Skip to main content

As I have written in various comments in the past, I have watched with sadness as the Economist, once a proudly independent paper, has turned into a Bush hack of the lowliest variety.

They used to wear they pro-markets, pro free trade color proudly, but would separate facts from editorial comment clearly, and had no problem recognising when they were wrong or when facts did not go their way. It's no longer the case today, with partisanship taking over and being all the more vicious that it's still somewhat discreet and hard to see if you don't have the underlying facts at hand.

But what interests me today is that, in this context, DailyKos has become one of their favorite targets for ridicule or contempt. And that's good news for us.

Santa is on his way (Oct. 20, 2005)

READERS of the Daily Kos, a left-wing blog, are so excited about the fact that Patrick Fitzgerald is about to wrap up his two-year inquiry into the Bush administration's alleged outing of a CIA agent, Valerie Plame, that they are swapping tips on how to keep calm. Give up the coffee; resist the urge to check the Drudge Report every minute; and when what they call "Fitzmas" finally comes, enjoy the moment. Take a deep breath and witness a great wrong being righted.

At last, something for the Democrats to cheer about (Nov. 10, 2005)

Before the results were known, Mr Kaine said the Virginia race would be decided on state, not national issues. But he added that Mr Bush's problems--the president's approval ratings are below 40%--would probably help him. Other Democrats were more blunt. Mr Corzine taunted his Republican opponent, Douglas Forrester, as "George Bush's choice for governor". The Daily Kos, a liberal blog, suggested that Democrats should pay Mr Bush's travel expenses in the run-up to next year's mid-term elections, since the president "clearly help[s] us more than [his] own guys".

These above are from the news sections, and are still relatively neutral. Newt we get to the Lexington column, which is supposed to be a dispassionate comment on the big picture of US politics, and which has been completely taken over by Bush fan(s).

Hold the champagne (Oct. 6, 2005)

The Democrats cannot rely on the Republicans' current woes to deliver victories in 2006 and 2008

The reason for this is as simple as it is potentially lethal: the Democrats are split down the middle on everything from Iraq to gay marriage. Centrists believe in working with business, protecting family values and fighting terrorism. "We believe that the September 11th attacks changed America for ever," says the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), "and defeating terrorism is the supreme military and moral mission of our time." Liberal activists believe the opposite: that corporations are bad, family values are hogwash, and the war on terror a delusion.

Worse still, the wrong side is getting the upper hand. A new generation of angry young activists have used their mastery of the internet to tilt the party to the left. Groups such as (which claims 3.3m members) and blogs such as the Daily Kos (which has thousands of partisans venting daily) now colour the whole tone of the political debate on the left.

The teenage scribblers of the left seem to be turning the Democrats into a deranged version of Pavlov's dog--reacting to every stimulus from Professor Rove's laboratory rather than thinking ahead.

Guns to the left, guns to the right (Jan 12, 2006)

The Clinton restoration project is under fire from both sides

Mrs Clinton may have the traditional feminist and labour groups in her pocket, but the internet is devolving power from client groups to local activists. The internet left is in open revolt against the Washington establishment, and it looks back on the Clinton presidency not as a triumph that should be repeated but as an error that should be avoided--a time when the party gave in on welfare and public spending and lost control of Congress.

Mrs Clinton will probably face a much more formidable field of competitors than Mr Bush did in 2000 (when John McCain was pretty much it). Her repositioning has already opened up space to her left which is being filled by Russ Feingold and John Edwards. As Ronald Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times argues, the former may become the Howard Dean of the 2008 campaign. The senator for Wisconsin has been a consistent critic of both the Iraq war and Mr Bush's war powers; he was the first senator to endorse a time-line for withdrawing and the only one to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001. He has also assiduously cultivated the netroots (he is a regular blogger on the Daily Kos).

The losers (Feb. 2, 2006)

Last week, [John Kerry] not only made the mistake of calling for a filibuster of Samuel Alito that had no chance of succeeding (to have any chance of making this archaic senatorial device work with a Supreme Court nominee, you first need to have demonised your victim); he also made the mistake of making that call from Davos.

From the perspective of Davos Man, this was doubtless an impressively global stunt (how Ms Jolie must have purred on the chairlift). But in the real world of American politics, it was disastrous. Scott McClellan, George Bush's normally lacklustre press secretary, joked about it being "pretty serious yodelling to call for a filibuster from a five-star ski resort in the Swiss Alps". The Wall Street Journal sniped that Mr Kerry had been "communing with his political base" in Davos. Democrats were furious. They saw it as a transparent play for support from the party's over-excited activists, the insider turned calculating insurgent (Mr Kerry even wrote about the filibuster on a left-wing blog).

Thisweek, we are mentioned in the obituary of one of the big names of the RWNM:

Michael Joyce - The architect (March 2, 2006)

A conservative every Democrat should study carefully

Mr Joyce had an uncanny ability to back ideas that seemed wacky at the time, but have since passed into the mainstream. He provided cash for writers such as Allan Bloom ("The Closing of the American Mind") and Charles Murray ("Losing Ground"). He was the eminence grise behind both Milwaukee's school-voucher programme and welfare reform in Wisconsin. And he was an early supporter of providing welfare services through "faith-based organisations", which became the kernel of "compassionate conservatism".

Conservatives naturally revered Mr Joyce--not just for changing the intellectual climate but for keeping many of them out of penury (just check the prefaces of many conservative books). Arguably, though, the people who should study him most nowadays are on the left. Liberal America does not lack cash; nor does it lack people who are prepared to be unpleasant, as a glance at websites like the Daily Kos will show. But it has nobody with Mr Joyce's ability to spot unconventional big ideas.

The mentions are altogether too frequent to be innocuous.

They are a good thing in that they reflect the growing impact of DailyKos on the political scene in the USA - so much so that the website is now featured regularly in descriptions of what the debates are.

They are a good thing in that DailyKos is now identified as a big enough danger that it cannot safely be ignored and must be demonised, as the above extracts show. The intent is very transparently to paint this site, and the rest of the netroots as extremist and juvenile, nasty and ineffective, and to taint all the political figures that dare associate themselves with us. This makes sense only as a attempt to negate the very real impact of the site.

So kudos to georgia10 for "Fitzmas" to have been acknowledged so publicly, and kudos to Markos and to all the kossacks to have made this place audible, but we should not be complacent.

I've been reading the Economist for 15 years, and their systematic, if often subtle, French-bashing is a feature I've learnt to discount and read around. Same thing here, it's easy for me to detect the partisan stuff and analyse it like I'm doing here. But for most casual readers, this is probably the first time they are hearing about DailyKos, and the only thing they'll hear about it. It's good that they do hear about it, as the readership of the Economist is highly influential (in business, politics, academia, and increasingly in the US than in Europe), but it's not so good that they see the site as an extremist place.

Just as most people now spontaneously associate France with protectionism, rigidity, stagnation, chaos, anti-semitism, unemployment (which, if you read the European Tribune enough, will know is pretty far from the truth), there is an obvious - to me - attempt to similarly taint the netroots: these early stains, repeated enough as "fact" and not as opinion, spread discreetly from influential places like the Economist to "common wisdom": DailyKos is nasty, noisy, overexcited, clueless, and, eventually, irrelevant. That's just the way it is.

Of course, that may simply be wishful thinking on the side of increasingly embattled commentators - or denial of the reality, but we try to avoid both of these pitfalls over here, so we should at least be aware of these whispering campaigns, and do our best to prove them wrong, by continuing to push great research, fact finding and checking, information clearing and debate rather than conspiracy theories or unsubstantiated stories.

Community choices (by rating and recommending) is our chance for all to speak up, it is our strength and it is our responsibility to use it for the best purpose, and first of all against the lies of the right.

But make no mistake, they are fighting us back very directly, in the ways they best know, by manipulating public perceptions.

Update [2006-3-6 13:50:38 by Jerome a Paris]:

As the point has been raised a couple of times already, let me comment on their endorsement of Kerry in 2004. It is true that they ended up choosing Kerry over Bush, but it was extremely lukewarm, and more of a statement against Bush's incompetence and against torture, as they were very negative on Kerry.

Just like Andrew Sullivan, they still shouted "we won" when Bush won, it was very strange.

Their articles have been consistently anti-Democrats. They fully agree with Bush on the "big picture", and think they can get away with the "poor execution" criticism alone.

Do note as well that there are factions within the paper. When yo uread it enough, you can tell if it's a wingnut or an old-school journalist writing.

Originally posted to Jerome a Paris on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:18 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar - Mar. 6 (3.98)

    In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
    Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

    by Jerome a Paris on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:16:36 AM PST

    •  yes I agree. Bush will have his way in the end. (none)
      He will follow his Doctrine, in the dictionary and known as rhe doctrine of destruction regardless.

      James M Joiner or

      by jmsjoin on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:26:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Who is actually writing for the Economist now? (4.00)
      IIRC, the Economist always prided itself on using very talented, but anonymous, young writers (roughly age 25-35) to research and write the bulk of their articles.

      If that is still the case, I can't help but think that the shift in coverage is more of a social reaction. The writers know they're smart and gifted, but are jealous that these bloggers are getting more attention than they are. Remember, they have to stay anonymous - Markos and everyone who posts here can get as much attention as they want (call it the Armando syndrome). So the shift in the Economist coverage strikes me as a case of the honor students showing their contempt for the "cool kids." By disparaging us as a bunch of partisans and teenagers, it makes them feel more secure in their own position.

      - "You're Hells Angels, then? What chapter are you from?"

      by Hoya90 on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:29:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  1995 (4.00)
        Nearly every day, starting in 1995, I could read about the "Dangers of the internet" or "It's a fad".

        At the time, I was working for a newspaper and the cold-sweat-gut-wrenching fear was palpable in the newsroom. I think the circulation department was actually doing voodoo rituals.

        You still see them. You see plenty of tv news stories about the evil Internet and how it will hurt your kids.

        It's all about money people. And if the only people who were still reading your paper were the ones who refused to learn this newfangled "inner-nit", well, you'd cater to their more conservative values too.

        Of course, journalistically that is one step above "Elvis Bat-Boy Drains Nurse of Blood in Delivery Room". But nowadays who's to quibble?

        [ Anyone who thinks my bark is worse than my bite, has never seen me bite. ] -6.63 | -5.38

        by dj angst on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:46:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I am not worried (4.00)
      The YearlyKos convention will obliterate all these carefully constructed demonizing and marginalizing of dKos participants. The images and words of maturity na wisdom coming out of accomplished professionals at the conference will be too much of a reality check.

      I predict that the "teenage angry exstremists" frame will not survive, and that YearlyKos will be instrumental in bringing it down.

  •  "And that's good news for us." (4.00)
    Amen! There is no such thing as "bad" publicity. Bring us more readers. As Olbermann said of O'Reilly, "Thanks for all the publicity."
    •  Yep (none)
      as long as they spell the (website)name correctly.

      For it is often easier to fight for principles than to live up to them." - Adlai Stevenson, 27 August 1952

      by ROGNM on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:04:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  becuz there is a "daillykos" website (none)
        that features the polemics of Ann Coulter. I stumbled into it while mistyping
        •  If that's so (none)
          Kos has to file a claim with the WIPO (governing agency) and put a stop to it.  I'd be glad to point to resources explaining how to do so.  (Can't offer to do so myself, as I don't control my own selection of clients.)

          My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

          by Major Danby on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 03:18:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks, O'Reilly (4.00)
      Bill O'Reilly is a genius when it comes to recommending television programs. First, he trash-talked the viewers of the Daily Show, so I had to check out the Daily Show to see what the fuss was about. I've been a loyal viewer ever since.

      Now I am going to set my TiVo to pick up Olbermann's show too. Bill O'Reilly isn't completely useless. I can't wait for him to tell me about some other shows I might enjoy.

    •  definitely good news for us (4.00)
      Before I heard of DKos I used to visit freeperland just to take a peek at the kind of crap that was turning my mom into a political simpleton (freerepublic is her homepage!). When I finally dug up DKos, the first thing I noticed was that (unlike the freepers) the bloggers here were much more prone to challenge the inevitable misinformation and rumormongeringthat is pretty much the standard byproduct of the political blogosphere. Freepers, I've noticed, get VERY DEFENSIVE when their information is challenged. Drudge and Newsmax are treated as gospel over there. Here, people are likely to thank you, or at least acknowledge the validity of counter-evidence when you challenge the facts presented in a post. We have a much more active bullshit meter here, and I think new visitors with any kind of wit and rhetorical acumen will (at least occasionally) be pleasantly surprised if their visit here is prompted by badmouthing elsewhere.

      And speaking of wit, has anybody seen the Scotty Show lately? What happened?

      resist much, obey little

      by frankzappatista on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 01:35:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So true (4.00)
        I myself have posted some things, gotten corrected, and then posted my thanks for the correction.

        I think that demonstrates a basic diff bwtn them and us. It's not "liberal vs conservative" as much as it  is:

        • "fact based vs faith/fear/ego based,"
        • or "truth vs truthiness,"
        • or "the cause vs the team,"
        • or "effectiveness vs loyalty,"
        • or "ideas vs ideology."

        (BTW, there are a few ego driven posters around here too--especially the political correctors--and I don't trust them. I kinda wish they would go live in freeperland, and I suspect some will end up there eventually.)
    •  Cheers! (none)
      That the Economist finds Daily Kos so significant that it must be derided is a mark in history worthy of a beer and those pretzel thingies that wazhisname can't handle.

      A toast to Kos and the Kossacks!  Long may we scare 'em!!!!

      "Injustice wears ever the same harsh face wherever it shows itself." - Ralph Ellison

      by KateCrashes on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 03:22:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good stuff (4.00)
    The Economist seems to have turned into yet another Bush hack paper.  That being said, to paraphrase George Clooney, I'm proud of being out of the mainstream.  Even moreso, I'm proud to be a progressive, rather than a DLC hack.
    •  The Economist is schizophrenic... (4.00)
      ....thanks, Jerome, for putting together a comprehensive look at their writings about Daily Kos. I gleefully posted their story about our Fitzmas celebrations because it was one of the few times they weren't totally snarky about us.

          I still subscribe because I enjoy their foreign coverage, their offbeat stories that enliven their pages. But some observations (with which I agree with other posters here):

       * Their Washington bureau recycles GOP Talking Points.

       * Their dedication to globalization is unparalleled; I believe they see the resulting unemployment and depressed wages as a key feature - but are either unwilling, not courageous enough or too-clever-by-half to admit it.

       * Part of the problem with the lack of bylines is that they do have people write stories contrary to the editorials ("leaders" in UK parlance) and so more than once I've said, "Huh"?

       * Their endorsement of John Kerry was truly damning with faint praise: "With a heavy heart,  we think American readers should vote for John Kerry on November 2nd" - and their primary complaint was simply Bush's incompetence.

       *  Then, they had a front-page headline recently with "The one thing Bush got right" - promoting democracy - when they normally praise much of what he does, less the incomptency and social conservatism.

       * They seem to place great stock in what Bush says, not in what he does. One Lexington essay said that W spoke highly of practioners of Islam, but was baffled when Lt Gen William Boykin used the "My God is bigger than theirs". The article wondered why the mixed messages? Dolts! Of course they say different things to different audiences, and utilize a division-of-labor in having underlings and pundits do the dirty work.

       * And when discussing African-American voters, they relentlessly ask why they vote so heavily for Democrats? When reporting about porro regions of the Plains, Upper Midwest and the Rocky Mountains (and confirm that there are mostly white voters there), somehow they forget to ask about their dogged support of the Republican Party (an oversight, I asked in an e-mail? No reply).

        With all of this, they can still be very thoughtful about many other issues, and I still find it valuable to read what they have to say. But obviously, it is trying at times.

      "We should pay attention to that man behind the curtain"

      by Ed Tracey on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 02:24:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Worth emphasizing: Lexington sucks (none)
        I seem to remember that the former writer left within the last year or so-- whoever is doing it now is a GOP talking points reciter of the worst ilk.   In particular, this columnist recycles every Democratic consultant CW talking point that comes along.  I used to enjoy reading it-- now I try to avoid it since it is likely to enrage me.

        I have subscribed for over 10 years, and I do think that they have drifted toward a Bush-leaning perspective.  Even then, they were merciless on Clinton, so maybe I am giving them too much credit.  I still think the magazine is worth getting for its international coverage, which is very ahrd to get with any reliable quality in the United States.

        •  Absolutely... (none)
          I don't always agree with The Economist, and in fact, I sometimes just skip their United States section completely, but I do think I get a lot out of it.  Charlemange is a bit less Euroskeptical than it once was, and Bagehot (besides his[?] relentless bashing of the Lib Dems) is pretty solid on the UK.  The articles are clearly very opinionated, but there is plenty of good information there if you're prepared to sieve through them.
  •  Hopelessly o/t (none)
    J a P, can you point to any discussion of this unfortunate (IMO) development? Wondered what your thoughts might be?
    •  I saw that story (none)
      the Blair government has been pretty confused on energy policy, and has done several U-Turns. The latest has been the brutal change from fully anti-nuclear (3 years ago) to just as fully pro-nuclear.

      A lot of people are anti-wind in the UK (as you may have noticed if you peruse my wind diaries here) - some are linked to the coal or nuclear lobbies, some are linked to anti-subsidy, "free markets" extremism, some are just riding the NIMBY train, and some are just asking questions and the answers by the authorities are not very clear.

      Public support for wind in speeches has never really translated into effective policies, and that example is fairly typical.

      In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
      Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

      by Jerome a Paris on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:34:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  One interesting part of the story (none)
        is that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth were so enthusiastically backing the project. Fought by tourist interests in Cumbria, very shorsighted IMO. It is beautiful for hiking etc., or was last time I was there, but the NIMBY automatic feeling that power generation would detract from that is very wrong, again IMO. Obviously, Cumbria Tourism disagreed and won the day.
      •  Wind power may not be very good yet (4.00)
        At producing electricity, (getting a lot better) but what it has been good at for a long time is pumping.

        Most home usage of electricity goes to heating and cooling the air and heating water and heat pumps are extraordinarily efficient for doing this.

        What I can't figure out is why someone has not yet decided to marry wind power with the heat pump to take care of most of our heating and cooling needs and the heating of water.

        You would not even need to convert wind power to electricity.  Just use the wind power to directly compress the new environmental freon.

        Also, here in the US, especially in the south, we often have wind tubines on our roofs.  They are only designed to ventilate the attic, but much better ones could be used to compress freon to heat and cool our homes.  And they are not even ugly because they are round, low, and somewhat mushroom shaped.  Vent pipes protruding from the roof are far uglier.

      •  Public support for wind in speeches (none)
        Ha!  You made a funny!!  Public support for "wind" in speeches is just now ebbing from an all time high, imo.  Talk won't keep the lights on.

        Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving: it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.--Thomas Paine

        by peterborocanuck on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 02:47:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good diary ... (none)
     ... unfortunate typo:
    "relatively neutral. Newt we get to the Lexington ".  Obviously, "NeXt"

    George Bush: LIAR, LOSER, WASTREL, TRAITOR, TORTURER. Worse than the Worst President Ever.

    by Yellow Canary on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:28:35 AM PST

    •  Beelzebub pinky. (none)
      For that matter it's "demonization" in American English.  Is "demonisation" a Britishism?

      George Bush: LIAR, LOSER, WASTREL, TRAITOR, TORTURER. Worse than the Worst President Ever.

      by Yellow Canary on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:34:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  it iz indeed (4.00)

        In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
        Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

        by Jerome a Paris on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:35:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I love the "the" (4.00)
          As in "The" Daily Kos. It's not just that no one here calls the site, "the" Daily Kos, only further exemplifying how out of touch with what really goes on here The Economist is, but it also reminds my of this great Ukrainian professor I had in college.

          On the first day of class, some chump asked a question about "'The' Ukraine," and Andrey went on this off-the-cuff rant, in a thick Slavic accent, that went something like, "Why is it always a 'the' with Americans? There is no 'the' Ukraine, there is only Ukraine. My country is called Ukraine. The 'the' is nothing but Soviet propaganda to make my country appear as though it were nothing more than a Russian region, rather than a what should be soverign nation. You are nothing but a tool of old Soviet propaganda. Do you like being a tool of Soviet propaganda? The silence is deafening?"

          Thought the kid - little rich white Republican named Jay - was gonna cry. It was great. Great prof.

  •  Didn't the Economist (4.00)
    endorse John Kerry in 2004? It's pretty incredible that they wouldn't endorse George Bush back then but a year later when things are far far worse, they become his poodle? That is strange.


    by michael1104 on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:29:52 AM PST

    •  Not really (none)
      they did choose Kerry over Bush, but it was more of a statement against Bush's incompetence and against torture, as they were extremely negative on Kerry.

      Just like Andrew Sullivan, they still shouted "we won" when Bush won, it was very strange.

      Their articles have been consistently anti-Democrats. They fulyl agree with Bush on the "big picture", and think they can get away with the "poor execution" criticism alone.

      In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
      Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

      by Jerome a Paris on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:44:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They weren't extremely negative on Kerry (none)
        they just weren't huge fans of his more protectionist stances. But then again, what else would you expect from a magazine whose central ideology is free trade?

        Republicans aren't evil. They're just wrong.

        by AnnArborBlue on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:47:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Resign, Rumsfeld (none)
          Was a front page cover of theirs too.

          Lexington's bias is obvious.  The column infuriates me.  The news and other coverage I'm ok with.

          They're still the best paper to read for international coverage, and the round ups of significant economic or scientific news are excellent too.

          I'd say their picking on DK and blogs in general is more a defence of a very traditional magazine against declining readership.  Why pay for The Economist's coverage when I can come to DK or other blogs for free?

          I'm not ready to put them in the pile with Fox and the Washington Times.  I take Jerome's criticisms seriously and they are points against the Economist, but they're not hacks yet in my book.

          "I will make a bargain with the Republicans. If they will stop telling lies about Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." -- Adlai Stevenson

          by Scientician on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:32:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Welcome back AAB (none)
          Beautiful diary on the M&M's.  Hope all the family is rallying together.

          As to the Economist, my recollection is that they were critical of more than just his perceived protectionism

          John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago.

          "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

          by NearlyNormal on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:43:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry, hit wrong button above, (none)
            More from Economist Oct 28 2004

            On trade, his position is more debatable: while an avowed free trader with a voting record in the Senate to confirm it, he has flirted with attacks on outsourcing this year and chosen a rank protectionist as his running-mate.

            The biggest questions, though, must be about foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. That is where his oscillations are most unsettling. A war that he voted to authorise, and earlier this year claimed to support, he now describes as "a mistake". On some occasions he claims to have been profoundly changed by September 11th and to be determined to seek out and destroy terrorists wherever they are hiding, and on others he has seemed to hark back to the old Clintonian view of terrorism as chiefly a question of law and order. He has failed to offer any set of overall objectives for American foreign policy, though perhaps he could hardly oppose Mr Bush's targets of democracy, human rights and liberty. But instead he has merely offered a different process: deeper thought, more consultation with allies.

            So what is Mr Kerry's character? His voting record implies he is a vacillator, but that may be unfair, given the technical nature of many Senate votes. His oscillations this year imply that he is more of a ruthless opportunist.

            I think that it is only fair to say that the Economist was sharply critical of more than just his trade policy.

            I think also, that Jerome's critique is far deeper than just the Kerry/Bush question, the staff seems eager to explain away every failure and to claim victory anywhere the regime does not face indisputable disaster.  From the 27 Oct 2005 edition in an article called "Storm Damage", after a lengthy discussion of all the fallout from the bungled handling of Katrina, the Miers nomination fiasco, and the obvious spin-doctoring about the Plame affair the article says,

            It would be foolish to count Mr Bush out--especially if Mr Rove survives. The Republicans still look well placed to hang on to Congress next year--if only because the Democrats are so shambolic. The withdrawal of Ms Miers may even come to be seen a turning point. But only if Mr Bush learns from his mistakes

            The article ends on a cheerleading note,

            Mr Bush is an odd mixture. Few recent presidents have come to the White House with such a bold vision to change society or been so willing to spend political capital in that quest. But his boldness will come to naught if it is not followed up by efficient execution. Unless he tidies up his administration after this storm, Mr Bush runs the risk of sullying the ideas that he has championed.

            Since, for me, it is not just-or even mainly-Bush that I detest, but rather his policies of rapine, murder, torture, neglect, and hypocrisy, I have some difficulty how one could possibly sully any of his ideas.

            "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

            by NearlyNormal on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 01:05:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  well (4.00)
    well I now one thing for sure. When an "enemy" calls you, or refers to you as
     "DailyKos is nasty, noisy, overexcited, clueless, and, eventually, irrelevant. That's just the way it is"
     they are scared of you. Bullies don't like to be stood up to. It calls their bluff.
     I think what really scares these Reps. is this new in your face attitude places like Daily Kos bring to the table. Sure we are angry, but we are also informed and intelligent and that is a deadly combination.

     Timid little liberals are a thing of the past. I 'll shout down a conservative on the web, and I'll get in ones face on a city street corner.

    •  DailyKos IS nasty, noisy, overexcited,... (4.00)
      ...clueless and irrelevant! So What? It is also provacative, inspiring, informative, influential.

      The truly funny thing is that the Conventional Media is the one one that is  nasty [sex sells], noisy [sensationalistic, yellow journalism], overexcited [when it comes to missing white women], clueless [pre-Iraq, torture, wiretapping, Soc. Sec., video news releases, propaganda, secrecy, election fraud], and, eventually, it will become entirely irrelevant.

      I can't wait.

    •  Yup. In a clearly politically adversarial (4.00)
      situation, I adore this quote from Gandhi 'cause it's so true: First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win.

      Congrats, looks like we're in Stage 2 approaching 3.

  •  A high brow reply to the Economist: (4.00)
    F*ck off, you prissy euro beeyatches.

    Anything's possible with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge. -Homer J. Simpson

    by Cheez Whiz on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:30:58 AM PST

    •  the euros... (4.00)
      ...are the ones who forced the quasi-endorsement of kerry, and are generally sane libertarian-centrists (by american standards).  the problem is the american staff in the washington office, which is where this tripe is comming from.  they are hard-right neo-cons.  it's often disconcerting to read the economist these days -- major cognitive dissonance between articles that are written by one group of the other.

      Republicans don't want government to help people, but to control them.
      Democrats want government to help people, but not to control them.

      by miholo on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:21:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I didn't resubsTcribe (none)
      I used to think of The Economist as a Time or Newsweek for people with college level reading skills. I subscribed for a while but stopped it after I began to notice that they were becoming as tripe laden as the American domestic media wrt to Bush. Too bad. It was a good magazine. I still occasionally buy one off the newstand but am often disappointed in the lack of sobriety of some of the articles.

      Tracking energy and transportation news.

      by joel3000 on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:12:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent (4.00)
    If anyone wants to see what happens at DailyKos, all they have to do is look for themselves.  I think it's great that we're getting trashed in the Economist.  How dumb could they be?  Angry vitriolic teenagers.  Uh-huh.  Well, let everyone look!  Heck, I hope we get a billion hits for every time The Meekonimist says Kos's name.

    "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

    by LithiumCola on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:34:06 AM PST

    •  The 'kos=extremists' meme is widespread (4.00)
      I see it all the time on other discussion boards.

      When I see it, I try to link to an especially well-written diary and invite the participants to see for themselves what goes on over here.

      I carried water for the elephant; Back and forth to the well I went; My arms got sore and my back got bent; But I couldn't fill up that elephant

      by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:04:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  SO I guess we're past the... (4.00)
    ..."they ignore you" phase huh?

    That's a good thing right?

    Join the We the People Project. National healthcare program designed by Americans for Americans.

    by DawnG on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:34:07 AM PST

  •  yes, you're right (4.00)
    If it's not mentioned every issue, it is certainly more and more often. On the one hand, I'm glad they're reading dKos, but the demonization factor is real.  

    It's particularly strange since they themselves endorsed Kerry and condemn torture, but they are unable to see that we who are US citizens are justified in our angry at Bush's administration.  
    Many of us (including Kos and Armando, I believe) are ex-Republicans.  

    And yes, to the Economist staff, I do subscribe.

  •  umm (none)
    we're calling a paper that endorsed Kerry a Bush hack? Seriously?

    Have we been reading the same Economist?

    Republicans aren't evil. They're just wrong.

    by AnnArborBlue on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:35:42 AM PST

    •  def not bush hacks (none)
      but the magazine is incorporating more and more GOP memes as facts into its writing, even those are blatantly false.

      this is a departure from the conservative yet more or less objective magazine i started reading

      I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

      by The Exalted on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:38:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  He kiddos (none)
    It's funny how they attempt to portray us as a bunch of wacky teenage kids spouting off.

    They are sorely mistaken.

    Closed minds should come with closed mouths.

    by Pennsylvanian on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:37:24 AM PST

    •  Are there stats (none)
      showing the average age of the DailyKos readership? Of the posters?

      I'm sure there are many teenage readers, from comeents I've seen, I'd suspect the average age is more like 40.

      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiousity was framed.

      by Lashe on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:01:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  several polls... (4.00)
        ...on the site have confirmed that your suspicion is correct.

        the last time we did a poll (maybe three or four months ago) i compared the results to the US census. it was uncanny how the two were almost a perfect match, except for under-representation in the below-25 and above-65 groups. and very few teeanagers (unfortunately).

        Republicans don't want government to help people, but to control them.
        Democrats want government to help people, but not to control them.

        by miholo on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:38:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  actually... (4.00)
          ...just went back to refresh my memory (and pennsylvanian also was kind enought to post below) -- the near-exact match with the US census ranges from about 20 yrs-old to almost 60 yrs-old. so only the teenagers are under-represented (they'll probably show up when they start voting).

          oh well, facts. the hard-right neo-cons in the washington bureau of the economist have long ago divorced themselves from the reality-based community anyway (i keep hoping that people at the headquarters in london will one day wake up and see how these people are making a joke of all of the economist's traditions and fire the lot).

          Republicans don't want government to help people, but to control them.
          Democrats want government to help people, but not to control them.

          by miholo on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:13:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, there are stats (4.00)
        There are a bunch of polls of the readership in the dKosopeida on age, religion, gender, race, kids, families, etc.:

        The most recent age poll with over 3K respondents was this:

        18 or under- 1%
        19-25- 11%
        26-30- 11%
        31-35- 14%
        36-40- 14%
        41-45- 15%
        46-50- 12%
        51-55- 10%
        56-60- 5%
        61-65- 2%
        over 65- 0%

        It's only a small sample of a large community, but we are clearly adults.  Interesting stuff.

        Closed minds should come with closed mouths.

        by Pennsylvanian on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:39:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  As much as I like ... (4.00)
      ... my free plastic surgery given me by the Economist, I am not sure I can oblige with the concomitant teenage powerlessness.

      I am a middle-aged PhD in a high income bracket.

    •  You obviously (none)
      didn't read last nights Oscar threads :-)
      •  You are correct (none)
        I was watching the show and didn't see any of those.  I'll have to check it out.

        Closed minds should come with closed mouths.

        by Pennsylvanian on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:59:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Apparently (none)
          BBM didn't get best picture because Hollywood are a bunch of 60-something, grey haired, homophobic, hypocritical cowards and the 'best director' and 'best screenwriter' awards are "door prizes".
          •  Hilarious... (none)
   least to me.  I really liked BBM and thought it was a very good film, but it just didn't have best picture written all over it for me.  I guess you can color me a "60-something, grey haired, homophobic, hypocritical coward".  Not.

            I do happen to have Crash on my Netflix at the moment, and I look forward to watching it.

            I have a family member in the film industry (camera work - big and small feature films and mostly in LA) and I look forward to hearing reaction there.  People in the industry, and hence the Academy, tend to look at these things with a different eye than regular slobs like us!

            Closed minds should come with closed mouths.

            by Pennsylvanian on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:39:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Despite its shift to the Right (4.00)

    The Economist remains much smarter than most mainstream or centrist/right American press. (Exceptions are the Atlantic and the New Yorker.)

    Their people are at least astute enough to visit DKos to gauge the opinion of the loyal opposition. And they'll quite naturally mention the experience in fleshing out their columns and stories.

    It proves this place is relevant as hell, even to those who'd try to dismiss it as "teenage scribbling." If it's teenage scribbling, why make the trip?

    the blue sea seethes with reason

    by howth of murph on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:37:39 AM PST

  •  I don't think it's demonization, really (4.00)
    Just a hint of bemusement, and some irony, sometimes.  Dear the Economist, we humble scribblers on the Internets may not be running the world, but it's some consolation to know that at least we're entertaining you.  ;)

    Jack Abramoff: Directed $3M in donations to both parties. Charged his clients $100M in fees and funnelled it all to the GOP.

    by daria g on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:37:39 AM PST

  •  They are right about one thing (none)
    John Edwards is running as a leftist, populist against HRC (though few around here seem to comprehend that).

    "Her repositioning has already opened up space to her left which is being filled by Russ Feingold and John Edwards."

    Democrats are the party of those who are working, those who have finished working, and those who want to work. -- Elizabeth Edwards

    by philgoblue on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:38:17 AM PST

  •  How dare they (4.00)
    ... presume that I can scribble.  I can barely make stick figure drawings.

    /sadly, is no longer a teenager (not by, oh, half a lifetime) and will probably never learn how to draw

    Trying To Maintain Rationality
    econatheist's bloggity blog blog

    by EconAtheist on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:42:51 AM PST

  •  I think Jermome is over-reacting a bit (none)
    I read the Economist and think is a pretty fair magazine. If anything, the reader must be careful of the pro-free market/trade/globalization angle. Sure, I'm very pro all these things but I'm mindful when it's done dishonestly and I'm aware of the negative impacts on people. The Economist can gloss over these casualties. The Reader must be careful.

    As for being Pro-Bush, I don't agree. They DID endorse Kerry in 2004 and are well aware of the nonsense with the current GOP and report on it regularly.

    (-0.75 econ., -4.72 social)

    by ztn on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:43:17 AM PST

  •  The Economist Represents the Establishment (4.00)
    Which is why I like to read it -- it gives you a sense of what this class of individual thinks.

    When they start making fun of you you know you've reached the big time.

    Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

    by Benito on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:43:33 AM PST

  •  All they'll do is drive people to the site and (4.00)
    I'm willing to bet that a majority of these newbies will come back again and again.  We can thank the economist for creating more kossaks and Democratic voters.  

    Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live.

    by LionelEHutz on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:44:46 AM PST

  •  Economist (4.00)
    I have subscribed for more than 20 years, but I am letting the subscription lapse.

    I find them quirky and generally uninformed about American politics.  It isn't just partisanship; their American political reporting just sucks.

    The rest of the magazine used to be of a quality not found in Time or Newsweek - coverage was broader, the writing more incisive.

    Now I find it turgid and often muddleheaded.  At about $130.00 a year, it is much too expensive.

    I'd rather read Kos...

    •  the problem... (4.00) the washington bureau, which is in the hands of a group of hard-right neo-con ideologues.  their reporting is abismal, and a disgrace to the economist's traditions as well.  the coverage of europe and of the rest of the world comes out of london, and is still of high quality.

      i once heard one of the senior guys in the washington bureau (john something, i forget) on npr at the time clinton tried to bomb obl in sudan.  the following is not a metaphorical or hyperbolic statement: in his answer to every single of about half a dozen questions on a range of disparate issues he always included the words 'wag the dog' as the key point, with a tone of voice dripping in anger and contempt.  sounded like more than a wingnut, a sad caricature of a wingnut.

      why the london headquarters doesn't just fire the entire washinton bureau and hire a new one from scratch is beyond me.  i imagine there's some power struggles involved, seeing as the economist now sell about 60% of its copies in the us (or at least it did last time i saw the numbers).

      Republicans don't want government to help people, but to control them.
      Democrats want government to help people, but not to control them.

      by miholo on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:30:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I read it (none)
      For Europe/Asia/Africa and to get an idea of what their teaching the nobs at LSE these days.
  •  I wonder... (none)
    How much would it cost to take out an add in The Economist?  

    If there is going to be a coordinated and concerted PR effort to smear Daily Kos and other prominent Dem blogs, then I imagine a response of some form would be in order.  Preferably sooner rather than later.  

    What means do we have to respond when we do not have access to the eyes and ears of most people who will be witness to the tarring of Daily Kos?

    We could theoretically keep our own house in order, and have the most factual and honest content on the web, but that still won't stop a smear campaign by the right.  If they think we're any kind of threat, either now, or in the future, they will come after us.  We need a way to fight back that will be seen beyond the front page of this site.

    "Hey man. I want to have a fight with you. And from the way that you're behaving its clear to me you would like to have one too." - Shellac

    by DaveS on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:46:32 AM PST

    •  um... (none)

      "Hey man. I want to have a fight with you. And from the way that you're behaving its clear to me you would like to have one too." - Shellac

      by DaveS on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:46:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They can't do anything about us (4.00)
      This blog is a private conversation that anyone can join by clicking a button.  They can demonize all they want; Kos doesn't take a corporate position on anything. We raise money for individual candidates, and I think what they are trying to do is to taint the money so our candidates can't afford to accept it.  But that's a mug's game for a group as internet savvy as this one.  Just set up a new account.

      You see, the attack would make sense if Mr and Mrs America could be made afraid of Kos.  The problem is that it isn't an organization.  And if they mention it too much, they draw new lurkers, which -- since we are talking here about uninformed Mr and Mrs America -- would not be a very good thing for the MSM.

      I'm sure that deep in the Department of Justice there are some souls busy beavering away on programs that will allow them to ask 'are you, or have you ever been' a member of Kos (or just a fellow traveller)?  But it's a hard sell, and thank god we aren't there yet.

  •  I would put our predictions about Iraq (4.00)
    up against theirs

    see who was right

  •  Media Merger WSJ and the Economist? (none)
    For years the WSJ editorial pages have been off the scale. Sometimes you can say, okay, it doesn't matter they still report the news. However in other places, like Forbes, the separtion of business and politics gets a little fuzzy. Forbes magazine slammed the California biotech companies, after voters passed a stem cell research bill, claiming these companies didn't have the brain power. you don't need brains to figure that if California is the only place research is being done, the brains will follow. but then Steve Forbes is one of the core of NeoConservatives who has the president's ear. editorial policy trumps analytic thinking.
    period. one more independent voice vanishes.
    don't trust the Economist

    " the future everything is chrome. Sponge Bob Square Pants

    by agent double o soul on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:50:35 AM PST

  •  So cut and dried (4.00)
    Gee, the view from the Economist is black and white and hard focus, sort of like an English tea closet.

    It's clear that they're getting nervous that THE PEOPLE have found a way to communicate and are going foist an agenda of common sense, justice, and equal opportunity over the UK-US War Machine.

    The so-called, "Global War On Terror" IS Terrorism!

    by november3rd on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:50:55 AM PST

  •  I stopped reading the Economist long ago (4.00)
    And I mean a long time ago.  In the 60s it was an independent liberal magazine, fairly close in editorial outlook to the Manchester Guardian, with lots of news on the rest of the world to boot.  I subscribed.  But in the 1960s it came out very strongly in favour of the Vietnam War, and (as now) demonized its critics.  I don't know if it got new owners or just adopted a new business model, but the snarkiness turned me off, and I haven't gone back.  It's for the semi-educated.  I'm educated.
    •  But... (none)
      In the 60s, most economists were Keynesian, which is described as a 'liberal' economic philosophy - demand side economics.  It would make sense for a magazine called the 'The Economist' to take that 'liberal' view and take the side of prominent 'liberals' in the Kennedy/Johnson administration.  With Reagan, the Chicago School, or 'supply side economics' took over, and The Economist changed their tune.  If the US had turned communist, they'd probably have hammer and sickles and pictures of Marx all over it.
  •  First they ignore us, then they laugh (none)
    at us, then they fight us,

    Then we win.

    I am the federal government.

    by mateosf on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:57:31 AM PST

  •  Hee hee (4.00)
    I'm a teenaged scribbler at 37. Too funny.
  •  Jerome, can I ask this (4.00)
    do you really disagree fully with what Lexington said? The age of participants here definitely skews older than "teenage scribblers", but you wouldn't necessarily know it from reading this site after Hackett dropped out, or in a DCCC diary, or a "we are fucked" diary. John Kerry HAS courted the netroots, and the filibuster move WAS a brazenly political play for our support. And the response was, well, overexcited.

    And people here every day are calling for Democrats to be unpleasant, to go after Republicans and "fight, fight, fight".

    I guess I just don't get the outrage.

    Republicans aren't evil. They're just wrong.

    by AnnArborBlue on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:02:45 AM PST

    •  If you don't get the outrage (none)
      you are definitely NOT paying attention.  And this is coming from someone who was a republican for almost 20 years.


      The Democratic party - the party of sanity, reason and kindness.

      by adigal on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:14:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand the outrage (none)
        and I share it. I just think there are more constructive ways to express it than what often goes on around here.

        At the end of the day, I'm not sure what "Bush=Hitler" or "Fuck the DCCC" actually accomplishes. And that's why I can't get up in arms about the Economist talking about us venting here or being overexcited or whatever.

        Republicans aren't evil. They're just wrong.

        by AnnArborBlue on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:21:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's a blog (none)
      Couple points:

      1. These Economist pieces are making reference to Daily Kos as if it represents an emergent and heretofore non-existent wing of the American left.  It's not an accurate representation.  DKos is just one of many public sounding boards of the Democratic netroots movement.  It's a blog.  One blog.

      2. The tone to which these pieces keep referring and to which you refer as well is not something unique to DailyKos -- it's endemic to the blogosphere, both right and left.  Ever catch wind of the tone over in Freeperville?  Huffington Post?

      I can only conclude that this is a great thing.  Very few would-be left wing activists will be turned off by what the Economist thinks; if anything, those who chance to read it will be stimulated to read and draw their own conclusions.

      Some things are not for sale. Send the Republicans home in 2006.

      by The Termite on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:15:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know it isn't a tone unique (4.00)
        to Daily Kos. That doesn't mean I hate it any less.

        And it is just a blog, but it's also a huge one, and one that increasingly talks about flexing its power. You can't talk about remaking Democratic politics and get mad when people begin to talk about you as an important institution.

        Republicans aren't evil. They're just wrong.

        by AnnArborBlue on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:19:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nature of the beast (none)
          Huge, sure.  But I don't think it's an extension of power.  I think of it as an extension of voice, which equates to representation, which may ultimately lead to influence or power.  We're not there yet.

          More importantly, you are waiting on Godot if you're hoping for DKos to become more courtly and less sonorous.  People are angry.  Angry people express themselves angrily.  As long as there is something to rail about, Kossacks will do so without obsessing on decorum.

          Some things are not for sale. Send the Republicans home in 2006.

          by The Termite on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:28:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  i sort of agree (none)
      Like any community, you are going to have a wide range of people and a wide range of opinions.  In general, I find DailyKos to be full of intelligent and insightful commentary.  However, when major events like the ones you mentioned occur, the more reactionary elements of the community begin to rise to the surface.

      Also, I do agree with the commentary that people here are way too fixated on responding to what Bush and Rove are doing and less focused on actually winning elections.  People will often complain about how things are going and call for Democrats to make futile gestures of resistence, but not nearly as many will step up to help us actually acquire more political power.

      •  Good point (none)
        This is one fair criticism of us. We do spend too much time "reacting to every stimulus from Professor Rove's laboratory rather than thinking ahead."

        It's easy to play, "outrage of the day."

        We should spend begin discussions on the mechanics of building movements for national health care and an Apollo Project for energy independence than we do.

        Perhaps this will change as the need for a national platform becomes more apparent. And perhaps the people who have been working on such projects will spend more time here telling us about what they have done.

    •  Agreed (none)
      The stuff in the Economist seems pretty tame. Very little to get outraged about.

      The items that don't come from Lexington seem extremely subdued.

      The items that come from Lexington are opinionated, but Lexington is supposed to be an opinion piece, with a lot more editorializing in its content than the news stories.

      The Economist was very wrong on the Iraq war, as were a lot of people, including many Democrats. But it still remains one of the best news sources one can turn to.

      Reading the Economist for world news versus reading Time or Newsweek is like the difference between graduate studies and kindergarten. They cover the whole world, including stories that the American media regularly ignore.

      I think only an extremist would consider it to be just a conservative rag.

  •  A sad, sad rag now (4.00)
    It lost all claim to a heart and soul as soon as it started backing Bush's imbecilic borrow-and-spend economics.

    Chomsky makes more sense on how, why and in what ways money rules the world than the Economist ever did. Heck, more than most economists. Why is that?

    Chomsky himself would say that most paid economists have a vested interest in not biting the hand that feeds them. The bosses *like* their plans actionable, but not easily resistable. One of the best ways to do this is to 'baffle them with bullshit' - resist clear and simple explanations, especially when they reveal your employer's own hypocrisy.

    I'm hopeful someday for a science of economics and psychology and semantics, combined, that makes it impossible for this kind of bullshit to survice. This administration, and the whole context of rationales that makes it possible, is like a spider laying eggs in a pit of raw sewage. I hope our access to information and better ways of thinking about it can help all of us clean these scummy ideas and the crap they spawn in, out of our metaphysical universe.

    "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

    by jbeach on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:03:02 AM PST

  •  first they hate you (none)
    then they laugh at you;

    then they ignore you;

    then they make fun of the way you write;

    then they swift boat you;

    then they tell each other you are crazy;

    then they make fun of your family;

    then they fight you;

    then you win.

    or something like that.

    skippy the bush kangaroo, now with 30% more snark!

    by skippy on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:06:17 AM PST

  •  As the old cliche goes ... (none)
    first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, and finally they're threatened enough to disparage you. That's not only true of DKOS but the entire community of progressive bloggers. They're right, we are threat to the old order which was agreeably docile while reactionaries ran roughshod over the Constitution, the working and middle class, and basic values of decency. Those days are over the and reactionaires can either repent and reform or prepare to jettisoned into the scrap heap of history. The choice is theirs to make. I suggest they choose wisely.
  •  I am certainly not a teenager (none)
    nor young.  So obviously, the Economist has no clue what it is talking about.

    The Democratic party - the party of sanity, reason and kindness.

    by adigal on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:12:39 AM PST

  •  I have to wonder (none)
    whether the Economist's jones for dKos might not have something to do with those columns Markos wrote for the Guardian in the last presidential election cycle. I doubt the average reader of the British press (or the Economist) would know about us, otherwise.
  •  Which is it? (none)
    such as the Daily Kos (which has thousands of partisans venting daily) now colour the whole tone of the political debate on the left.

    The teenage scribblers of the left seem to be turning the Democrats into a deranged version of Pavlov's dog--reacting to every stimulus from Professor Rove's laboratory rather than thinking ahead.

    Crayons? or Pencils?

    You can't lick the system...but you can give it a damn good fondling!

    by buhdydharma on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:17:45 AM PST

    •  of course... (none)
      ...the average age here, as several polls have shown, is about 40 yrs old.  but facts don't really bother the economist's washington bureau, which has been for the past 15 or 20 years in the hands of hard-right neo-cons, and we know what those people think of the reality-based community.  they deal in truthiness, not in truth.

      Republicans don't want government to help people, but to control them.
      Democrats want government to help people, but not to control them.

      by miholo on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:34:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Finger paint (none)
      Works for me(a 2%er), for lo these many years, and it's the same message to people like the Economist's writers:....(sigh) 'screw you and your little high horsie.'
          Teenage scribblers my sagging butt.
           All hail the Kos and all that emanates and surrounds us from his great wisdom, give me the strength to do your bidding and have some left over to flail at yer enemies.

      Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

      by KenBee on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 01:26:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  My main indictment of The Economist (none)
    is that they supported the invasion of Iraq.
  •  Severe contest b/w intelligence & ignorance (4.00)
    I, too, have read the Economist for many years, and I, too, have noticed a recent flicker of a reflection of the Weekly Standard, especially in Lexington.  However, Jerome missed a big point.  I read the Economist precisely because it is so "dispassionate" and provides relatively centrist fare.  Its most important contribution is an economist's instinct to call out facts for facts, and discount conclusions based on trends or correlation.  

    This "dispassionate"-ness is what makes the Economist so valuable, and also why it has ignited a slew of knee-jerk insults and indignations on this board.  Kossacks are "passionate."  That's the whole point.  And the Economist is calling us out for it.  That's fair.  Sometimes the Economist will be wrong, sometimes it will be right, and sometimes it will disagree with us and still be right.  But an objective, big picture look at American politics has to admit that DKos is neither "moderate" nor "mainstream".  To that end, the Economist is going to call a duck a duck, and good for them.  It doesn't make them biased or wingnut.

    And good for us, too.

    •  But they don't, anymore (none)
      It doesn't call ducks ducks anymore. A few weeks ago, they wrote that "the UK, which has deregulated has, naturally, the lowest prices for electricity" just across their own graph which showed that France has lower prices...

      In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
      Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

      by Jerome a Paris on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:41:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  true to an extent (none)
        i cringed when they discussed the possiblity of the democrats invoking the nuclear option

        I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

        by The Exalted on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:45:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ducks in a row (none)
        This is the quote you are referring to:

        "British businesses have paid lower prices for gas and electricity over the past 14 years than most of their European rivals, says Ofgem, Britain's energy regulator. They continue to pay less, even though the past year saw steep price increases and fears over supply"

        Next to it, is a graph that shows UK electricity prices lower than most (but not all) European nations, as measured by price per KwH for large customers, only.

        This is completely consistent.  They clearly refer to "most" rivals, and that is clearly true in the graph.  They are also consistent in their use of stats, keeping the conversation limited to business customers.  This is something that would commonly be disregarded in lesser rags.  Even if they hadn't used the word "most", it would hardly deserve mention as evidence of bias or even sloppy reporting.

        So, I disagree with your rebuttal.  But even if I agreed, I don't think it's germaine.  The difference between "passion" and "dispassion" does not make for bias.

        •  Here's the quote (none)
          First, here's the link:

          The big continental firms are stout defenders of their market position and behaviour. A former senior executive of EDF argues the electricity giant was in fact a virtuous monopoly in the past and that prices rise when markets are liberalised. In his view consumers continue to benefit from EDF's dominance of the French market through lower prices compared with, for instance, Italy (though not, of course, with deregulated Britain).

          And here's the graph:

          In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
          Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

          by Jerome a Paris on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 01:59:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for clarifying (none)
            However, the quote is referring to the opinion of the "former senior executive" and not, necessarily to the facts.  Whether the parenthetical phrase is an opinion or fact is anybody's guess.

            At this point, I think we can both agree that this is a semantic issue.  I don't see how it relates to the larger issue of bias.  The Economist is going to get some things wrong.  All papers do.  This example might be one of those times, as you argue.  However, Making a dispassionate centrist observation does not mean that the Economist is playing for the other side.  And surely whether France or Britain has lower electricty prices cannot be relevant.

            It's good DKos got noticed.  I'm happy; I don't see the cause for alarm.

            •  Well, I disagree (none)
              That parenthetical phrase cannot come from that senior executive as it is an executive from EDF, the French company, and it would be incomprehensible for him/her to say that. So it is from the Economist, and it flags one of the issues on which it has a closed mind: a State-owned company cannot, by definition, be efficient and a French State-owned company cannot, by definition, be more efficient that the British market.

              I am used to these blinders on France and especially on EDF, and I identify them easily - so I just discount them (or write them up on ET when they piss me off) - but it helps me notice them more easily as well.

              And my contention is that they are wearing similar blinders on US politics, as examplified by the dKos coverage, or other similar nastiness for the Dems (or the "Mullahs of" - yes, they actually described them like this).

              In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
              Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

              by Jerome a Paris on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 08:36:57 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Problem (none)
    There's an important point that is not a matter of semantics, though it may seem as one.  It's not so much that the Economist supports Bush, it's that they both support corporate interests.  They are both 'branches' of the same people that run the economy.  Saying The Economist supports Bush is like saying the Marines went to Iraq because the Army did, when they both take orders from the Pentagon.

    It's the same thing with FoxNews.  FoxNews supports corporate interests, and Republicans support corporate interests - ergo it seems FoxNews supports Republicans.  But when Republicans bolt from corporate interests, like with the whole Portgate issue, FoxNews is perfectly willing to dress Republicans up as demagogues and shameless political shills.

    And by 'corporate interests' I don't necessarily mean a single corporation of collection of corporations, but the amorphous blob of people who run the global economy.

    •  Not quite (none)
      Your argument would hold water except for one exception: their demonization of the Democrats and liberals.

      Your argument is based on a fallacy commonly known as a false dilemma.

      There are many powerful democrats who support big business interests.  Dianne Feinstein is a good example. Byron Dorgan, who has an MBA (that's a Masters in Business Administration) is another. Yet Republican tools like FoxNews never hesitate to portray their party as un-American.

      How do you square that with your argument?

    •  It's a school of piranha. n/t (none)

      "Yer doin' a heckuva job, Dickie..."

      by EeDan on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:08:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I heard an interview with writers (none)
    from the Economist and they are heading down the wrong road.  

    The Economist has this grand vision that globalization will continue to grow and make everyone richer and more equal.  The problem is that globalization is totally fueled by a natural resource (oil) which is going to start running short of expectations in the coming years.

    If they think the sky's the limit then they are truly blind to the realities of the world in which we live.  

    If there is one truth in this life its that change is the only constant.  Globalization is destined to fail, US dominance in the world is destined to fail, and our days of cheap-oil fueled plenty are destined to fail.  It's not pessimism, its inevitability.

    (if by "criminalization of politics" you mean politics being taken over by criminals, you are absolutely correct)

    by Drezden on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:35:00 AM PST

    •  but there is... (none)
      ...a lot of truthiness to the view that fully deregulated globalization will reduce inequality, even if statistics and most serious economic models don't support it.

      the hard-right neo-cons who are in charge of the economist's washington bureau (most likely the ones you heard interveiwed) have shown over and over again that they will gladly piss on the economist's great and old traditions of reason and empiricism in order to further their ideological agenda.  i don't understand how the people in charge in london let these creeps take over their washington operation.

      Republicans don't want government to help people, but to control them.
      Democrats want government to help people, but not to control them.

      by miholo on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:47:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think Iraq has proven (none)
        that deregulation IS NOT the great panacea that Neo-Cons claim it is.

        That experminet has totally failed. Game over.

        (if by "criminalization of politics" you mean politics being taken over by criminals, you are absolutely correct)

        by Drezden on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:10:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  It has been a long time since (none)
    I was an angry YOUNG anything.  

    These yahoos are so out of touch.  Many of the oldsters in the condos where I live rage against Bush on a daily basis.  

    I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the people who post here are no longer even in their twenties.  I myself am 56.

    Hey Kos, take a poll and let people check their age ranges and let's see.

    "Teenage scribblers" indeed!

  •  Great post, thoughts on Leasy's post on Huffington (none)
    He goes on and on about the panic premium.  And I'd say, if demand drops off just a little bit prices would plunge.  But a big enough plunge would simply bring people back into the market with new gas guzzlers only to get burned when demand exceeds supply again.  I think he is too focused on the panic premium but his points about the billions of gallons "in the pipeline" are interesting.  What's key, it seems, is the amount of newly discovered oil.  That is decreasing rapidly, to the point of crisis, no?

  •  I cancelled my subscription to The Economist... (none)
    ...about 2 years ago, after 10 years, when I could no longer stand their support of BushCo.

    I they have been turned.; an oasis of truth. -1.75 -7.23

    by Shockwave on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:48:33 AM PST

  •  True, I did try ... (none)
    hard to concentrate while posting a comment on the day job.
  •  n/t (none)
    This is the problem that we seem to have with Politicians and those that are in bed with them in the Media. Once they get your Vote or Your subscription then you are written of as some fringe lunatic as if the People that Visit this site on the daily are not sophisticated enough to sit at a computer and put into words there feelings on the State of the US Political Scene, if anything these (We) are the people that are in touch with the Common People that are looking to get there voice out!! I think that is what scares them the most is that they are not in a regulated position to dictate what the populous is feeling and now that people have blogs to communicate and find out that they think is also in line with what other people are feeling has the whole Media Establishment Shaken up it is very apparent from where I sit. Not to mention the amount of negative feedback that a lot of these so-called journalist are receiving about there slouchy reporting it is no wonder that they are trying to smear those on the left and at this site! I think they feel the tide turning and the Voice of the People is getting stronger and they don't know how to deal with it!
  •  Har har (none)
    The teenage scribblers of the left seem to be turning the Democrats into a deranged version of Pavlov's dog--reacting to every stimulus from Professor Rove's laboratory

    That is a funny line folks.

  •  Wow! I'm an angry young activist! (none)
    Perhaps I could say "A Part of a Partisan of Thousands"?

    Although I have to say the title "teenage scribbler" hasn't fit in a several decades now.  But that's ok - young is a state of mind.  In fact, I found out this morning that I got my ass kicked in a 10K this weekend by a 90 year old man - he finished 10 minutes ahead of me (and I was running a pretty good pace).

    Ah, those comedians over at The Economist...

    "Yer doin' a heckuva job, Dickie..."

    by EeDan on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:05:40 PM PST

  •  I don't read the Economist for its politics (none)
    I read it to be exposed to stories from around the world that I normally wouldn't be exposed to. Since the advent of the internet I've let my subscription lapse since international news is all over the place now. It (and The Atlantic Monthly) is still the first mag I grab at the airport tho.
  •  If I want to know whats happening (none)
    around the world, I read the English version of Al-Jazeera.

    (if by "criminalization of politics" you mean politics being taken over by criminals, you are absolutely correct)

    by Drezden on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:13:53 PM PST

  •  haha (none)
    The Snot Nosed LSE grads vs. The Teenage Scribblers of the Left.
  •  'teenage scribbler'??? I need to thank them (4.00)
    for that.  They just put my mid-life crisis on hold right before it got started.

    Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right

    by darthstar on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:16:17 PM PST

  •  Not surprising that they demonize the DKos (none)
    Especially if they have already looked to the right of the American blogosphere (at say Little Green Footballs and to PowerPajamasLineMedia) and had already seen the absolute and abject failure of the rightwing to build competent online activist communities.

    Conservatives name call when they have nothing else to say.

    "The Senate seems like the place, uh, where smart people go to die." -Jon Stewart

    by LeftHandedMan on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:23:22 PM PST

  •  it's not really that surprising (none)
    They just about had kittens over the anti-Globo demonstations in Seattle years ago.  They're pretty understanding about authoritarianism in the name of free markets, but when protestors or bloggers say the wrong thing... then the whole of polite society may be in danger.

    Congrats on getting noticed by Them Above.

    "... in my empire, life is sweet, just ask any bum you meet. You may say that I ain't free but it don't worry me..."

    by lumpenprole on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:32:43 PM PST

  •  Anyone who reads this (none)
    site for more than a few minutes knows that almost no one calls it "The" Daily Kos.
  •  Dethroned? (none)
    Does this mean The Economist has usurped TNR's position longer posesses most hated publication at Kos?
  •  At this point in my life (none)
    I don't scribble. I draw conclusions. ;-)

    Nature never breaks her own laws. --da Vinci

    by lale on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:37:15 PM PST

  •  well, liberals are the devil (4.00)
    The problem with wasting our time analysing why these nuts (and writing for the Economist does not preclude that judgment) hate liberals is that there's no rhyme or reason to hatred. Wingnuts define themselves by describing what they oppose, and they are sane enough not to oppose what liberals really are--namely, progressively inclined individuals looking to find better solutions which address individual rights to privacy and free speech. Since opposing that would immediately marginalize one's own group, it's hardly surprising that what they actually oppose are the over-the-top characterizations of liberals.

    In other words, their inexplicable hatred of the left is merely the symptom of their disease. We should no more try to analyze why they hate us than we would ask why someone suffering from Tourette's was swearing at us. If we let their hatred in any way inform our own views, we all suffer.

    -8.38, -4.97 "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

    by thingamabob on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:37:45 PM PST

  •  Excellent diary, but please clarify (none)
    what were you referring to when you cautioned against writing about "conspiracy theories" and "unsubstantiated stories"?  I'm not at all sure what trend you were referring to, but I like that there is a free flow of ideas here at this site.  Posts that are far-fetched and poorly reasoned don't need to make it to the Recommended list.  
  •  Not a recent phenomenon (none)
    The shift in their coverage began around 2003 and their reputation for truth plummeted during the 2004 campaign.  It was all Republican talking points and rewarmed Jody Wilgoren.

    It's sad.  I first subscribed to them because the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and Business Week had gone over the edge during the Clinton administration.  Now they are gone, and I worry about the Financial Times.

    Where is there a paper of record left in the world anymore?

  •  Could it be (none)
    That the progressive activist wing of the Democratic party is gaining while the old stay in line apologist dems are fading?....certainly that is something to write about.

    My feeling - give the people what they want - clear choices on environment, housing, health, education, national security, disaster planning....and win elections with good ideas.

    "These are the times that try men's [and women's] souls." - The Crisis, December 23, 1776

    by TPaine on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:54:20 PM PST

  •  Jerome (none)
    I've made exactly the same comments privately. It started with the willful overlook about just what kind of a croney Bush is. These guys reconize the species and pretended not to notice.

    Then  came the transparent lying in the leadup to the war which, again, they pretended not to see, taking obviously false statements (the Nigerian Uranium comes to mind) at face value when it was common knowledge that the evidence was dubious.

    I also noted that during the election they allowed themselves to be a plant for the the anti-Dean campaign. The key thing I remember was them reporting that Rove was overheard saying: "yes, yes, that's the one I hope they chose" when something about Dean came up. With the implication that a whack job like Dean would be easy to demolish.

    I agree, they once, even recently, had integrity. They no longer do.

  •  Your analysis is spot on (none)
    I'm an Economics student and a political junkie... and one of the reasons why I don't subscribe to their magazine is their idiotic coverage of American politics.  I have always noticed a slant towards Bush and an anti- just about every Democrat- bias in their writings.  It just oozes inside-the-beltway conventional wisdom, and does so with glee.

    I have also noticed the French-bashing in just about every article related to France.  There is a definite ideological tilt to their coverage... In my college days I would turn to the Economist for expert analysis, but now I will occasionally read but take their views with a grain of salt.

    Why settle for the truth when you can have Truthiness???

    by wintersnowman on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 01:11:41 PM PST

  •  What is this nonsense? (none)
    The teenage scribblers of the left...

    Do they really believe that many hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations have come from the teenage scribblers of the left?

    Do they think the Frontpagers and authors of recomended diaries are teenage scribblers? If so, perhaps they should hire some teenage scribblers to write their rag for them.

    My experience around here is that the place is top heavy with attorneys, authors, teachers, professors, engineers and doctors. If any of those folks also happen to be teenage scribblers I'd sure like to meet them.

    As for the more carefully documented age of dKos posters though, perhaps we should simply refer the Traditional Media folks to that diary that ran the kossack age survey. It was a pretty darn pretty Gaussian distribution as I recall.

    -6.88/-5.64 * You know what's happening. Fight it.

    by John West on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 01:20:46 PM PST

  •  the Economist (none)
    isn't satisfied with the number of click-throughs dKos diaries get them?

    dKos probably gets them far more new subscribers every year than all the wingnut blogs do combined.

    Of course, if their coverage is shifting to wingnut core, dKos readers will cease to find any reason to link to The Economist articles. We like facts around here and if The Economist no longer wants to provide them, we'll get them somewhere else.

    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

    by alizard on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 01:45:15 PM PST

  •  Ask them on which issues we are extreme (none)
    I've noticed that people who call liberals extremists run into trouble when asked specifically how the liberals are extreme. They can't cite issues, because the majority of America agrees with us on important issues like health care, minimum wage, abortion, the environment, and so on.

    It's just part of the war against liberalism from the intellectually dishonest. Tell them to go cheney themselves.

  •  Call and ask to be Q and A'd (4.00)
    a) Chances are that Daily Kos is getting into the Economist a lot because a bunch of the reporters there are DK fiends and are trying to create a cover for all the time they spend here. Always remember that reporters are usually a lot different from top editors and columnists. My guess would be that Economist reporters are mostly in synch with John Kerry or Dennis Kucinich.

    b) The Economist writers may feel as if they can use Daily Kos as a punching bag because, at this point, Daily Kos probably looks to them as if it's just a bag of anonymous liberal marbles, not any kind of real organization or publication that has to be called for a response. Here's a possible strategy for getting into the game as a player instead of as a spaldeen:

    1. Designate Kos, Jerome a Paris or someone else who's an intelligent, well-educated, well-combed, well-dressed, self-employed (or independently wealthy, or think tank-employed) person as the economic spokesperson for Daily Kos.

    2. Put out a "help wanted ad" through DK for a DK participant who has worked in PR in the past and placed stories with the Economist. Hire that person to call up the Economist and point out that  Lexington has been holding up DK and its participants for ridicule without allowing any chance for response. If possible, ask for a chance for the Daily Kos economic spokesperson to participate in a question and answer interview or a multi-participant forum.

    3. If the Economist won't do a Q and A, ask if it will (in descending order of attractiveness): interview Markos in connection with "Crashing the Gates"; cover the release of an economic platform that the Daily Kos people would put together; provide a reporter or editor (ideally, Lexington) to participate in a Web chat forum or a day-long front-page story comment discussion; or at least let Markos respond to the attacks with a letter to the editor of a minimum length. (In other words: the Economist is always going to edit letters, but, under the circumstances, Markos ought to be able to get some kind of informal guarantee that the resulting letter will be a fair expression of his point of view).

    4. In my opinion, whoever is representing Daily Kos during any kind of Q and A or forum should point out, in the long run, as Adam Smith pointed out, Labor is as important a part of the economy as Land and Capital, and that Adam Smith was very upset about Capital's attacks on labor. The DK economic spokesperson should also point that today's "free market capitalism" is really a form of government-rigged mercantile/robber-baronism; demonstrate how that robber baronism is hurting economic growth and investment performance; and talk about how DK proposals could help workers AND genuine free-market investors at the same time. Emphasize that what's good for workers is good for the middle class, and that many Economist-reading business people depend heavily on the existence of a huge, prosperous middle class.

    5. Especially if the Economist is not responsive, but maybe even if it is, the Daily Kos PR person ought to go after the Economist on its home turf. I know that the Guardian is pretty liberal, but is there some big, swing voter-friendly paper there (maybe the Guardian) that appeals to the British version of Clinton Democrats? (In other words: not craven sellouts like some of the creepier DLC people, but principled centrists.) If so, go to that publication, point out that Daily Kos is really just a small business/publication that's being slammed by the Economist juggernaut, and ask for a chance to have Markos or the DK economic spokesperson to present the DK side of the argument.

    6. For the Wall Street Journal: I know that Stirling Newbery is a money manager. Are there any other money managers here who are super independent and can bloviate in the WSJ without getting or losing their clients? If so, do any of them have good track records? If that's the case, why not use a front page story/want ad to form a panel of "hot Daily Kos money managers" who can explain how their disgust with the Bush Rovies  have helped them generate great 2001-2006 returns? The message could be: "Our politics may be a bit pink, but our bottom lines are bright green."
  •  They are scared. (none)
    Why else would they loft insults at us?  We are a part of a political movement that they have never seen before and threatens to shake their grip on what defines modern liberalism.

    "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

    by Five of Diamonds on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 02:07:40 PM PST

  •  They are OBSSESSED with DKos (none)
    to borrow from Hillary a little bit.

    Rush is the greatest example. He obviously cannot keep his eyes off what the crowd is discussing. He must be so puzzled by the notion that intelligent people who can write and reason don't require a "dittohead" to lead them. And I think it irks him to the tune of multiple rolls of Rollaids, Tums, and of course Oxy scrips, to think that he couldn't open a comments section on his website if his life depended on it. Which it very well may some day.

    Hannity and John Gibson are further examples of spinmeisters unnerved by the rising tide of the progressive groundswell. How's that for a mixed metaphor?

  •  I actually like that line..... (none)
    "prepared to be unpleasant".  But being an American I would change it to "prepared to raise hell" as events require.

    "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

    by Lying eyes on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 03:09:37 PM PST

  •  What marks "extremely lukewarm" as a (none)
    characteristic?  I guess you subscribe to the dictum that, "You who are neither hot nor cold, I spit you out of my mouth."  I feel a religious conversion coming on in you, Jerome.

    Kossacks: a large population of Medieval exegetes who each day grapple with the fabulistic opportunities of the early third milennium.

    by DCDemocrat on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 03:10:04 PM PST

  •  I'm a 19 year old... (none)
    ...angry liberal who reads BOTH the Economist and DKos.

    And, yes, their US section is pure trash. Their Lexington column is the most abysmal part.;

    The rest, however, is high quality.

    Russ Feingold for President!

    by Basil on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 03:17:10 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site