader.

As usual with "sensible liberals", Steve Benen fails to mention the fundamental underlying problem:

Virtually ALL of the mass media in America, from which most Americans get most of their information, is owned by a half-dozen giant corporations.

Those corporations don't use the mass media that they own and control to practice "journalism" or to impartially educate and inform the American people about important issues, as a public service, out of the goodness of their hearts.

Instead, they use the mass media that they own and control to propagandize the American people in furtherance of the corporate agenda -- which is basically an agenda of ruthless, relentless, rapacious class warfare by the ultra-rich corporate aristocracy against everyone else.

Politicians who support that agenda will get airtime and those who don't won't.

Since Republicans are, on the whole, stronger supporters of corporate domination than are Democrats, Republicans can rely on the corporate media to amplify and bullhorn their message to the American people. So-called "moderate" Democrats (a.k.a. DINOs or "blue dogs") will also be given a voice by the corporate media.

Whereas progressive Democrats who seriously challenge corporate domination will be ignored, marginalized, ridiculed and excluded.

The classic event in my mind is the 2004 debate between W and Kerry where W lied about saying he didnt' really care about OBL anymore. A demonstrably false assertion - video to prove it. But, instead of that being the media story, it was Kerry mentioning Cheney's daughter was a lesbian - a true statement - a statement that Cheney spoke about on occasion publicly. But, the nattering nabobs just went on about how could Kerry say Cheney's daughter was a lesbian - even though she is - and they just ignored W flat out lying to the American public with the proof so easily at hand. And it happened because Rove et all played the media into the "lesbian" comment being the story of the debate. Just like Gore's "sighs" instead of W's lies.

Forget Fox News.

If you want to hear blatant corporate/Republican propaganda, listen to NPR's "Morning Edition", where all of their coverage of political, legislative and government affairs issues revolves around telling their suburban "liberal" audience what the Republicans have to say.

And where partisan Republican propagandists Juan Williams and Mara Liasson are featured daily as "political analysts" while NEVER being identified as paid employees of Fox News.

the only way to jiu-jitsu the Reep noise machine, as i see it, is to make the point that Fox, Drudge, the Republican base are the new inside-the-beltway. This is the changed dynamic since when I was a kid (back in the 70s). In those days, the inside-the-beltway crowd was basically Democratic. Today, the Democrats are the outsiders. After years and decades of harranging and bullying, the corporate media in Washington is wired to the Reeps. And their base is wired in via the 24/7 cables, talk radio, etc.

The best way to counter the noise machine is to reiterate to the broader public that the reason why it is a noise machine is because it is inside-the-beltway, utterly embedded in the power structure, and that if you are foolish enough to buy it, you are being played. That way, their very noise, in the end, can be used against them.

The time is definitely ripe to get rid of that old saw about the media being liberal. Even the American public is about ready to put THAT one to bed..

Chris is right, and O'Keefe should not be allowed to slither away on this one.

Remember the Dan Rather Texas ANG memos? Led by LGF, the right took control of the discussion and the truth became utterly irrelevant.

That's what they do. To you. To America.

To be a key cog in this kind of noise machine, it helps to have as little concern as possible for both factual and intellectual honesty. Republicans have a tremendous tactical advantage here. I am a big fan of Olbermann and Maddow -- in large part because they are way too honest to be liberal equivalents of Drudge, O'Reilly etc.

Observer identified the root problem early on - people slavishly follow the Drudge Report and the claptrap from Fox because it tells them what they want to believe. Republicans broadcast a feelgood message that America is kicking ass and taking names, and that things bought today will never have to be paid for later; by some magic trick of economics, purchases will pay for themselves. The target audience desperately wishes for the Republicans to deliver on these promises, and never has to notice when they don't because by then they've been chucked out of office, and the nerds with the pocket-protecters and thick glasses have been tasked with cleaning up the mess.

In order for Democrats to wield similar power, you'd have to make people want to believe in the Democrats' message. Unfortunately, coming up with a saleable saccharine product now would require a suspension of disbelief on one side, or lying on the other.

While it is true that Dems don't have the coordinated noise machine that the Reps have, they aren't invisible either. If every Dem who appears on television brought up Republican obstructionism at every opportunity, the MSM would feel compelled to respond.

The Republicans don't give up on a line of attack until it's obvious it is not working, no matter how hypocritical or dishonest it may be. Democrats seem to walk away from confrontational politics the minute a handful of pundits start worrying aloud that the American public is tired of partisan bickering and doesn't like class warfare.

I don't expect the President to be highly confrontational, I think there is some truth to the idea that Americans would like to see the president as being above party politics, but that doesn't mean his administration can't be working behind the scenes to get the message out that Republicans are not interested in working with him for the future of the country. And if the Democrats don't see that labeling the Republicans as clueless obstructionists every chance they get is going to help them, then they will lose more seats in the elections than they might normally. You'll still have the mealy-mouthed backstabbing Conservadems trying to undercut the message, as they wrongfully believe that the key to their own re-election campaigns is to behave as if they aren't really with the Democratic Party, but they are still a minority within the party, and when the rest of the Dems are asked about their comments, they should respond by saying that the blue dogs are just saying what they think they have to to get re-elected. If they are going to buck the president and party, let the question be put back on them as to why, otherwise you get a lot of blathering from mainstream democrats about big tents and compromise that distracts from the argument that Republicans are united in their effort to see the President and by extension the country fail - less over ideological differences than in the raw pursuit of power.

Does anyone doubt that if the roles were reversed that the Republicans would be making this argument non-stop until November.

A simple solution is to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine.

There's a reason the right-wingers are foaming about the possibility of that doctrine coming back, even before anyone has seriously considered it: They know that it's their achilles heel.

Lots of good points to agree with above. The dem pols are basically at fault. Virtually every time you see a republican being recorded they're using fighting words. Dems, on the other hand, prefer to debate on substance. It's a completely different approach. Dems need to grow some balls and bring the fight to the repubs in public in a coherent, coordinated and agressive way. And they need to challenge the media publicly as well. If they don't demonstrate passion why should their constituents?

Ultimately, it's up to "we the people" to inform our friends, family, et al. It may cause some splits (has in my family, not overall, we just don't discuss politics), but too bad. Eventually the truth will get through. I post some of the more egregious things on my Facebook page (last week the Supremes, this week the R No vote on Paygo), because most Americans agree that: (1) corporations should not buy elections, and (2) we should all live within our means, the government especially.

Funny, because I think the tea party folks would agree, too. The Rs among that group just don't realize that the powerful in their party are working against them.

The media is not on our side. Okay. This does not excuse the constantly, consistently missed opportunities to get the message out when we do have an audience.

I have never seen a campaign with more message cohesion than Obama's. I have never seen the Democrats, including the White House, with less than they have right now. Fucking get it together, guys.

Olbermann, Maddow, and bloggers are just as likely to criticize Dems as they are to praise them.

Something for which I am very thankful.

It's also something for which they receive NO CREDIT from the MSM and even some posters to liberal blogs.

TV critics like David Zurawik of the Baltimore Sun and others are very quick to tell us that KO and Rachel are shrill and "just like Fox."

There are elements of the "liberal" media that are more or less liberal; Stewart and Letterman reach a lot of people. The message does get out.

But Republicans generally deliver better sound bites and more watchable outrage.

I would like to see Reid spend a week bringing every sub-cabinet appointee up for a vote in the Senate, and see if Republicans invoke the filibuster 15 to 20 times a day. That would be entertaining video and people might even notice after the second or third day of "no".

The liberal noise machine spends virtually all its time giving further voice to the Republican bleating. Sure, it takes the tone of, "Can you believe what those idiots did/said today?!", but it is still helping swamp the public with the Republican talking points.

It's time to ignore the freak show going on on the Right and focus on the solutions that the Left is offering right now.

A comparable noise machine... well, what happened to the grass roots movement that helped elect Obama? If they yelled as loudly as the teabaggers the media would start broadcasting what they were saying. Because I don't think protests and opnions necessarily have to be conservative to be picked up, they just have to be *news* - and unfortunately that means "loud and colorful" rather than "interesting and true". But why not be all four?

Why would smiling corporate front men (i.e. Democrats) raise holy hell about anything? It's a mutt and jeff routine with the battle only over who controls the transfer of wealth upwards. Either the smiling good cops will transfer your wealth and plunder from their posh mansions in Westchester county, or the angry stick weilders will transfer your wealth from gated communities in Dallas, Houston, and Salt Lake.

Get a clue Benen.

The Dems seem to have forgotten what the vote in 2008 was all about. Change. If they would work to make that change happen they would have gottne a lot of support. But too many Dems don't follow the party line, as was mentioned with Bayh and the ex-dem Lieberman. The problem as I see it is too much corporate money making them less than progressive. If they'd start getting things passed, the media (at least some) might follow. Even though they may lean right, their main goal is to follow the story.

Abbie, you're right about the amplification of right wing talking points. Something that Benen and Drum will never get. I'm not sure why exactly the two particular bloggers, if they are sincere about their beliefs, aren't crafting their own disciplined messages and organizing people to spread those messages in new ways. Easier to sit on the couch blawging with your starbucks in hand.

You want to make a difference? Go visit a retirement home (these are the people most scared and subject to the most progaganda) or volunteer at a soup kitchen, maybe print out some leaflets and put them at a highway rest stop.

Broadcasting the same tripe day after day about what stupid shit Mike Steele, Sarah Palin, and Orin Hatch said today to the same group of 5000 readers doesn't make one smidgen of difference.

Quit bitching and moaning about what some shithead on cable news said or if John Boehner made a silly face during a speech. It's just apathy in disguise.

There's a fundamental character difference between the moderate-to-liberal Democrat constituency and the conservative-to-mentally ill Republican one: did you see Jon Stewart's spoof on Keith Olbermann, and how Olbermann then copped to being unreasonable? Olbermann's level of clownishness in that instance is de rigueur in right wing cable news, radio, and legislative circles, and there's simply never any significant attempt at internal critique on that side.

Democrats will never match the intensity of political belief/opposition/support that we see with Republicans because they are on the whole naturally more inclined to look at nuances, think critically, and approach questions on a case-by-case basis (that's why they lean Democratic in the first place). Republicans' beliefs much more closely resemble the schizophrenic perseverations you hear mumbled in the periodicals section of the library by guys wearing aluminum foil hats. Lack of evidence only bolsters the conspiracy theory, etc.

That's why lamenting a lack of a Democratic noise machine is futile. The only way to fight the Republican noise machine is to enact really good policies that a bare majority of the public will consider as such, and therefore lose any incentive to listen to the nutjobs. Unfortunately, we now have to question if Democrats are even capable of that.

A simple solution is to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine.

Let's all get this straight: The FD affects the public airwaves. That's it. Not cable, not the interwebs, not newspapers and magazines.

Fox News isn't just conservative, it's Republican. Limbaugh, Drudge, et al care about helping their party, not just their ideology.

And the so-called "liberal media" plays right along.

Witness all the wailing and gnashing of teeth right now about the national debt, with nary a mention that it was run up by a series of Republican presidents, Bush the Lesser notable among them.

How do we know there would be no megaphone mulitplying the effect since our leaders haven't tried it? Besides, the point of the noise is to get the base fired up, as you noted. And we know for damn sure the leaders haven't tried that. In fact they have done the opposite when they tell us to stuff it. Alan Grayson has tried, but his efforts have been ignored by the rest of the Party apparatchiks so why should the media pick it up?

That has been the most revealing thing about the last year -- the extent to which Democrats might control OFFICIAL power but Republicans retain control of the national narrative and terms of debate because they have a right wing media through which Republicans can synchronize and magnify a unified message. Liberals don't have anywhere near this capacity. The mainstream press might be more sympathetic to liberal issues and values, but the conventions of legitimate journalism prevent the kind of one-sided coverage that is standard issue on FOX when the network is dealing with an issue that really matters to its owners.

Almost from the very beginning of Obama's term FOX was asserting, without the slightest evidence to back it up, except the networks own breathless coverage, that Republicans were back, that conservatism was resurrgent and that Obama and the Democrats were on the defensive.

This was most evident with the disruptive town hall forums last summer in which the conservative media through constant coverage and repetition was able to transform a few thousand angry protesters (who may or many not have turned out spontaneously) into an authentic and powerful proxy for an outraged America suddenly up in arms against Obama just months after voting to give Democrats unrivaled power.

In propaganda terms, what FOX and the right wing media relentlessly worked to create was a "bandwagon" effect in which marginal and inattentive or uncommitted voters were likely to follow what they thought was the prevailing mood against the administration and health care, regardless of what the underlying reality might be, where 60% or more of the public throughout the summer regularly voiced support for the very public option the protesters were so much against.

Media matters, perhaps never more so than now.

The irony of this post is awesome.

frankly, Steve, I think some your argument is just bullshit. partly, the solution is manufacturing more opportunities to deliver the Democratic message, but more importantly, the Dem's need to change how they deliver that message. not a profound observation, but a chronic problem despite how banal the observation is.

if nothing else, the Party should learn from the outrageous rhetoric of the GOP and the verbal bomb-throwing of alan grayson that hyperbole, especially when couched in the language of morality, generates lots of news coverage.

so, the white house and its surrogates could do a much better job maintaining message discipline and using tougher language when they traipse across the sunday chat shows. and obama could get out front when a new legislative initiative is launched and frame the debate up front. instead of allowing the cascading (mis)information from the GOP to set the parameters of the discussion. one example: if the HCR legislation had been introduced as, and uniformly referred to, as health INSURANCE reform, it would have been much harder for the GOP to run out the clock screaming about death panels.

also, the Democrats would go a long way toward passing their agenda if they used that legislative agenda to pick fights with the GOP that the Dems may lose but would force the republicans, publicly, into unpopular positions. for example, had the WH pulled its head out of its ass before election day in Ma, they'd have aggressive financial reform legislation ready to drop if coakley lost. the lame-ass, paltry bank tax doesn't cut it

moreover, uncooperative Dems in the senate could be made to pay the price by limited access to campaign funds. the most obstructionist and vulnerable republicans could be publicly targeted by the Dems in advance of election campaigns.

finally, obama could get more mileage out of the bully pulpit by making a more forceful argument more frequently on why the Dem's political philosophy--their vision of government--is superior to the GOP's. obama did some of this during the campaign and hinted at it in the SOTU address, but by and large the Democratic party seems to have capitulated in the war of ideas. for example, a full-throated charge to Congress to pass health care now--b/c only the federal government has the resources to provide the economic security of a near-guarantee of health insurance--was certainly something obama could have done but chose not to.

the 2 things still hobbling the Party are 1) they show themselves time and again, through both rhetoric and action, afraid to fight for their ideals, and 2) they seem to think of voters as a constituency in public policy debates only in the run-up to elections. for example, despite the GOP misinformation, I still think it was possible for the WH and the Dem congress to have done more to explain HCR to voters. ceding the ground during the summer recess to wingnuts and teabaggers nearly guaranteed the public wouldn't like HCR. the GOP has correctly observed that to win an issue a party must always be wooing voters.

Doesn't anyone remember the old saw about "if you want a free press, buy the printing press".

If you want a bigger liberal/progressive megaphone, you have to buy the cable news channel and support it with liberal/progressive advertising.

Tall order, though.

Some observations:

Most Democratic voters, and independents who vote for Democrats, aren't afraid. While they may desire change, they are usually hopeful about the future. It isn't that the average Democratic voter is necessarily complacent; rather he/she wants to see some sort of change and isn't frightened by that prospect.
Most Republicans/teabaggers, on the other hand, are petrified. About race. About taxes. About terrorists. Plainly put: they are frightened of change. Any change. Frightened people are much more willing to march, demonstrate and generally raise hell (see: 1960s, demonstrations).
The problem facing the Democratic Party isn't one of "messaging". Nor does the party require a bigger "megaphone". It just needs to get as much done as possible. Pass the HCIR bill using reconciliation. Pass a carbon-tax bill the same way if need be. Anything that will benefit the country should be brought up for a floor vote. Let the Republicans vote against everything if they think that's a winning strategy. Voters will make their decision about that known at the next election.
The old saying about actions speaking louder than words is so very, very true and the Democratic members of Congress need to put it into effect ASAP.
Or they may very well soon find they have lost the means to do so.

This entry is only partially correct. The Democratic Party may not have orchestrated a structure of response organs such as the GOP has achieved since Reagan, but its base is every bit as aggravated as the GOP's is.

The other part of the accuracy of this story is that the major voices in media (excuse the avoidance of contemporary jargon) have been royally cowed by intimidations from the Right, including not merely Fox's market share, but by its protegés on the Hill and in the White House until 2009. This is not a cultural or a political phenomenon; it's a mercantile and speculative phenomenon, a "bubble" (to succumb to jargon), of gambling on the seduction of the lurid fulminations of the intractably inane and corrupt. It's all very Samuel Clemens. But it is not true, that the base for Obama is not, hourly, raking the Administration over the cooling coals of its promises. All that's true, is that the media have liquidated information as their business.

"Let's all get this straight: The FD affects the public airwaves. That's it. Not cable, not the interwebs, not newspapers and magazines."

Obviously, you would have to extend the FD to cable.