Katrina van den Hauvel on Hannity and Colmes just now

[Goldmund]

As we all know, the main tool in Puke discourse is strongarming; the same kind of macho street thug strongarming that is woven in the rest of their tactics and in their very style, from "dead or alive" to "bring it on" to "you're with us or against us" to running thick-necked groping steroid junkies for office.

Verbal thuggery is Hannity's trademark more than anything else.

Anyway, Katrina was listing, fact by fact, all of the examples of this administration's lies. She talked to Alan for a little while, while Sean was _literally_ squirming in his chair, hissing and sighing. When he got his turn, you know how he defended *? I'm paraphrasing: "You guys sound like broken records, you're walking cliches. This country has had enough of your negative tactics. Tell me one good thing that Bush has done for this country!" She paused for a second and said "I'm thinking...." and he cuts her off: "See? That proves my point!". By the way, I remember a few years back, there was a "man on the street" segment on his show, where he had one of his staffers walk around the streets of NYC and ask people the exact same question -- to name one good thing that Clinton had done for the country; if they couldn't, he used that as proof of Clinton's defficiencies, not of the average man's negativity and bias (in truth, they always interviewed people who barely knew who Clinton was, let alone know any specifics about his policies).

I've been hearing this kind of an "argument" from the Puke side a lot lately -- since they obviously can't defend the specifics of * and his administration's lies, since they are so obviously lies, they beat up on people who point them out as negativists and sore losers. And of course, the ever-apologetic left responds by justifying themselves and explaining that they're not really as negative as they seem.

Katrina tried to say that many of the Democratic candidates have specific plans on economy and national security, but Hannity kept chanting the same phrases he was before she mentioned that and then, alas, it was time for a commercial and the end of her interview. Of course, a forum like Hannity's show is not friendly to actual discussions and debates, it's more like a verbal WWF rink.

That is one of our biggest problems: the whole culture of American discourse has been degraded to a big verbal gladiator arena. And I think that is missing from the liberal talking points: to point out not only the holes in the Puke's reasoning, but also the very tactics of debate they strongarm their oponents into accepting. Liberals have to step back, a little above the specifics, and refuse to play in that arena. Point out not only the fault of the substance of their arguments, but also the very way they are delivered.

The nature of discourse has to change, and not only arguments defeated. For modern conservatives, arguments are secondary; the main thing is to pin the oponent onto the floor and growl over them, and they have that down to an artform.

[Cha]

1. They're talkin' about this on Mike Malloy right now!

A caller saw it and is tellin' Mike that Katerina handed them their heads.

[Goldmund]

3. Of course she did...

...in terms of the substance of what she said. But in terms of the world in which the show functions -- vulgar sloganeering and coy smiles and agressive smirking -- she didn't. It's like watching a dog-fight, and having Einstein and a pitbull go at it with each other. Einstein says "E=mc^2" and the dog bites into his neck. Who wins? Sean's show isn't a debate. He's the pitbull.

But if Einstein said "whoa, hold on! I'm not here to fight against an agressive beast with big teeth. I'm here to do some math." and thus take the legitimacy away from the dogfight itself, then there's a different element in the story.

Of course, it's not so simple, it's just an analogy -- but work with me here. We have to refuse to participate in dogfights, against their axiomatic and vulgar slogans, against their relentless quasi-ideological painting. We have to step back and point out the methods of discourse that they have strongarmed everybody into before any new and substantive discourse can begin.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. hopefully Gore will get his liberal cable news channel going soon enough

and our reps and dems won't have to suffer these barbarians anymore....hopefully before the world is destroyed by bushco*

[eileen from OH]

4. Well, one of the obvious things they can do

is stop going on these shows. I'm sorry, but Katrina would convince not one person watching. Not one person watching would have his or her mind changed because Fox will edit it to look bad, cut off mikes, etc. And the people who watch Hannity wouldn't have their minds changed if Jesus Christ came down on a cloud and told 'em.

If you aren't going to have a fair shot at discourse/debate or persuasion WHY GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY to pull their shit? Let 'em debate with each other in a masturbatory love fest.

eileen from OH

[Goldmund]

7. I agree

That, and explain to everybody why they refuse participating in such shows. If enough people signed on to that kind of a movement, it would be a real powerful statement.

[Cha]

9. I know! I'm not sure why she does unless it's for practice!

She gets that treatment everywhere only not as intense I would imagine.

[0rganism]

17. Maybe she's addicted to media abuse?

nt

[bpilgrim]

5. I know one 'good' thing bush has done...

he hasn't launched any NUKES, yet!

:scared:

peace

[lovedems]

6. I laugh. He really thinks he is smart doesn't he! Oh, if they only knew!

lol, sometimes it is hard to get mad at an idiot.

[bluestateguy]

8. democrats should shun Fox

They should refuse to appear on Fox programs and the next Democratic president should give Fox correspondents the boot from the White House Press Corps. There is no constitutional right to special press access. As a condition for getting their press passes back, Fox would have to hire more liberal correspondents and do several puff piece stories about the new Democratic president.

[tom_paine]

10. The Democrats have decided to take the opposite tack

And are actually seen mor frequently lately on Faux, Guess they can't ignore the numbers even though it is entirely futile and it's funny the way that, pretty much after every guest, the designated Faux slammer (whoever that might be for that show) comes out and says "oh yes what a dirty rat has ulterior motives clearly lying" etc etc etc.

It all starts with the false dichotomy that the Right-Wing Sub-Media is implanting, which is that traditional network news and newspapers functions for the Left the way the Right-Wing Sub-Media functions for the Right.

Which gives them the excuse they need to check no facts at all and engage in devious propaganda.

Madness. Nightmare.

[moondust]

11. TV is bad for Dems.

I think largely due to time constraints, TV and radio have evolved into sound bite media. They work well for machine-gun minded Republicans with short-term profit attention spans but they are inadequate for well-reasoned, thoughtful, comprehensive arguments.

[Goldmund]

12. I absolutely agree.

But that very fact has to be pointed out in the specific context of the topic of the "discussion". For example, I wish Katrina had said "yeah, OK, I'm a negative sore loser. Enough about me. How about we talk about the administration and their lies? Are you saying they aren't lying? How about this -- they said A, they did B?", etc, etc.

Or an example from a few days ago -- OK, throwing all the dirt on Arnold shortly before the election was a dirty political trick. Now let's talk about Arnold. Did he do what they claim he did? He admitted it. So what does that says about his character? What happened to "honor and integrity"? Didn't you try to impeach Clinton because of supposed character defficiencies?

[moondust]

13. Well, you can try playing their game

but they'll usually beat you at it because that's how they think and they own the game. Turn it on them and they'll simply cut to a commercial or otherwise rudely interrupt you until your time has expired. Hannity and O'Really practice this every day.

Besides, who would want to get on TV and try to think and act like a disgusting Repuke anyway? I'd be inclined to tell Dems to stay away from sound bite media and focus on print media and the Internet instead.

[Goldmund]

16. No, not act like them...

...but call them on it, each and every time. It's not just that they use soundbites. It's that this country has forgotten what discourse is. Refuse to play that game, that's what I mean. The Right in America has been ruining the country so thoroughly and so obviously that you can beat them in a true discourse even if all you use is short statements and soundbites. But that doesn't mean that we have to take their soundbites as bait and always play on their turf. All I'm saying is, let's talk about discourse itself and what they've made out of it, not just the specific issues.

[KoKo]

18. slavkomae, nice posts. I agree. But, it's a style that the Repugs have

honed so finely through years of practice (I wonder if they send them to a Ginrich training school in GA), but they learned so well how to do attack soundbytes and strawman arguments or attack the messenger arguments that it's impoossible for anyone who doesn't have a brain wired that way to compete with them. And, who would want to? It's very tiresome to debate with people with one track minds.

Only Dems I've seen who could play their game better than they do is Charlie Rangel, Barney Franks, Al Sharpton, and a few others.

I think it would be better if Dem stopped appearing on the shows. One poster here said to let them argue among themselves. It's really the only way. Those shows are just for entertainment value. I don't think people who are that truly informed or who are looking for objectivity would tune in. I know I don't watch them, except once in awhile, and am always disappointed. It's like watching a lambs to the slaughter. It just makes us look bad.

[moondust]

19. How about a media study?

Maybe that would raise some consciousness about what is going on.

It may have already been done but...maybe somebody should put it in the suggestion box of "60 Minutes" or Bill Moyers or somebody to do a study of the sound bite media including specific examples and discussion of how they are undermining discourse.

[goforit]

14. omg!!!........i miss katrina!!

o well

[Kip Rainville]

15. Sound bites don't work

I agree sound bites don't work - it takes a bit more time to back up an intelligent point of view. KR

[grasswire]

20. a major problem...

...is that news producers set up a sort of "moral equivalency" contest and make it appear that each argument has equal validity, when that isn't necessarily the case. And so it looks like both sides are spinning or lying, when in fact usually just the right side is. They are allowed to spew out their garbage too often unchallenged. Example: Hardball Wednesday night. Coulter, Rollins, Nachman. That was the panel. Then Ed Gillespie, RNC chair -- all by himself.

I seriously don't know what the answer is.

Well, part of the problem is that Dems are un-herdable, generally. We're thirty years behind the right in providing the structure that will get our message out. And the party leaders have NO STRATEGIC THINKERS. I swear if I had a million dollars I would spend it on the best strategic politico I could find. And it sure wouldn't be Donna Brazile or Terry McAuliffe.