How’s That Crackerjack Peter King Whip Organization Working Out?

Apparently the video that Mistermix posted of Anthony Weiner going mental on the House floor was not the end of things, as Weiner went on Fox news this morning, whipped out his ginormous penis, and proceeded to repeatedly slap Peter King in the face with it:

If more Dems acted like this, they would be gaining seats in November.






148 replies
  1. 1
    Kryptik says:

    Don’t worry, Steny Hoyer will be around to lock Weiner up in a cage until November so we won’t have any more outbursts like this that might upset the poor Republicans.

  2. 2
    debit says:

    I can’t watch or listen at work. Anyone care to give me the gist of it?

  3. 3

    That is the ultimate tease. Now I have to click.

  4. 4
    Tom Hilton says:

    As much as I agree with Weiner, and as satisfying as it was to watch this smackdown, I think the Fox anchor is probably a whole lot closer to most public reaction: “maybe this is why Congress has an 11% approval rating”.

    Discrediting ‘politics’–making it acrimonious and ugly and generally distasteful to most people–is an integral part of the GOP strategy of discrediting government.

  5. 5
    Sentient Puddle says:

    @Tom Hilton: I found something incredibly off-putting about the anchor smugly saying that, but couldn’t put a finger on why. The idea of discrediting politics might be it.

  6. 6
    Daddy-O says:

    If more Dems acted like this, they would be gaining seats in November.”

    Amen, bro. Which leads to the question: Why don’t they? Or, at least, why don’t they try the tactic, anyway?

  7. 7
    Athenae says:

    I can’t watch or listen at work. Anyone care to give me the gist of it?

    TELL YOUR MOM I WANT MY CHANGE.

    A.

  8. 8
    roshan says:

    @debit:
    Here is an exact transcript:
    King: Blah, blah, blah, democrats control the house.
    Weiner: You fucking twit, how do you whine to my face?
    King: I was just saying… up or down vote, blah.
    Weiner: Shut the fuck up, did you forget how I fucked you last night, you little bitch?

    Most of it is along those lines.

  9. 9

    two cigarettes in one morning for the Cat Lady.

  10. 10
    Nick says:

    @Tom Hilton:,

    I think the Fox anchor is probably a whole lot closer to most public reaction: “maybe this is why Congress has an 11% approval rating”.

    I have to agree, this is going around at work here today and the general consensus is “both of these douchebags need to be voted out”

  11. 11
    ajr22 says:

    Loved the reaction of the fox robot anchor after Weiner said “How’s That Crackerjack Peter King Whip Organization Working Out?” The anchor wanted to just yell BURN!!!

  12. 12
    Nick says:

    @Sentient Puddle: The anchor was trying to get King to bash Democrats for not letting a vote come up on keeping the funds from going to illegal immigrants and banning building of the “mosque,” Weiner wouldn’t let him do it, so he ended the segment by telling the viewers “See, government sucks”

    This is why I’m pretty convinced Democrats will never be able to win an argument in the MSM, because when they do, the MSM discredits the whole system, when they lose, they just discredit Democrats.

  13. 13
    Allison W. says:

    Tom Hilton is right. More of this and voters – the average voter – gets turned off. “there they go bitching while I’m sitting here sick.” Then the media would sooooooooo go on their “both sides do it” narrative.

  14. 14
    NobodySpecial says:

    @Nick: I’m glad to hear that your center-right colleagues want to vote out Peter King.

  15. 15
    Zifnab says:

    I wish I was in Weiner’s district. I desperately want to vote for that man.

  16. 16

    I enjoyed the exchange. Yeah, Weiner can get shrill but he is sooooooo correct most of the time. Love it.

  17. 17
    Nick says:

    @NobodySpecial: My center-right colleagues wanted to vote Peter King out four years ago, but then he said MUSLIM! and they jumped. It won’t last long.

  18. 18
    Zifnab says:

    @Nick:

    This is why I’m pretty convinced Democrats will never be able to win an argument in the MSM, because when they do, the MSM discredits the whole system, when they lose, they just discredit Democrats.

    You’re never going to win on FOX News. I have no doubt they’ll have Brietbart crawling up Weiner’s ass if he keeps making the GOP look bad. And, in the mean time, they’ll just make shit up, blame government in general, and otherwise campaign for the Republicans.

    That said, it’s refreshing to see Weiner get in Peter King’s face.

  19. 19
    Tom Hilton says:

    @Nick:

    This is why I’m pretty convinced Democrats will never be able to win an argument in the MSM, because when they do, the MSM discredits the whole system, when they lose, they just discredit Democrats.

    Exactly. The game is rigged, and playing it well just means they win another way.

    As frustrating as Obama’s rhetorical nods to ‘bipartisanship’ may be, they’re also smart–refusing to play the Republican game.

  20. 20
    Crashman says:

    Heh heh. You said weiner…

  21. 21
    ellaesther says:

    I love how until the moment that he says “How’s that crackerjack Peter King whip organization working out?”, Weiner literally can’t even bear to look at him.

    Righteous fury – it’s a beautiful thing!

  22. 22
    TR says:

    Man, when Peter King gets mad, he gestures like a drunken grandmother. Nice wrist work there, you big nancy.

  23. 23
    JITC says:

    OMG on Fox News no less.

    I think I may be in love with Anthony Weiner.

  24. 24
    Nick says:

    @Zifnab:

    You’re never going to win on FOX News.

    you know, if the chyrons weren’t up, I wouldn’t have even known this was Fox. I’ve heard Kyra Phillips, Gloria Berger and Andrew Mitchell make similar comments when they had people like Alan Grayson, Russ Feingold and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on kicking Republican ass.

  25. 25
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    @Nick:

    Arguments are not won in the media. They are won at the voting booth. The media do not control the voting booth.

    The remedy is to counter with simple and direct explanations of the alternative to the GOP approach. The Democrat solution is to provide assistance to people who need it, to be the agents for a strong middle class, and in short, to do the right thing. It’s a different view of government and most of us are Democrats because we chose that view. It’s the best view, and it sells, if we sell it.

    The way to sell it is to stay on message and not get suckered into “winning” arguments ginned up by the media. This isn’t about two politicians on a cable show, it’s about which view of government best serves the interests of the people. The Republicans can’t win that contest. We can.

  26. 26
    El Tiburon says:

    If more Dems acted like this, they would be gaining seats in November.

    This.

    As I commented on a prior post re: Greg Sargent, I would really like to see some emotion and passion and anger from these Dems in Congress. Nothing gets on the TeeVee faster than conflict, so it’s time the Dems took control of the messaging. This is how the Republicans have controlled the message for 30 years – faux poutrage.

  27. 27
    Kevin K. says:

    @Tom Hilton: I don’t know, Tom. You and I seem to be in agreement most of the time, but I think a well-placed head butt is good from time to time for the Dems. I think Weiner is especially wise picking this spot, too. The Repubs have been bear-hugging 9/11 since, well, 9/11, so angrily calling hypocrisy on them in this case is totally warranted.

  28. 28
    Kevin K. says:

    Plus, jesus fuck, do I hate the snot outta Peter King.

  29. 29
    Grazni says:

    Seeing this makes me really want to see a Weiner v. Boehner cock fight.

  30. 30
    Nick says:

    @DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective:

    The media do not control the voting booth.

    I disagree. The media absolutely controls the voting booth. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a such thing as an “uninformed” voter.

    People rely on the media to get their news. In a country of 300 million+ people, politicians can directly talk to everybody.

  31. 31
    NobodySpecial says:

    @Nick: That depends on how many times he can say MUSLIM, now doesn’t it?

  32. 32
    Svensker says:

    @Daddy-O:

    Why don’t they? Or, at least, why don’t they try the tactic, anyway?

    Because most of them don’t care very much about anything, is my guess. Wiener cares about this bill because he takes it personally so he got passionate. About the only thing everyone cares enough about in Congress to get emotional around is how great Israel is.

  33. 33
    Florida Cynic says:

    OK, so I’m not up to speed on House procedure. Why is a 2/3 majority needed for the bill they are talking about? Or am I missing something?

  34. 34
    Nick says:

    @NobodySpecial: You’ve never been to Long Island, have you?

    There is an Episcopalian Church in King’s district where the congregation is of Indian/Indo-Caribbean descent, everyone in the neighborhood and even a few of the local (GOP) politicians have called the church “the mosque”

  35. 35
    mcd410x says:

    Does this kind of thing turn off some voters? Possibly. But when America goes to the polls, it loves a winner.

  36. 36
    Bill E Pilgrim says:

    For god’s sake, a Democrat finally pushes back hard and
    “this is why Congress has a low approval rating?”

    And people here are agreeing with this?

    I swear, the next time certain people here make sneering remarks about David Broder they should be laughed off the page.

  37. 37
    Nick says:

    @Svensker:

    Wiener cares about this bill because he takes it personally so he got passionate.

    Weiner’s district includes Rockaway, which suffered the largest losses among the FDNY on 9/11 citywide. Also home to a lot of the aid workers who suffered as a result of the cleanup (Forest Hills, Fresh Meadows, Howard Beach, Sheepshead Bay EMS/FDNY/NYPD workers).

    King’s district includes many who died in the WTC, but were not there in the aftermath.

  38. 38
    Nick says:

    @Bill E Pilgrim:

    And people here are agreeing with this?

    Yes and no. I don’t agree that a Democratic fighting back should be why Congress has a low approval rating, but that’s what’s happening thanks to the media presenting it that way.

    I swear, the next time certain people here make sneering remarks about David Broder they should be laughed off the page.

    David Broder is the reason why Democrats fighting back leads to an 11% approval rating.

  39. 39
    Nick says:

    @mcd410x:

    But when America goes to the polls, it loves a winner.

    Nobody won here. The bill didn’t pass. If anything the Republicans won because they’re being presented as victims of a mean old liberal Congress.

  40. 40
    NobodySpecial says:

    I personally don’t see a problem with someone getting spitting nails mad over a bill like this getting shot down because 93% of Republicans voted against it.

    With any good planning, they could run out a number of bills targeted very specifically and make ’em run on upp’erdown votes, with very large and angry Dems speechifying on those dastardly Republicans letting folks down.

  41. 41
    Common Sense says:

    Not for nothing but he sounds like the ShamWow guy.

  42. 42
    Tom Hilton says:

    @Kevin K.: It was a great issue to make a stand on. I just think this played much better to us liberals than to the broader populace.

    Most people really aren’t very smart, and what they absorb from something like this (if they see it at all) is not content but tone–and Weiner’s tone is a lot angrier than most people really want. I think a more controlled fury would have been more effective.

    In the end, the most effective contrast we can make is: Republicans throw tantrums; Democrats govern.

  43. 43
    Nick says:

    @Florida Cynic:

    Why is a 2/3 majority needed for the bill they are talking about? Or am I missing something?

    The bill was brought to the floor without allowing amendments on the floor, because the GOP wanted to propose amendments that would get enough Democratic votes to pass like A.) banning funds from going to illegal immigrants and B.) against the “mosque”

    Because of that, the bill required 2/3 vote to pass.

  44. 44
    Nick says:

    @NobodySpecial:

    I personally don’t see a problem with someone getting spitting nails mad over a bill like this getting shot down because 93% of Republicans voted against it.

    I don’t think anybody does either. I personally had no problem with Weiner’s response. But I take issue with the idea that we’d be winning if everyone acted like that. I just don’t think that’s true, I think we’d be losing worse.

    This gives good fodder to the internet base, because the blogs primarily want to see Republicans get whipped around, regardless of it yields legislative success, but the rest of the country looks at this and says “government is broken” not “Democrats stand up and fight!”

    And the media is the main reason why.

  45. 45
    eric says:

    The anger I agree with, but he should say over and over again: “If (when) the workers in Lousiana get sick because of BP’s dispersants, I will be there fighting for them too; when mines collapse, I will be there, when hurricanes hit states with GOP governors and legislatures, I will be there too, when tornados hit states with GOP governors and legislatures, I will be there. Helping people is what government is for and it is a crime that the GOP does not want the government to help the people who helped most when NY and the Nation was struggling after 9/11. We are all Americans, red states, blue states; east coast, west coast and everywhere in between. That is what it means to be an American. On, and eff you.”

  46. 46
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    The media absolutely controls the voting booth.

    Sure. Just present evidence and data to prove it, and we will get along fine. Show any data that supports the idea that “media” lead, as opposed to follow, public opinion. Just for fun, why don’t you use the most recent national election as an example? Show how the “media” won the election for Barack Obama. I double dog dare you. What do you think put him over the top, the Reverend Wright story? The media coronation of Hillary Clinton as the certain Dem nominee? Take your time and get your story straight. Don’t hurry.

    Until then, you are blowing bullshit out of your ass.

  47. 47
    Midnight Marauder says:

    A friend of mine just shared this with me, and it’s one of the greatest things I’ve ever seen. It takes Weiner’s epic rant to entirely new levels of awesome.

    Weiner/Requiem For A Dream Mashup

  48. 48
    ChrisWWW says:

    It isn’t just about undecided voters, it’s about firing up the people that already agree with you to actually go vote. Of course, you have to strike a balance between courting undecideds and playing to your base.

  49. 49
    John Cole says:

    @Nick:

    I have to agree, this is going around at work here today and the general consensus is “both of these douchebags need to be voted out”

    I’m sorry you work with idiots. You corrected them, right?

    @Bill E Pilgrim:

    I swear, the next time certain people here make sneering remarks about David Broder they should be laughed off the page.

    Seconded.

  50. 50
    Nick says:

    @John Cole:

    You corrected them, right?

    I always do, and then I got called a douchebag too and was told that I was part of the problem.

    So, now what?

    Idiots decide elections, we all know that, so what do we do?

  51. 51
    Bill E Pilgrim says:

    @Nick: Gridlock is why Congress has an 11% approval rating. Unemployment at 10% is why Congress has a low approval rating. David Broder is not why Congress has a low approval rating.

    I mean, Rush Limbaugh will convince Wingnuts to hate Democrats in Congress but he would no matter what. And we’ll hate right wing Republicans, which is to say all of them at this point, pretty much no matter what.

    The difference lies in what’s actually happening in the country, that’s the part that can move ratings. Here’s Krugman saying it in longer form than I can do here:

    But the only real puzzle here is the persistence of the pundit delusion, the belief that the stuff of daily political reporting — who won the news cycle, who had the snappiest comeback — actually matters.

  52. 52
    Nick says:

    @DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective:

    Sure. Just present evidence and data to prove it, and we will get along fine. Show any data that supports the idea that “media” lead, as opposed to follow, public opinion

    Two words…death panels.

    Show how the “media” won the election for Barack Obama. I double dog dare you. What do you think put him over the top, the Reverend Wright story?

    The Rev. Wright story nearly buried him. You and I both know that. It’s a good thing he gave a speech that sent “tingles” up Chris Matthews’ leg.

  53. 53
    Nick says:

    @Bill E Pilgrim:

    Gridlock is why Congress has an 11% approval rating

    and why is there gridlock?

    I mean, Rush Limbaugh will convince Wingnuts to hate Democrats in Congress but he would no matter what. And we’ll hate right wing Republicans, which is to say all of them at this point, pretty much no matter what.

    There’s the reason.

  54. 54
    Bob L says:

    These guys need to be called out on the crap they are pulling, but screaming an’t the solution. I think Clinton hit the nail on the head when he told that Fox bobble head “bullshit” and then calmly tore the bobble head apart.

    Then again Weiner is from New York, so he may be calmly discussing things in a New Yorker kind of way.

  55. 55
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    @Bill E Pilgrim:

    Careful, one too many facts and Nick’s head might explode.

    Which is going to definitely cause him a gastrointestinal problem, since his head is way up his ass.

  56. 56
    Wordsmith says:

    @Tom Hilton:

    That jackass is juusssttt too smarmy for me. smug and smarmy….

  57. 57
    John Cole says:

    Wish I had titled this post “Weiner Whips Out Penis, Slaps Peter”

  58. 58
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    and why is there gridlock?

    Well, because the media control everything.

    Right?

    Because the baby Jesus and David Broder are unhappy?

    Tell us, Nick. In your version, Rush Limbaugh runs America. Yes?

  59. 59
    Nick says:

    @ChrisWWW:

    Of course, you have to strike a balance between courting undecideds and playing to your base.

    that balance is gone…when the undecideds and the base are on two completely different wavelengths, you can’t walk the line anymore.

    The undecideds are in a different place than the left and right bases.

  60. 60
    Wordsmith says:

    @Nick:

    Then – just say, “I know I am but what are you?” And wiggle your hips while you waggle your finger.

  61. 61
    Nick says:

    @DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective: You know what, go fuck yourself, really. I’m sorry you didn’t like what I said, but like all blind liberals living in a bubble, now you have to mock me all over the board?

  62. 62
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    @Nick:

    You’re just fucking with us now, right?

    I picture you writing the buzzwords on post-it notes, and then moving them around to form what appear to be sentences on your desk.

    Undecided. Base. Wavelength. Gridlock.

    ( sound of paper rustling )

    Got it.

  63. 63
    Nick says:

    @Wordsmith: Yeah that’ll get them out of vote this year.

  64. 64
    someofparts says:

    You know, all those folks around the water cooler who say “both” of the bums need to go remind me of an old lesson I’ve been reminded of lately.

    In the Jim Crow south things always worked the way they seem to work around your water coolers. Think you are going to talk about the economy, or public policy? Think again.

    Here’s how they stop it.

    Me: Why have they raised the deduction for my Social Security payments?

    Random Good Ole Girl: Stop being so emotional.

    Me: But I was just asking a question. They raised your deduction too.

    RGOG: You’re attacking me.

    Nice to know not a damn thing has changed.

  65. 65
    Bill E Pilgrim says:

    @Nick: Nick, look at it this way: Congress has had higher approval ratings.

    Was David Broder not around then?

    The idea that Democrats being feisty is what causes their low approval ratings is exactly what David Broder says (along with this idiot host at FOX in that clip).

    Rephrasing it as “Well, David Broder calls them bad for being uppity so that then causes people to dislike them” is just another way of saying what Broder is saying. Namely that it’s the Democrats’ fault for being mean to Republicans rather than just giving them what they want.

    Going back to the first question, when Democrats had higher approval ratings was it because they were weaker, or nicer, or didn’t push for what they wanted?

    The idea that Democrats being too strong recently is their problem is simply absurd, sorry.

  66. 66
    Nick says:

    @DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective: Funny, that’s exactly what I pictured you doing. Except once you were done, you put your fingers in your eyes and since “la la la la nobody watches Fox or listens to the news la la la la”

    you people are oblivious.

  67. 67
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    @Nick:

    Yes, I have to mock you, Nick. You are a fucking idiot.

    But I only do it in the most nurturing way.

    Come on now, present some evidence that the shit you say is actually true. “The media controls the voting booth.” Priceless, really.

    What was the margin in the election where Hillary Clinton defeated Rudy Giuliani for president, again? You remember that election, don’t you?

  68. 68
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    you people are oblivious.

    Hilarious. “You people?”

    Please, I am spitting my poached egg here.

  69. 69
    Nick says:

    @Bill E Pilgrim:

    Was David Broder not around then?

    Sure he was, but he was writing about how awesome they were then.

    The idea that Democrats being feisty is what causes their low approval ratings is exactly what David Broder says (along with this idiot host at FOX in that clip).

    Democrats being feisty aren’t causing Congress’ low approval ratings. The constant fighting and bickering leading to nothing getting done, or the perception of it being that way rather, is causing low approval ratings.

    Going back to the first question, when Democrats had higher approval ratings was it because they were weaker, or nicer, or didn’t push for what they wanted?

    They weren’t in control. So the media didn’t present Congress as being ineffective.

  70. 70
    Allison W. says:

    @John Cole:

    I’m sorry you work with idiots. You corrected them, right?

    If they don’t know the back story or what the GOP has been doing for the past 18 months then they are just ignorant, not idiots. All they see is two politicians arguing. We see the GOP getting exactly what they deserve.

  71. 71
    Tom Hilton says:

    @Allison W.:

    If they don’t know the back story or what the GOP has been doing for the past 18 months then they are just ignorant, not idiots. All they see is two politicians arguing. We see the GOP getting exactly what they deserve.

    This. And most people are really not well-informed.

  72. 72
    Nick says:

    @DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective:

    Come on now, present some evidence that the shit you say is actually true. “The media controls the voting booth.”

    Iraq
    Rev Wright- Pennsylvania Primary
    Torture
    Death Panels
    the list goes on and on
    You never heard of a media narrative? The media creates a narrative that forms public opinion. Iraq is the most glaring example of that. Did you not experience how the media narrative kept the war popular for so long?

    I can present evidence until I drop dead, is it going to change your mind? No. You think the media has no power, I just don’t understand how you can believe that when it’s fucking obvious they do!

  73. 73
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    So the media didn’t present Congress as being ineffective.

    We are the mee-dee-ya, and we haz your government bildeengs.

    Nick, if you take off that metal hat with the antenna sticking out of it, and just go for a walk, you will be a lot better off.

    Let me see if I have this right. The American Experiment is lost, and the country is doomed, because we can’t defeat the Evil Rush Limbaugh, King of Oxycontin(tm)?

    Seriously? Don’t tell Al Franken that, okay?

  74. 74
    Bill E Pilgrim says:

    @Nick: Democrats never had higher approval ratings when they were in control?

    The constant fighting and bickering leading to nothing getting done, or the perception of it being that way rather, is causing low approval ratings

    No, I still disagree. The getting nothing done may well be the problem (if it actually is why there’s 10% unemployment, after all they could “get something done” all over the place but if they were Republican policies getting implemented we’d be in even worse shape, for a demonstration in real time see the great crash of 2008) but being “seen as bickering” is not, if things were going well no one would care about their table manners.

    That stuff is invented BS from people like Broder and the FOX anchor here. I promise you. The reason we know it is that it’s never, or almost never, said about Republicans. The Democrat here left King literally stammering, looking like a complete fool, and that’s when you bring out the “see, this is what people don’t like”. Meaning: when Democrats fight back.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but screw that.

  75. 75
    Tom Hilton says:

    Here’s what we all agree on: we all enjoyed the hell out of seeing Weiner school King.

    Here’s what we disagree on: whether stuff like this is politically effective (and whether more of it would help the Democrats). I don’t think it is, but I could be wrong.

    But to those who do think it is effective: do you think so based on careful, dispassionate analysis? Or do you think so because it’s what you want to see? And are you sure you know the difference?

  76. 76
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    I can present evidence until I drop dead,

    No, you haven’t presented any so far. Iraq was not decided in the voting booth, Nick. You said the media controlled the voting booth. Iraq was the result of a national reaction to an event, Nick. Not a media reaction. When the national overreaction died down, the public turned on the war, despite the Evil Rush Limbaugh King of Oxycontin(tm). Despite Sean Hannity. All the media kings’ horses couldn’t put support for the war back together again, Nick.

    You are watching way too much television. Don’t they have other activities for you there in the day room at the Home for the Terminally Stupid?

  77. 77

    @Nick does have a point re: the media leading. It’s a theory called agenda-setting. It’s pretty well established. That said, moar smackdowns, plz!

  78. 78
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    You think the media has no power

    Clearly they have the power over you, Nick. But your brain is filled with plaques, which strangely have the appearance of hundreds of little Cheetos inside your head.

    When you feel like you are losing, Nick, you can blame the media, or present a better message. The former is for losers.

    Get it?

  79. 79
    Bill E Pilgrim says:

    @Tom Hilton: Being weak has been extremely bad for Democrats. In pretty much any way you can think of.

    For analysis, please see the 30 inches or so of words I’ve already put on this thread, so I won’t add more. Krugman’s piece is also well worth reading, if you haven’t.

  80. 80
    Nick says:

    @Bill E Pilgrim:

    Democrats never had higher approval ratings when they were in control?

    not really no, except for the first few months of 2007, Congress’ approval ratings have been at or below 30% since.

  81. 81
    Tom Hilton says:

    @Bill E Pilgrim:

    Being weak has been extremely bad for Democrats. In pretty much any way you can think of.

    Two enormous logical flaws here: first, you fall back on a meaningless abstraction (‘weak’); and second, you implicitly create a false choice between Weiner’s approach and ‘weak[ness]’.

    For analysis, please see the 30 inches or so of words I’ve already put on this thread, so I won’t add more.

    Okay, I’ve re-read them…and there isn’t any analysis. There’s your snide, moronic dig at people you disagree with (but whom you apparently can’t be bothered to engage on a logical, factual level); and everything after that is devoted to a bizarre side argument with Nick.

    Krugman’s piece is also well worth reading, if you haven’t.

    I have read Krugman’s piece, and there’s nothing in there that’s particularly relevant to the question of whether Weiner-style displays of anger are politically effective for Democrats.

  82. 82
    Nick says:

    @Bill E Pilgrim:

    Being weak has been extremely bad for Democrats. In pretty much any way you can think of.

    No one is advocating weakness.

    The only thing I’m arguing is being strong isn’t anymore effective

  83. 83
    Tony J says:

    When the undecideds and the base are on two completely different wavelengths, you can’t walk the line anymore. The undecideds are in a different place than the left and right bases.

    Well now, this is the problem you have. You look at the clip and just see two guys bickering and a Fox host laying down the frame that Americans will just see this as more evidence of Congress failing them. Your argument is that that’s all the ‘undecideds’ are going to get out of it, because the MSM are going to tell them that that’s what they’re seeing, and the MSM controls their perception of events.

    You may not agree with the phrasing, but that’s about it, isn’t it?

    Now what I saw was a Democratic Congressman reduce a Republican to stuttering impotence, so much so that you literally couldn’t make out what he was saying, it was all just an arm-waving babble that looks really bad on TV. And while he was flailing around the Democrat hammered home the simple meme that almost 100% of Republicans had just voted against helping victims of the September 11th attacks, while almost 100% of Democrats had just voted for it.

    He repeats that over and over again, planting it in the memories of anyone watching. He mocks the Republican for whining about “the process” instead of using his “Crackerjack Peter King Whip Organisation” to get the votes that would pass the bill. Even the Fox host sees how badly that hurts the credibility of the Republican, so he shouts down the discussion and ends it with a trope about “Americans not liking to see bickering”.

    What Weiner was saying, and the way he said it, wasn’t geared towards appealing to ‘the base’, it was geared towards ‘undecideds’ who wonder why Congress can’t get anything done, even relatively simple things like passing bills that help out victims of the September 11th tragedy. He showed that it was the Republicans who deserve the blame, and showed that he was angry at them for it.

    More, not less, would be a good thing. Preferably not on Fox. It deserves a bigger audience.

  84. 84
    Nick says:

    @Tony J:

    You may not agree with the phrasing, but that’s about it, isn’t it?

    Yes

    Now what I saw was a Democratic Congressman reduce a Republican to stuttering impotence, so much so that you literally couldn’t make out what he was saying, it was all just an arm-waving babble that looks really bad on TV. And while he was flailing around the Democrat hammered home the simple meme that almost 100% of Republicans had just voted against helping victims of the September 11th attacks, while almost 100% of Democrats had just voted for it.

    That’s what I saw too, but I’m not the one who needs to get that message.

    He repeats that over and over again, planting it in the memories of anyone watching. He mocks the Republican for whining about “the process” instead of using his “Crackerjack Peter King Whip Organisation” to get the votes that would pass the bill. Even the Fox host sees how badly that hurts the credibility of the Republican, so he shouts down the discussion and ends it with a trope about “Americans not liking to see bickering”.
    What Weiner was saying, and the way he said it, wasn’t geared towards appealing to ‘the base’, it was geared towards ‘undecideds’ who wonder why Congress can’t get anything done, even relatively simple things like passing bills that help out victims of the September 11th tragedy. He showed that it was the Republicans who deserve the blame, and showed that he was angry at them for it.

    Weiner doesn’t have his own TV show, he doesn’t have the ability to say it over and over again all day. He is outnumbered by network anchors who will say “Congress is an ineffective bastion of bickering” over and over again. Weiner will be lucky to ever get his face on TV again.

    You’re saying Weiner needs to make his point over and over again, I agree, but he can’t…but anchors like that Fox dude who said “this is why Congress has an 11% approval rating” can.

    And by saying this, you’re proving my point…what people see on TV factors in their vote. If that wasn’t true, we wouldn’t say stuff like this is good for Dems. It’s not because their message isn’t going to get across the narrative of “Childish Congress yelling at each other and not getting shit done”

  85. 85
    Nick says:

    @arguingwithsignposts: Agenda-setting was the term I was looking for. I couldn’t think of it. Agenda-setting is how the media drives narratives. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow try this too.

    Right now, in my own job, at my local weekly newspaper, we’re doing this, by revolving stories around certain candidates we want to win and others we want to lose. This week, favored candidate’s opponent holds press conference after woman is mugged asking for more police, reporters are told to spin the story as “candidate does pandering” rather than the real story of “more police needed here”

  86. 86
    geg6 says:

    @John Cole:

    And here, folks, we have just one of the reasons that I have a deep, unrequited love for our bloghost.

  87. 87
    Cynicor says:

    @Zifnab: I’m in Pete King’s district and I desperately want to vote for Weiner too. I am actually feeling ashamed today, of a representative I have voted against four times now and who I actively worked to defeat.

    Gerrymandering can’t come soon enough to get me out of that district.

  88. 88
    Nick says:

    @Cynicor: Where in the district. My family lives in Plainedge.

  89. 89
    Michael E Sullivan says:

    I’ve got my issues with what Nick says in this thread, but I sure could use a lot less of DickSpud’s random invective.

    You’re just being an ass. If this was my blog you’d draw a banhammer for that kind of bullying nonsense.

  90. 90
    Corner Stone says:

    @Michael E Sullivan:

    If this was my blog you’d draw a banhammer for that kind of bullying nonsense.

    If this were your blog no one would be reading it and you’d be having your afternoon tea with Ms. Polly Prissypants.

  91. 91
    Corner Stone says:

    @Nick:

    I always do, and then I got called a douchebag too

    I rather doubt that was the reason they were calling you a douchebag.
    Occam’s Razor suggests it is because you are in fact a douchebag.

  92. 92
    Bill E Pilgrim says:

    @Tom Hilton: Wow. That was a critique of my “snide, moronic” posts?

    Yes, full of polite substance, you were.

    I don’t think I engaged Nick in any way that was even impolite, let alone whatever it is you’re suggesting.

    I mention weak because it is precisely the point, which is what you’re missing. Some meaningless discussion of whether “this”, referring to this video, is “politically effective” for Democrats is missing the point entirely, which you admit that you did reading Krugman as well.

    You’re speaking, as is the anchor here, about decorum, whereas there’s also the question of substance. Letting the Republicans control far too much of the substance because Democrats are afraid of fighting is the problem. It is far more a danger to them, and has done more damage, than political posturing having to do with making David Broder, or the public, or you, think that they’re nice people.

    That was the point. It’s debatable of course, but at least know that it’s the point. I’m sorry you missed it but reading your really nasty response I’m really not surprised at this point.

  93. 93
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @Nick:

    The main thread running through most of your comments is (a) the right-biased US news media are all powerful in swinging the results of US elections, and (b) they are what they are and we can’t do anything to change them.

    Assuming both (a) and (b) are correct, why are you even bothering with politics? It seems like the best description of your outlook would be to say that you are a Futilitarian.

    I don’t get why a Futilitarian would want to waste time posting comments on a political blog. I’m not saying “go away”, it just seems to me that there is a major contradiction between your emotional involvement in the subject and the intellectual analysis of it which you present. Seems like you should either stop caring so much or maybe put more effort into questioning whether your analysis is in fact correct.

  94. 94
    Bill E Pilgrim says:

    @Nick:

    No one is advocating weakness. The only thing I’m arguing is being strong isn’t anymore effective.

    Being too weak has hurt Democrats. More than anything else has. Being stronger, meaning stronger than they are when being weak, is better. That’s what I mean by strong.

    What’s surprising to me is that usually, no one on the Democratic side apart from the Blue Dogs, cheered on by Broder, has any doubt that this is true.

    The idea that “Democrats are too assertive” or strong or passionate or argumentative or forceful, is rarely heard outside of those people.

    I guess you live and learn.

  95. 95
    Nick says:

    @Bill E Pilgrim:

    Letting the Republicans control far too much of the substance because Democrats are afraid of fighting is the problem. It is far more a danger to them, and has done more damage, than political posturing having to do with making David Broder, or the public, or you, think that they’re nice people.

    But what I’m saying is Republicans don’t control too much of the substance because Democrats are afraid to fight, they control it because 90% of what is on TV is either a Republican or an anchor who is essentially a Republican spokesman. Democrats don’t make it on TV whether they fight or not, and when they do, you won’t get a “Democrat takes down Republican” story, you get a “Stupid Congress is ineffective and childish” story.

    It’s not about making David Broder like you, or capitulating to Rush Limbaugh, it’s about governing the damn country at a time when you can’t possibly win arguments anymore. If we want to win arguments, we need to take over the media and get rid of its corporate owners and rich Republican anchors and producers. But since we can’t even admit they’re a problem, I don’t see that happening at all.

  96. 96
    Nick says:

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ:

    Assuming both (a) and (b) are correct, why are you even bothering with politics

    I do think we can do something about it, I jus don’t think people want to, because it would be admitting what they want doesn’t work. It would be admitting that the media, not the Democrats, are the problem.

    I have repeatedly argued progressives need to take on the media directly and figure out a way to change it. I’m bothering with politics because I think we can win battles, but only if we facilitate change in the media and the way news is presented. That’s my jihad.

    But without media reform, yes, i’m a Futilitarian

  97. 97
    Nick says:

    @Bill E Pilgrim: But I’m not arguing the Democrats are hurt by being too assertive. I don’t think it makes a difference either way. Are they hurt by being too weak? Sure, but they’re hurt when they’re strong too.

    I’d be much more pissed if they were weak and not getting anything done, but they’ve produced results, some pretty good ones, despite (or because of) their weakness.

    So when given the choice between weak and effective and strong and ineffective, I pick weak and effective.

    It’s a lose-lose situation, as long as the media acts the way they do, the Democrats are going to lose just because they’re governing. I’d like them to get shit done while they have the chance.

  98. 98
    Tom Hilton says:

    @Bill E Pilgrim: Just to be clear, what I was referring to as snide and moronic was your Broder crack. About which, there’s a kind of a funny story: go fuck yourself.

  99. 99
    Bill E Pilgrim says:

    @Nick: You’re saying that since the game is entirely rigged, then playing into their hands by becoming passionate, even angry, is just handing them victory because they can criticize it.

    What I’m saying is that they will criticize anything you do.

    This is what Paul Krugman was saying also, though no one seems to be able to follow for some reason, or at least the other poster debating this, maybe you actually read and understood it, if not agreed with it.

    I don’t disagree that the game is rigged, I think the problem is that I think it’s even more rigged than you do. You can’t manipulate it and try to outsmart it because you end up manipulating and outsmarting yourself. You’re playing their game that way, is the point.

    You can go to point C and they’ll call you a Communist. You can go only to point A and they’ll do the same. You can push for what you want or not, they’re going to brand you a soc ialist either way.

  100. 100
    Bill E Pilgrim says:

    @Tom Hilton: Okay yes, nice Tom. Message received. You’ll pardon me if I don’t respond to all of that substance. Again.

  101. 101
    Nick says:

    John, here’s how it played out;

    Co-Worker 1: (upon hearing the Fox anchor) He’s right, this is why Congress sucks. All they do is fight
    Co-Worker 2: We never had this problem when Republicans were in charge, they got stuff done.
    Me: Well they oppose EVERYTHING, it’s hard to get shit done when the other party just obstructs EVERYTHING
    Co-Worker 1: Well you’re a Democrat, so of course you’re going to blame Republicans
    Me: But its their fault. They wanted to propose stupid amendments about illegal immigrants and mosques, and the Democrats just wanted to get this passed. Why can’t Republicans vote for a bill if their amendments got passed but not now?
    Co-Workers 2: Well then Democrats are cowards. They were afraid these amendments would pass. Maybe they should’ve just let the chips fall where they may
    Me: This is how the Republicans work though, they’ve filibustered everything in the Senate-
    Co-Worker 2: I don’t want to hear some campaign slogan. Clearly they can’t govern the country.
    Me: This Congress got a lot of shit passed. They passed a stimulus that kept us out of a depression, a healthcare bill, financial reform
    Co-Worker 2: Well, this kind of stuff didn’t happen when Republicans were in charge
    Me: Yes it did, we just didn’t see it.
    Co-Worker 2: Well, if we get a Republican Congress, then Obama will have to compromise
    Me: But he’s been compromising
    Co-Worker 2: If he had compromised, he wouldn’t have gotten all that partisan stuff done (I swear this is what she said)
    Co-Worker 1: Could we just stop talking about politics now. (to me) you’re a partisan Democrat. You’ll defend Obama forever.

    How would you have dealt with it?

  102. 102
    Anya says:

    JC, tell me you’re being sarcastic? Personally, I don’t find these theatrics helpful at all. What’s wrong with stating your points clearly without shouting?

  103. 103
    Bill E Pilgrim says:

    @Nick:

    I pick weak and effective.

    Okay so for me, this is a contradiction in terms.

    But that’s enough ;) Well-debated, even though I entirely disagree.

    Bye now.

  104. 104
    Nick says:

    @Bill E Pilgrim:

    You’re saying that since the game is entirely rigged, then playing into their hands by becoming passionate, even angry, is just handing them victory because they can criticize it.
    What I’m saying is that they will criticize anything you do.

    I’m saying the same thing, but the Democrats can fight all day and night and give the base a hard on or they can govern the country, they can’t possibly do both. A lot of people want them to fight losing battles for their own personal enjoyment. I think it’s more effective for them to just get shit done, because regardless, they’re going down.

    In the meantime, we should really be focusing on the media, so that this Catch-22 stops.

  105. 105
    Nick says:

    @Anya:

    What’s wrong with stating your points clearly without shouting?

    No one pays attention to you. Democrats often make great cases for their agenda quietly, but it gets drowned out by the tirades of the tea party.

    Weiner was playing for the camera.

  106. 106
    Tony J says:

    And by saying this (Weiner needs to make his point over and over again”), you’re proving my point… what people see on TV factors in their vote. If that wasn’t true, we wouldn’t say stuff like this is good for Dems. It’s not because their message isn’t going to get across the narrative of “Childish Congress yelling at each other and not getting shit done”

    You misunderstand me.

    What I’m saying is that the general consensus here is every Democratic Congressman should be doing more of this. Not just the odd Dem, all of them, like it actually meant something.

    You agree with me that repetition is important in driving opinion? Since the Republicans do it, the MSM does it, and they’ve had success, why shouldn’t Democrats do it as well? Every interview up until the midterms should be about how and why this Congress is being sabotaged by a Republican minority who will not let any bills pass that would actually help America climb out of the hole dug by the last Republican Congress, because they want Americans to be feeling as helpless and angry as possible in the expectation that they’ll blame “The Government” rather than “The Opposition”. Genuine anger should be shown, ridicule expressed, fingers pointed.

    That’s how you drive opinion and influence ‘undecideds’. By hammering on the same point over and over again until attrition decides the winner. “Republicans are shutting down Congress” is a nice narrative to hammer on because it’s, a) True, b) It’s something that the American people don’t like and will vote against, and c) It’s an election year, so you want to get votes.

    You know, it’s been pointed out already that the major failure of your theory about MSM dominance of voting patterns is the 2008 election, but it’s worth repeating. If the MSM really did control opinion so effectively, then Romney or Clinton or McCain would be President today, but they’re not. And the MSMs wholehearted embrace of Bush in 2000 and 2004 didn’t drive more than a bare 50% + or – into voting Republican for him.

    The last bastion of electoral influence left to the Republicans is their control over what the MSM considers news and valid opinion. Democrats aren’t going to take that away from them unless they start actually trying to take it away from them. Weiner’s bitchslaping of King is an example of how to start doing it.

  107. 107
    Bill E Pilgrim says:

    @Nick: Oh but there’s more to debate than just influencing voters.

    What you saw above was a Democrat refusing to back down faced with the same intractable and cynically hypocritical and opportunistic posturing by Republicans that we’ve all come to know and love.

    Don’t you think that the votes that matter, that is, say the Blue Dog Democrats, see debates and make decisions from what they see about what seems “centrist” and what seems “far left” and so on, at least to some degree?

    If the Republicans say “We want X, and anything less is unAmerican!” and Democrats say “Well, uhm, we don’t really agree, but well… okay” don’t you think this effects where the fabled “center” is seen to be? By other Congress members, I mean.

    My rejection of Broder’s stance isn’t just that he’s one-sided, which he is, it’s rejecting that grandstanding or “winning the news cycle” has as much effect as he thinks it does.

    I celebrate what I saw above because it shows the opposite from what I’ve seen too often, which is Democrats being meek and in the process letting Republicans walk all over them. And I don’t mean just on TV.

  108. 108

    @John Cole:

    Nice, but penis just isn’t as funny as dick. How about:
    “Peter Principle: King Flogged by Weiner’s Dick”

  109. 109
    Tom Hilton says:

    @Bill E Pilgrim:

    I mention weak because it is precisely the point, which is what you’re missing.

    Absent a precise practical definition, abstractions like ‘weak’ or ‘strong’ are worse than useless. And the point here is that you’ve been using this meaningless abstraction in lieu of actually making any kind of rational argument for the effectiveness of any particular course of action.

    You’re speaking, as is the anchor here, about decorum, whereas there’s also the question of substance.

    It isn’t about decorum; it’s about practical impact. The question at hand is whether most people who see this clip (or the “more like this” so many people are calling for) will be impressed (either by the substance of Weiner’s comments, or by the fighting spirit) or turned off (by the bickering).

    My sense is that the latter is more likely. And I could well be wrong, but I’m basing my opinion on the knowledge that for the last 15 or 20 years the Republicans have consciously and deliberately sought to make politics as acrimonious and ugly as possible. The goal of this is to discredit ‘politics’–which, by extension, discredits government.

    I am, in fact, arguing for substance: I think posturing like Weiner’s is at best a sideshow (and at worst a confirmation of the general sense that politics is broken), and the only way for Democrats to win people over is simply to govern and govern well. Getting sucked into pissing matches with the wingnuts? Less useful.

    Letting the Republicans control far too much of the substance because Democrats are afraid of fighting is the problem. It is far more a danger to them, and has done more damage, than political posturing having to do with making David Broder, or the public, or you, think that they’re nice people.

    It isn’t a matter of making Broder or anyone else think Democrats are ‘nice’. It’s a matter of convincing people that politics (and, by extension, government) is actually important and useful and necessary. (Does the exchange shown above advance that idea? My sense is that for most people, it doesn’t.) Republicans have by far the easier task here, because they just have to convince people to tune out; they can scream and lie and smear and generally behave execrably and know that the message low-information voters (which is most of them) will take away is that politicians behave badly. They can start nasty fights secure in the knowledge that if Democrats back down they’ll be seen as ‘weak’ and if they fight back it’ll be a both-sides-do-it slappy-fight.

  110. 110
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @Nick:
    Thanks, that makes more sense to me.

    So instead of going round and round over the same ground, let me ask: what is your plan for taking back the media? What can us little folk do to make this happen?

  111. 111
    Nick says:

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ:

    let me ask: what is your plan for taking back the media? What can us little folk do to make this happen?

    Well the first thing we can do is NOT watch cable news and try to get our friends and family to NOT watch it. If their numbers drop, especially Fox’s, they’ll give up. If CSPAN had hire ratings than Fox, Fox will become more like CSPAN.

    We need more citizen journalists…not necessarily bloggers, but citizen journalists and we need people to really be dedicated to being true journalists.

    And while this happens, we need to really take on the media like the conservatives too. Out anchors as Republican operatives, out them in scandals. The Sherrod thing, some of us were very focused on Fox, the way Shirley is now. Show how corporations own then media and how they are selective of what they show. Its gonna take some time (which is why I accept the Democrats we got now)

  112. 112
    Nick says:

    @Tony J:

    By hammering on the same point over and over again until attrition decides the winner. “Republicans are shutting down Congress” is a nice narrative to hammer on because it’s, a) True, b) It’s something that the American people don’t like and will vote against, and c) It’s an election year, so you want to get votes.

    But Democrats don’t get to control of the narrative. Neither do Republican really. Anchors and producers do, and they’re siding with Republicans.

  113. 113
    eemom says:

    I liked Weiner’s rant — but of course, I’m not only on his side, I’m also from NYC.

    I think there may be regional differences to how well this kind of thing gets across to non-political-junkies. New Yorkers, in particular, are used to people having Weineresque shitfits. He speaks a language they understand.

  114. 114

    @Midnight Marauder: That just made my entire life.

  115. 115
    Tom Hilton says:

    @eemom: I hadn’t thought about that, but it makes sense.

  116. 116
    Nick says:

    @eemom: I agree, but I have to point out that I work in his district.

    That said, I don’t think they won’t vote for him, but they aren’t falling all over themselves to do it.

  117. 117
    Kathy in St. Louis says:

    Hilarious. Weiner has never cared who likes him….which, of course, makes me like him very much. Rahm used to be this way….I have no idea why all that intellect is being hamstrung now.

    Keep it up. Peter needs to learn not to bring a knife to a gunfight.

  118. 118
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    @Michael E Sullivan:

    Aw, fuck you. My rule has always been, I never use any language that the blogowner hasn’t used. The day he forbids its use, that’s the day it goes away. If you have a complaint, take it up with him.

    Been posting here going on six years now, and I have no plan to change my approach. If you don’t like it, kiss my entire ass.

  119. 119
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    @Nick:

    Weiner was playing for the camera.

    My doG, you actually said something that made sense.

    I guess what they say about a stopped clock is actually true. It gathers no moss. Or something.

    You’re on a roll now, keep it up. Moe-mentum!

    The truth about the media is, it’s just a Wurlitzer. The right plays it better than we do most of the time. Weiner shows how the left can play it too. Good for him.

    There’s nothing those media ratings whores want more than attention. So let’s give them something to attract more attention.

    Sign me up for the WeinerWagon. More of that, please!

  120. 120
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @Nick:
    I agree with that, and I’m already doing a lot of that myself.

    Here another dimension that I think will help in the long run, that relates more to the sort of top-down political strategy which sparked this conversation.

    IMHO one of the reasons why the news media is so dominated by rightwingers or right-leaners today is that is it a generational legacy from the uninterrupted GOP control of the WH from 1981-1992, when the Dem or Dem-leaning part of the media herd was thinned out a little bit more with each passing year.

    If for the next decade the Dems can hang on to the executive branch and Congressional leadership for a similar span of time the right wing side of the media beast will begin to atrophy, simply due to the aging and attrition of their principle members, and because the more neutral people in the mainstream news business who are mostly just attracted to power for its own sake will gradually lose interest in the right wing side of the argument.

    Which means that in order to reverse this trend the Dems need to hang on to power thru the next couple of election cycles. But today the Obama admin and Dem control of Congress since 2006 is still too new and a lot of fence-sitters are thinking that the GOPers will be back in charge before too long, so it is best to keep a foot in that camp. You can see this clearly with somebody like Chris Matthews for example.

    The 2016 election will be critical in that regard, assumping that Obama is likely to be re-elected in 2012. A true realignment President is one who can get his VP or other chosen successor across the finish line, like Reagan did with GHB in 1988. And the news media reacts to decadal scale events like that much more so than they do to the shifting of the political winds from one year to the next.

  121. 121
    D-Chance. says:

    Weiner went on Fox news this morning, whipped out his ginormous penis,

    Greg Sargent… “Dem impotence”.

    Indeed.

  122. 122
    D-Chance. says:

    Time for a post-Thursday Night Menu Edition:

    Cannibal stew.
    Fluffer-nutters.
    Weak tea.

    Mmm-mmm-good!

  123. 123
    gil mann says:

    Interesting how the commenters lashing out in truly vicious fashion conflate “yelling” with strength. Discipline conveys strength. (I don’t have a problem with Weiner’s performance, just with the notion that he’s layed out a surefire election strategy)

    Still, I can’t really side with the Greg Sargents on this, because if I’ve learned one thing from the past decade, it’s that anyone who claims to know “what the Democrats need to do to win,” well, to put it mildly, doesn’t.

  124. 124
    Nick says:

    @DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective: You apparently missed how he is being bashed and attacked relentlessly for being unprofessional and childish all over the media today.

  125. 125
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    @Nick:

    What are you, ten years old? Do you still watch cartoons on Saturday mornings? Do you think that the Teletubbies are real?

    This is real life, Nick. We are playing with live ammunition. The Republicans need to be yelled at. It’s exactly what we need. They need to be called out, mocked, and humiliated.

    Like you do, but for different reasons. See what I mean?

  126. 126
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    Discipline conveys strength.

    Truth conveys truth. Republicans pimp strength. We prefer facts.

    Fuck strength. Tell the truth. If somebody doesn’t like the way you tell it, then fuck them.

  127. 127
    Allison W. says:

    This entire thread shows that the “base” is no better at messaging than Democrats. Dems are accused of being stuck inside the beltway bubble, and clearly some of you are stuck in a bubble of your own.

    It was great to see Weiner go off like that. but I know where his anger comes from, I know what events led to it. The average voter does not and when they see this clip on the news, they won’t have any idea why Weiner is screaming like this. I’m here in NY and the clip I see on tv is not enough for people to understand what’s feeding his rage. What good was that outburst if its not spun the right way? Right now its being spun as both sides blah, blah, blah – that’s not the message we want voters to hear.

    I will champion Weiner’s behavior when it gets votes for bills. It doesn’t. I will champion Weiner’s behavior when it gets the average voter to pick up the damn phone and give republicans a piece of their minds. It hasn’t.

    Dems have no friends in the media. They should just get in their cars and trucks and start talking to people face to face. Gather up some people and continuously rip Republicans like “campaign Obama” did during the election. Fuck the media, fuck the “base” – talk to people. let them know the truth. let them know it everyday.

  128. 128
    Allison W. says:

    @DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective:

    If somebody doesn’t like the way you tell it, then fuck them.

    If your goal is for people to hear the truth then how you say it is important.

  129. 129
    Tom Hilton says:

    Shorter @DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective:

    1. Mock, humiliate, yell at Republicans
    2. ???
    3. Electoral win!

  130. 130
    Nick says:

    @DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective: Is this supposed to be a response? WTF kind of response is it?

    Dick: We need to yell at Republicans!
    Me: Sure, but it’s not working
    Dick: [INSULT] WE NEED TO YELL AT REPUBLICANS! [INSULT]
    Me: Ok, but it’s not coming across that way
    Dick: [INSULT] [INSULT] YELL!!!! [INSULT]

    Are you going to make a point, or do you want to fight like it’s recess?

  131. 131
    Nick says:

    @DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective:

    Tell the truth. If somebody doesn’t like the way you tell it, then fuck them

    This is surely going to get them to believe the truth.

    US: Truth
    Them: I don’t believe you, I need more information
    Us: WELL FUCK YOU! (but vote for us)

  132. 132
    gil mann says:

    If somebody doesn’t like the way you tell it, then fuck them.

    I’ve found this to be pretty much the opposite of how it works, not to bore you with my sex life.

  133. 133
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    @Nick:

    Look at it this way, Nick:

    1. No matter how bad I am , I have not made you look at a picture of my cat’s ass boil. That’s more than you can say for some people around here. Know what I mean?

    2. I am not here to make friends, have social interaction, persuade anyone to agree with me, engage in debate, or any of the other bullshit things people claim they want to do here, which they do not actually do, they just talk about doing. I am here to say what I think, in the manner I like to say it. That’s it. What happens next, I could care less. You can love it, print it out and frame it, make a voodoo doll of me and stick pins in it, shove it up your ass. Send me money. Whatever. It matters not to me.

    3. When you Google Balloon-Juice, one of the subheads on the first return is the tag “Assholes.” Balloon-Juice is a play on the words “hot air.” Does that give you a clue, Nick? This is not your high school student body election.

    4. I really don’t know what point you are trying to make here today. I am not sure that anyone knows that, including you. I am very sure of the point I am making, which is that your statement that the media controls what happens at the voting booth is pure and unadulterated bullshit, you can’t produce any data or verifiable evidence to support the claim, and you are totally and completely full of shit, just like you are every day on every thread you poison with your absurd concern troll horsecrap. That is my position, and I am sticking to it, because I am right, and you have no defense whatever.

  134. 134
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    I’ve found this to be pretty much the opposite of how it works

    You are dead wrong, sir. This is an obscure blog with an anything-goes comments section. I say what I think, and if you don’t like it, my reaction is, fuck you. I absolutely guarantee you, that is the way it works. And if you say something and I don’t like, you can say fuck me. That’s it, that’s the whole deal. Everything else here is just bullshit and kabuki.

    Prey, how do you think it works? Do you think that if you say something persuasive, that people here will beat a path to your door? Well, aside from laughing my ass off, my reaction to that is, go for it. Seriously. Maybe you can get John Cole to invite you over to taste his tomatos? You never know. The world is your oyster.

  135. 135
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    @Nick:

    Us: WELL FUCK YOU! (but vote for us)

    Uh, excuse me, you are the guy who says THE MEDIA CONTROLS THE VOTING BOOTH, and you are making this horsehit argument?

    Which way do you want to have it, Nick? People can think for themselves, and vote their interests, or people are just sheep who cannot escape from the mind control of talk radio and cable tv?

    America is in thrall to Rush Limbaugh … or, how you phrase your, uh, arguments here is going to make a difference in what people think about … anything?

    What exactly is your argument, Nick? The majority of American voters are slaves to the media, but I should watch my language?

    Have you really thought all this through, Nick? Have you?

  136. 136
    petorado says:

    Anytime a Democrat doesn’t play into Republican and MSM games and memes, cries go out about “civility” and “dignity of office” and “a pox on both sides” and “government is broken.” Congrats to Rep. Weiner for getting pissed about the procedural gimmicks that Republicans are using to game the system and for Pres. Obama for going on The View to speak to a different audience. The more the Washington insiders wring their hands, the more it proves the will of the people is being done.

    The Republicans have achieved the shut-down of government that was Newt’s wet dream for not getting his way and thanks to Rep. Weiner for being brave enough to publicly acknowledge the BS.

  137. 137
    gil mann says:

    This is an obscure blog with an anything-goes comments section. I say what I think, and if you don’t like it, my reaction is, fuck you. I absolutely guarantee you, that is the way it works.

    You mistook my cheap joke (hint: “fuck” can be taken several ways) for a serious statement, but that’s no biggie, I’m not exactly a paragon of clarity. More importantly, for all your flamethrowing, you have no fucking idea what even the people who agree with you on this thread are talking about. You think we’re hashing out the best way to appeal to BJ readers? Or–and this is downright asinine, but it’s the only way your caterwauling makes sense within the context of the argument–are you trying to make the case that this blog is a microcosm of the American electorate?

    Because that’s about as true as you are tolerable.

  138. 138
    Nick says:

    @DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective: Oh I’m sorry, I was still assuming you were living in your naive utopia where people will become voting armies of Deaniacs if Democrats yell and scream a little.

  139. 139
    Xanthippas says:

    Yeah, it’s for some empty head news anchor to opine about why the public doesn’t like Congress. Maybe the public doesn’t like Congress because people in the fucking media feed us shit and gossip day in and and day out and then try to tell us it’s the politicians who make them do it.

  140. 140
    Gen. Jrod and his Howling Army says:

    @Nick:

    The Rev. Wright story nearly buried him. You and I both know that.

    What? Were we in separate universes during the summer of 2008? What I saw with Wright was a huge media effort to make what Wright said a big deal, and that effort failed. The Republican base and old white people who are irrationally afraid of black people (but I repeat myself) ate it up. The other 70% of the population yawned.

    You overestimate the media’s power, which is kind of funny since they actually are very powerful. They don’t, however, have encephalo-beams that magically turn everyone who sees their product to a chosen point of view. They still have to convince people, and their credibility falls with every passing day.

    Powerful? Oh, yes. All-powerful? That’s just an excuse to do nothing.

    I do agree with you that the media is no friend to the left. We should never count on any help from them, and should instead assume that they will spin things in the worst possible way for us. That being the case, though, there’s no point in criticizing any Democrat for doing something the media will slant against them. It doesn’t fucking matter.

    Also, just because your work-place is full of right-wing drones, don’t assume that the entire country is the same. Obama was handily elected despite the best efforts of the right and their media bozos, so obviously there are people out there who don’t think like your dumbfuck coworkers. Lots of them.

  141. 141
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    More importantly, for all your flamethrowing, you have no fucking idea what even the people who agree with you on this thread are talking about. You think we’re hashing out the best way to appeal to BJ readers?

    Fuck off. I don’t know or care what people who “agree with me” are saying. I am beating up on a complete idiot, Nick, and saying what I like, as I like to say it.

    I have never made any assertion about this blog being or not being a micro, macro or any other kind of cosm of anything. It’s just Balloon Juice, an obscure blog with a rather eccentric and idiosyncratic bunch of commenters. Nothing more or less.

    If you don’t like it then go fuck yourself. I don’t care. At all.

    Ever. Not today or any other day. Like I said, I won’t make you look at a cat ass boil, and I won’t say stupid shit like Nick does. If you prefer those things, you are at home here.

  142. 142
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    @Nick:

    What the hell are you talking about? I have never been a Deaniac. I respect the guy, but I don’t think elected office is his forte. I think doing the cable shows and sticking it Republicans is much more up his alley.

  143. 143
    Tom Hilton says:

    @DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective:

    I am beating up on a complete idiot, Nick, and saying what I like, as I like to say it.

    If Nick’s an idiot, then you’re fighting way above your weight class.

    Or trying to, anyway.

    Oh, and by the way? Drunk, lazy, and stupid is no way to go through life. Just saying.

  144. 144
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    @Tom Hilton:

    Nick is a guy who thinks that the media controls what happens at the voting booth. His words, pretty much verbatim, I think. And he also thinks that I should be careful how I talk on a blog.

    Now, you want to defend a guy like that, go right ahead, Tom, it’s about par for somebody of your great intellect.

    Drunk, lazy and stupid? What is the matter with you? You don’t know anything about me, you piece of shit. Who the fuck do you think you are talking to?

  145. 145
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    Maybe the public doesn’t like Congress because people in the fucking media feed us shit

    Oh, right, if it weren’t for the media, people would love congress. Who wouldn’t? The leadership! The compassion! The integrity! The fiscal responsibility! What’s to hate?

    ( rolls eyes )

    Jesus.

  146. 146
    Nick says:

    @Gen. Jrod and his Howling Army:

    What? Were we in separate universes during the summer of 2008? What I saw with Wright was a huge media effort to make what Wright said a big deal, and that effort failed.

    Well if you were watching it in the summer, then yeah, since the Rev. Wright fiasco happened in the Spring and destroyed him in the Pennsylvania primary. The Wright effort failed because he gave his race speech, which everyone fawned over for weeks.

    You overestimate the media’s power, which is kind of funny since they actually are very powerful. They don’t, however, have encephalo-beams that magically turn everyone who sees their product to a chosen point of view. They still have to convince people, and their credibility falls with every passing day.

    Which would explain why whenever the media sets a narrative, two weeks later, the public is polling in line with that narrative, right?

    Powerful? Oh, yes. All-powerful? That’s just an excuse to do nothing.

    Did I say do nothing? No, when someone upthread asked me what can be done. I gave suggestions.

    Also, just because your work-place is full of right-wing drones, don’t assume that the entire country is the same. Obama was handily elected despite the best efforts of the right and their media bozos, so obviously there are people out there who don’t think like your dumbfuck coworkers. Lots of them.

    He also was elected with the votes of those right wing drones.

  147. 147
    Gen. Jrod and his Howling Army says:

    @Nick: We must have different definitions of destroyed, since mine doesn’t allow for the destroyed candidate to go on to win the primary. He lost a state primary. Big deal, he lost a bunch of them. He wasn’t likely to win Penn. even without the trumped up scandal. Also, there was a plug’s difference between Clinton and Obama on policy, who who really cares?

    The GOP then spent the 3-4 months before the election trying desperately to make people care about Wright. They didn’t. Also, to say that it would have been a disaster if not for Obama’s race speech is a little odd. You’re saying that specious right-wing propaganda was rendered useless when the target of the smear faced it head-on and slapped it down? I like that approach too.

    Another approach is to pull a Vilsack. Freak out, panic that you might OMG lose the next couple news cycles, and take drastic measures in the vain hope that the media will forget about it. I think this method’s success rate speaks for itself.

    Which would explain why whenever the media sets a narrative, two weeks later, the public is polling in line with that narrative, right?

    And then two weeks later it’s as long gone as a gentle breeze. If the Wright scandal had broken a week before the election, no doubt it would have hurt Obama more. Outside of October surprises, though, obsessing about winning the cycle is pointless. The vast majority of the American people don’t watch cable news or read blogs and newspapers unless it’s a special occasion, like an election. They form their political opinions based on one minute radio news spots, word of mouth, maybe some network nightly news, maybe a morning show, and political ads. Any scandal that doesn’t involve fucking or killing is quickly forgotten by these folks.

  148. 148
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    I just couldn’t get over that they were willing to stand next to each other.

Comments are closed.