Freep biased MSNBC article against Dean, Dems

The following article

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

is on MSNBC and can be freeped at the bottom of the page where you rate articles.

The GOP is splitting on Iraq and Dems are finally coming together, and the American people are firmly now against the war.  But what is MSNBC's response?  A headline about how Dems fear anti-war talk will backfire.

The article includes all of the compulsory MSM alternate reality attributes, including:

1.  Anti-war feelings are always unpopular and pro-war ones are always good, no matter what the polls say.
   
2.  It's always the Democrats who should be portrayed as in trouble, out of touch, flailing, disunited, etc.
   
3.  Howard Dean should always be reduced to his pseudo-scream (yes, pseudo, I DemDachshund was there) in Iowa
   
4.  Always quote as many Dems as possible that are trying desperately to distance themselves from Dean, but none that agree with or support him.

I can't find how you make the above webpage into an actual link, even though I have done this before.  It's just been a long time.  I wish DKos would put the instructions up on the New Diary Entry page.  Feel free to tell me how.  I am at work and don't want to spend forever looking for that.

I just wanted to make this diary and encourage the freeping because this really pisses me off.

•  Pisses me off too

  but I'm even more angry that they can so easily find Democrats willing to attack Dean and Pelosi instead of Bush. Unfortunately, this article strikes me as a fairly accurate account of where Democrats are these days.

  So rather than freeping MSNBC, I think we should all be bombarding Rahm Emmanuel and the others quoted in this article with angry calls demanding they start listening to the vast majority of rank-and-file Dems.

  by matt n nyc on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 08:30:03 AM PDT

•  This makes my blood boil

  From the article you linked to:

  "We have not blown our chance" of winning back the House but "we have jeopardized it," said a top strategist to House Democrats, who declined to speak for attribution criticizing influential party leaders. "It raises questions about whether we are capable of seizing political opportunities or whether we cannot help ourselves and blow it" by playing to the liberal base of the party.

  Who the hell is this "top strategist," and what are his or her credentials? How much is this person paid, and how long has he or she been based in Washington, D.C.?

  The problem with the Democratic Party is that it has too long listened to "top strategists" who tell them not to rock the boat because it might offend people. Republicans don't think that way. The stand up for their beliefs, wrong as they often are. And that's why they win.
  

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 08:35:34 AM PDT

  •  Dick Morris?

    by NYC Sophia on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 09:18:08 AM PDT

  •  Top DLC Strategist perhaps?

    Yeah, let's not "blow it"  by playing to the liberal base of the party.  Or the 60+% of the American public who wants us the fuck out of Iraq!

    Better to stay the course and jump on the Joementum Express!

    by ABBinMI on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 09:24:24 AM PDT

  •  Or could it be someone the media fabricated

    To say what they want the Dems to say, which is what Repubs would say?

    by DemDachshund on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 09:54:48 AM PDT

•  Oh the Big Dems will come around

  We're seeing far less Democratic denunciation of Dean this time; the Post reporters had to troll the C List and D List Dems to find anyone who would condemn the Dean comment (except for Emmanuel, a special case I'll deal with later).

  Of course the Dem "leadership" does not "agree" with ... the Dem Leadership in this case. They never do. The "Leadership" being composed of discredited consultants and outright Bush enablers... The Leadership being composed of electeds who actually listen to and act on behalf of the People...

  In the context of the Washington Post as Court Circular for the Regime, this story is nothing but a society page gossip item. Everyone (who is anyone) denounces Dean as a kind of Court Ritual. The White House demanded ALL Dems denounce Dean forthwith.  Only this time, fewer and fewer can be found who will do it, and those who will are falling further and further behind the curve.

  Don't forget, LOTS of leading Republicans are pretty much in agreeance with Dean on this one.

  --felix

  by felix19 on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 08:49:39 AM PDT

•  Dean needs to choose his words more carefully

  I agree that this is a terrible article.  I am so tired of the media continually portraying Dean as some kind of cartoon and going with the scream story.

  But the unnamed Democratic strategist isn't the only Dem to find Dean's comments cringeworthy.  They were awful.  Bloody awful.  Top Dems like Howard need to discipline themselves strongly about using the words winning and losing.  I don't disagree with Dean, but words matter.  You need to spin this that our military is capable, but the overall strategy is wrong.  The war in Iraq is a strategic error that is weakening our position in the war on terror.  We absolutely must be successful in the war on terror, and our troops are up to the task.

  Defeatism will get the Democrats destroyed in 2006.  My father-in-law voted for Bush after having voted Clinton and Gore in the last 2 elections.  He watches like 3 hours of CNN Headline News a day and totally buys the media cartoon of Howard Dean.  He is dismayed by the Iraq War and wants something better from the Dems.  Just last weekend he said "I sure wish the Democrats didn't have that Howard Dean up there in front all the time."  (He likes Joe Lieberman-ugh-, but I digress.)  But the more Dean has these kinds of sound bites, the less chance he will vote Dem next time.  This is a voter that the Dems will get back in their column if folks like Dean can steer clear of the pessimism and defeatism.  There's more like him, and we need them badly.  So please, Howard-- work on delivering the message without the defeatism.

  by Dave in Madison on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 09:13:23 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for bringing this perspective

    While your dad's having been brainwashed on Dean may go beyond the scream, I just want you to know I'm willing to email you (so you can email to him) my essay on the media account of that compared to my eyewitness account and the media's reasons for demonizing Dean to the public.

    by DemDachshund on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 10:00:58 AM PDT

  •  With all due respect...

    ...BULLSHIT

    I've heard variations on this theme every time Dean speaks a plain truth.

    "Why are Democrats supporting the war?"  Everyone thought Dean was nuts, yet how many Democrats would now take back their vote if they could (note none of this appies to that piece of shit Lieberman).

    "Capturing Saddam hasn't made us any safer".  I remember Peter Jennings (RIP) going nuclear on some masturbatory news panel on this one at the time, yet do any of us feel safer two years after capturing Saddam?

    And now speaking the plain truth that the "Iraq war is unwinnable".  Guess what - IT IS!  

    I'm not going to wring my hands about a Democratic leader actually willing to speak the truth.  The only time this doesn't "play" is when people allow the Republicans and corporate media to second guess their convictions.

    I refuse to do it.  We've got jacasses like O'Reilly out there riling up the rabble with the latest Christian persecution complex - direct your ire there if you need a straw man.

    by guyute16 on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 10:06:22 AM PDT

•  Not an MSGOP article

  It is a reprint of the same WaPo article discussed in this diary.

  by davybaby on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 09:15:08 AM PDT

•  THREAD THE NEEDLE

  a lot of what`s in the article is true.the gop can
  spin any anti iraq talk as not patriotic and pull their usual smears at the end of the campaign.
  the democrats just have no guts, they could go anti war and piss of about 40% but they want it both ways.that`s why they can`t really win elections.we really need a viable 3rd party because republicans are lying scum and democrats are a weak alternative.

  by JOEL1954 on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 09:33:46 AM PDT

•  Why are Democrats always "afraid"???

  I saw this headline as well, but didn't read the story because I dismissed it as just another boring MSM attempt to portray the Democrats as afraid, as disorganized, and as unable to take a principled stand.  I am sick of it.  Point One:  I firmly believe these articles are meant to sow seeds of doubt with Democrats about their leaders.  Point Two:  If Democrats are too afraid to listen to their leaders, like Dean, speak the truth, then let them vote for another incompetent, pro-war, pro-oil, anti-abortion moron like Bush.  But meanwhile, the entire Democratic Party needs to grow a backbone.  Until they do, they won't win another election by just going along with Republican nationalistic rhetoric, or failing to confront it.

  by dhfsfc on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 09:47:41 AM PDT

•  The Defeatist attitude will kill us..

  at election time. What Dean said is probably true, but he should have said it better. While we are waging the "War on Terror", it will never be good to say that the USA can't win this war. It would be better to say that Bush can't win this war on terror.
  

  by Jotorious on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 10:14:20 AM PDT

•  Dean was right, he said it properly.

  Truth is truth, and many of us are just tired of the Democrats with carefully chosen words that mean nothing.

  And Patrick Murphy, do you think the war should continue?  Should no one speak out on it?

  Is that going to be the patterm for military fighting Dems?  Maybe we are running too many military if they want to continue this war so much.

  I remember Vietnam, I am glad Howard Dean spoke up.

  by floridagal on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 10:20:22 AM PDT

•  And I forgot to add...

  If you are running as a Democrat, a first-time contender, running as a "fighting dem"...it might be wise not to tick off those in the party who are anti-war and go against the chairman as well.

  There are enough Democrats out for his head already, so a word to the wise...clarify your words if you were misquoted that Dean does not speak for you.

  It ticked off a lot of people.  This war is hurting us, the words needed to be said.  No one else would, so he did.

  by floridagal on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 10:49:09 AM PDT