Skip to main content

In my many years of studying marketing, I learned a few things. I learned that marketing messages, an a narrative is actually quite simple. Find a simple message, and keep hammering it home. The conservative right did this starting in the seventies...

Special interests built coalitions around the idea that less government, less taxes, less regulation was the cure to every last ill America had. Special interests said that the "freer the market, the freer the people

Their tent was a big tent.

Joining the legions of idiots willingly duped were the corporations, the factory owners, the religious right, the conservative "luminaries" like Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman and other people on down the chain of communication, ending with the conservative pundit whose job it is to take what the evil old men at the top want, and to translate this want into bite sized easily digestible, non mentally taxing talking points.

What we need to do is to convince the large "conservative base" that the Republicans do not have the best interests of their kind at heart.

We need to find someone who hates conservatives and conservatism with hells burning hot. We need to find someone to counter point by point, on an emotional basis the web of lies that the evil men driving the conservative effort have wound around the lizard brained Americans. We need to do this by countering with our own messages

The Republican leadership is actively involved in treason. They seek to weaken our nation by letting our roads decay, our schools fail, our social safety net disintegrate.

They seek to destroy our free market by handing out free money to the banks while red blooded Americans get evicted from their homes.

The Republican leadership is in the pockets of a small cadre of political and financial elites that want nothing more then to destroy America by bankrupting her. (The lizard brain loves a good conspiracy!)

We must strike out to reach every Americans sense of fairness. The banks would be a good starting target. We could say that the banks are run by a corrupt hypocritical cancerous bunch of un-american corporatists that want to enslave our children to theirs.

I could go on and on and on. But I will say that messaging is key, and if we handle this right, we could totally destroy the influence that the right wingers have over certain key segments of population.

They key is to use broad brush strokes to paint the enemies of American progress as un-American, as a "them" rather then an "us" Someone who wont back down, compromise, come to a bipartisan solution, someone who will work the networks, the radio waves and the media and return hatred with hatred, and when debating would carve out the enemies heart and make them look stupid, traitorous and evil while doing it.

Becuase... As sad as it makes me, I dont think just the truth will cut it at this point, the narrative and the message is king.

Just some ideas, comments welcome

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

  •  We definitely need to play close attention to (16+ / 0-)

    our messaging, but frankly I think we're better off with Stephanie Miller and Rachel Maddow than with a leftist equivalent of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.

    "Mistress of the Topaz" is now available in paperback! Link here:

    by Kimball Cross on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:16:26 PM PDT

    •  I agree, if anything, Limbaugh is a liability in (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the 2012 election cycle because of his unrelenting and unapologetic misogyny.  But I think it's sort of beside the point.  Partisan press isn't good for marketing to voters because most people who watch and listen to partisan press (by which I mean Limbaugh, Coulter, Fox News, Maddow, Miller, Goodman, Young Turks, Olbermann, and so on) are already convinced of who they're going to vote for.  Partisan press matters a lot more during primaries, because they have a lot more influence on the party than on the outcomes of general elections.

      •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

        I think you make a great point. These characters can help turnout the base, but I don't think they can change many opinions at this point. The original posters point is that conservatives media personalities convinced a lot of folks to think a particular way over a long period of time. I am not sure I agree with that point. I think it was done by far more than media and with much less bombast. I don't have empirical evidence (sorry, don' exactly study this sort of stuff down in the weeds) but it seems the radical media personalities completely turn off those that don't agree with them.

        •  The trick is to broaden support by appealing to (0+ / 0-)

          middle-of-the-road voters, who already agree with us on some things and therefore are willing to listen.

          "Mistress of the Topaz" is now available in paperback! Link here:

          by Kimball Cross on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 08:38:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  sure (11+ / 0-)

    We have Randi Rhodes and we had Keith Olbermann. What we lack is a unified block of people in DC willing to do our bidding. The Democratic party is full of corporate middle of the road go along to get along types. Even if we had a unified message being pumped out from liberal talk radio and tv we'd have no one in DC to further the agenda. Which means you'd also have to build a legislative lobbying team to pump out liberal legislation and move it through congress.

    BTW, there is no changing the minds of the right wing nuts. Those folks are the same people who during the 60's beat up priests and nuns for marching with MLK. The wing nuts have always existed and they always will. Best not to waste time trying to change their minds.

    As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

    by jbou on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:21:24 PM PDT

  •  Do you mean... (15+ / 0-)

    ....some one is an abrasive, lying, irritating blowhard with the values of toadstool ? …..wouldn't that person be a republican – so how could that be a win?​

    "if you don't make peaceful revolution possible, you make violent revolution inevitable." ….JFK. .......{- 8.25 / -5.64}

    by carver on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:21:24 PM PDT

    •  a propagandist... (8+ / 0-)

      does not worry themselves with facts. It is about getting the message out and discouraging your opponents. Rush, Fox News and all the rest are propagandists, they are paid well to lie, cheat and irritate.  

      As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

      by jbou on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:24:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  re: do you mean (5+ / 0-)

      Yes, a blowhard with the values of a toadstool. Someone who would be willing to call the other side a bunch of lying, un-american hypocritical, elitist lobbyist fellating, pigf-ckers. (pardon my french but wasent it Lyndon Johnson that said something along the lines of pigf-cking and denying it?)

      Someone who knew how to spin the truth into a series of simple messages that could hold water with the people who, frankly WE NEED to force the politicians in Washington to do their jobs

      •  like the world needs another tyrant (10+ / 0-)

         The left does NOT need a right wing blowhard - you miss the whole concept. The United States does not need another anti education, decisive hater, corporate shill,  who inflames people to do and believe stupid things that are destroying this country.
        What the US needs is more people who value thought, insight, and reasonable discourse. People who may have different opinions but can understand when opinions run counter to the welfare of the American people. People who can describe their ideas and how they would work, and work with others to find the common good.

        America has to stop this slide into the dark ages, and stop glorifying sensationalists who work to create hate and mistrust, ignorance and blind adherence to dogma.

        "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

        by azureblue on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:48:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          hate, mistrust, ignorance and blind adherence to dogma is what America was built on and what we have seen decade after decade after decade. We never have been the home of well reasoned debate and leadership that has worked for the greater good.

          As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

          by jbou on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:55:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then what better time (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            to start then now?

            liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

            by RockyMtnLib on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 01:14:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  humans (0+ / 0-)

              I don't think humans are capable of being well reasoned people who look out for the greater good, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

              As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

              by jbou on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 01:17:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Never....... (0+ / 0-)

            I love absolutes......


            FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 02:15:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Jefferson loved well-reasoned debate (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            He opened his home and his mind to other people's ideas.
            He would offer refuge from closed minded fundamentalists but he wasn't afraid of debate.

            Our "democratic method" depends on seeking agreement but that doesn't mean that you have to put up with destructive conflict.

            I could never understand why Chris Matthews and Bill Maher would allow Ann Coulter on their shows when all she was was a loud-mouthed bleach-blond bully in a short skirt that was just there to insult liberals and trash the Democratic Party. She was armed with distortions and out-right lies and she was allowed to get away with it time after time. I protested and a lot of others did as well. Matthews seemed to respond and Maher got fed up with her eventually. She added nothing to a reasoned debate about conservatism vs liberalism. She was there to bully and insult.

            We have to demand more of the media.
            Beck, Limbaugh and Coulter ,to name a few, will eventually go too far and be reigned in. Haven't they already?

            If you think it doesn't matter if you fight back, then crawl into your whinny little cave and prepare to get your butt kicked.

            You have to fight back but you need to do it the right way. You have to be reasoned and principled. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Say what you believe with conviction and understand what you believe well. Be prepared to defend our democracy from the propagandists that don't really speak for most Americans. They just scream louder than we do.

            The biggest complaint I've had about Obama is that he didn't seem to understand how angry we were about the economy, the unfairness of our system and how desperate we were to have better health care. Progressives and Occupy woke him up. Some were pretty hard on him but he needed that to some extent.
            Just don't let yourself become a tool of the right to attack Obama and don't forget to be kind to one another.

        •  Who said they would be a tyrant? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I don't see why this person would need to be anti education or a corporate shill.

          This hypothetical person would just manage the message, return hate with hate, not back down and be entertaining enough to idiot America to make ratings, ALL WHILE TELLING OUR SIDE.

  •  We do - they are just not as disagreeable or (8+ / 0-)

    are they liars.  We've got Ed, Rachel, Stewart, Colbert and Michael Moore.  We just need more of 'em.

    "George Washington: "The power under the Constitution will always be in the people.... and whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can, and undoubtedly will, be recalled." 1787

    by moose67 on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:22:23 PM PDT

    •  I'd add Thom Hartmann to that list (6+ / 0-)

      but in the "irritating" category we've got Mike Malloy. He's "in your face", not afraid to call the right (and centrists) names, etc. Of course he's got about 3 thousand listeners, not 3 million, so he can't really set an agenda like Rush does.

      All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

      by ontheleftcoast on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:27:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Think of Thom Hartmann as a teacher to all of us (0+ / 0-)

        out here trying to figure out how to deal with propagandists that demand most of the attention but deserve very little. He doesn't have to have a large audience. He has all of us who will listen and learn and repeat his message. He has done most of the heavy lifting.

    •  Stewart and Colbert are not really (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roger Fox, Dirtandiron, native

      left-wing....there's just more comedic material from the right wing nutjobs.

      "Forever is composed of nows." Emily Dickinson

      by Leftovers on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:42:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Plethora of material, YES. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:44:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They're left of Obama and Clinton (3+ / 0-)

        Even if they are only left in the sense of offering the truth from the perspective of the left they do a better job of articulating the argument from the left than almost any elected Democrat.  They don't have to use a billionaire as a crutch to talk about taxes, etc.

        We don't need scumbags like Rush but we do need more entertaining less risk averse Democrats.

      •  Actually the are more effective than the left (0+ / 0-)

        regulars and that is sad.

      •  Within the context of the American political (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        spectrum, they are clearly mainstream liberals.  Their humor reveals robust support for more government spending on social programs, less government spending on military, higher taxes, more progressive taxes, LGBT rights, anti-racism, etc.  Unless by "not really left-wing" you mean they are not socialists, but by that standard fewer Americans are "really left-wing" than believe in witches.  I would generally don't like to use the term "left-wing" in reference to American politics because I think of left-wing as referring to socialist, Marxist, and unionist philosophy, but on the American left-right spectrum Stewart and Colbert are clearly a lot closer to the left end than the right.

      •  Stewart and Colbert moch the right-wing nutjobs (0+ / 0-)

        They fire back with sharper arrows than many of us have.
        They make people think when they challenge what the right puts out there and sends it back with a new perspective.

  •  A screaming, lying, hate-filled lunatic? Pass. (9+ / 0-)

    Romney 2012 - Free the Otterbein 9!

    by Fordmandalay on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:22:36 PM PDT

  •  We already do. His name is Keith Olbermann. (9+ / 0-)

    And he's fucking bananas.

    He, like his counterparts on the right, preach to their respective choirs and make a lot of money trying to divide the rest of us into camps.

    Call me nuts, but I'm fond of the guy who told us there is no red or blue America but the United States of America.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:28:22 PM PDT

    •  That's the problem...KO is not comparable to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roger Fox

      those idiots.  Not even close.

      "Forever is composed of nows." Emily Dickinson

      by Leftovers on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:40:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  KO is bananas? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Diogenes2008, Dirtandiron

      How about dramatic editorialist?

      KO at least uses facts......

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:46:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  once again, false equivalency (8+ / 0-)

      Keith is not nuts and he in no way, is comparable to the Hannitys the Becks, the Rushes, and the rest of the wingers who get on the air and flat out lie day after day. Surely you can see the difference. if not, well, Bless your heart...

      "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

      by azureblue on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:51:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't get me wrong. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lina, GAS

        I like Keith Olbermann. I have since his SportsCenter days.

        And yes, he's not one long stream of lies like his counterparts on the right. I get that.

        But, ultimately, it's the same shtick. He has his amen corner, and, unlike Rachel Maddow, he never makes an effort to reach out to the other side to hear their views.

        Plus, how many times can he burn his bridges?

        He has more talent in his pinky than Hannity, Coulter and the other clowns have in their entire beings, which is what makes it all the more frustrating to see him piss away his career.

        How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

        by BenderRodriguez on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 01:57:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think KO is nuts but he is very annoying (0+ / 0-)

        I have respect for the work KO does, he gets his facts straight and tries to cover a wide variety. From what I understand, he was covering OWS a lot more than people like Maddow. I don't really know, was just told that by someone who was watching him on Current TV.
        Regardless, I think KO's style was a total turn off. I watched him the first few years he was on MSNBC but I slowed down after that and only tuned in once in awhile. I got tired of his style. It seemed like he was talking down to his audience. Most people tuning in to a show like Countdown usually follow the news and don't need to be told the facts 15 times before we "get it"
        Of course, I won't compare him to Limbaugh, Beck and Coulter because, as you say, they simply lie all the time. Unfortunately though, KO turns off a lot of people with his style and that makes him a much less effective progressive advocate. If few want to listen you can't be effective.
        BTW - I don't think Rush, Beck, and Coulter are effective anymore either. They can't persuade anyone that isn't already a true believer. Beck pretty much lost his audience on Fox and Limbaugh doesn't have near the ratings he once had. They had a big impact for awhile, but now I think they are pretty much a liability for conservatives. Their jarring rhetoric is likely to turn off the undecided.

    •  Olbermann proved how thin skinned he (0+ / 0-)

      has become after the WH Correspondents Dinner last evening.  Bye Keith, you may have overstayed your welcome because now you want it to be 'all about Keith'.

      •  I missed that (0+ / 0-)

        What's the KO WHC dinner connection?  I watched it.

        •  from Huffpo (0+ / 0-)
          Keith Olbermann fired back at Jimmy Kimmel, who took several shots at the former Current TV host in his White House Correspondents Dinner speech.

          Olbermann was one of Kimmel's many targets in his set.

          "I’d like everyone to look under your seats," he joked. "Under each one you will find a copy of Keith Olbermann’s resume. Is Keith here tonight? Limo wouldn’t pick him up?"

          He also said that Olbermann "burned more bridges than the arsonist of Madison County" and "has more pink slips than Marcus Bachmann."

          Olbermann responded quickly, comparing Kimmel to his arch-nemesis Bill O'Reilly.

          "Funny that Jimmy Kimmel ripped me after his people desperately wanted me to fly to LA to be on his show this past Wednesday," Olbermann tweeted on Saturday night.

          He added: "I'm not complaining about the Kimmel jokes -- I'm fair game. I'm complaining about the revenge element. It reminds me of O'Reilly."

      •  Obermann is right Kimmel was taking cheap (0+ / 0-)

        shots at him.

        By the way,I thought Obama was funnier than Kimmel.
        Guess the Prez had better writters.

        Keith can be as arrogant as he wants to be ,as long as he is right. Bush was never right but he had a ton of arrogance. There really is a difference.

    •  Recced for "preach to their respective choirs". (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I'd rather have a buntle afrota-me than a frottle a bunta-me.

      by David54 on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 01:09:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely b.s. Keith has the guts to take hits (0+ / 0-)

        for his remarks but Limbaugh never admits he was wrong.
        How many times have you heard Limbaugh, Coulter,
        or Beck admit a mistake? They just take stronger aim.

        I am beginning to think I have stumbled into troll land.

        •  I watched KO every night, but he did "preach to (0+ / 0-)

          the choir". His show was entertaining, enough, but his Special Comments never convinced anyone  who didn't already agree with him.

          I'd rather have a buntle afrota-me than a frottle a bunta-me.

          by David54 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 06:50:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Keith Olbermann is the real deal (0+ / 0-)

      I am sorry but you are too ignorant of who he is to judge him. I know a little bit about him because we come from the same religious background. We are both Unitarian Universalists.

      We are very liberal in our religious outlook and we are more about ethics and respect than religious b.s. We don't believe that God loves us better than he loves you.

      Keith has a tendency to preach and he can be a bit arrogant because he is very smart and impatient with stupid and corrupt people.That doesn't mean he isn't sincere.

      Just to remind you, Keith was one of the first news commentators to speak up against the Bush administration. He paved the way for others to do so.
      He didn't back down when he was told to either.That is what makes him Keith. He tells the truth even when it isn't convenient for him to do so.Can you say that about Limbaugh or Hannity?

      Sorry to bust your bubble but we really have been getting redder. That wasn't so as much when Obama made that remark but according to polling I have read we are tending towards the red. Obama needs to be assertive to change that. Bipartisanship is no longer possible. You have to be on the side of democracy, not on a political party.

  •  I don't think that would work (6+ / 0-)

    we are capable of making decisions without having someone tell us which ones to make.

    Plus Limbaugh and Coulter are nothing but the tools of the !% and their Six Company Media Cartel. They get airtime because that helps to keep us divided while 1% picks our pockets.

    Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:28:38 PM PDT

  •  Don't need no Coulter...We got Kim Kardashian.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


  •  Their strengths are bigger than blowhards. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron, native, beemerr, GAS

    They own the media---newspapers, radio, tv. Our biggest strength is that most people agree with us, so we have more votes. We have to mobilize people to vote. And we can do that.

    Your left is my right---Mort Sahl

    by HappyinNM on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:31:00 PM PDT

  •  Wrong. VERY wrong (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, Roger Fox

    I would rather lose with the moral high ground than win with the moral low ground.

    •  re: Wrong. Very wrong (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I hope that keeps you warm at night, the moral high ground, when you are living in a tent city and our nation is a banana republic.

    •  You're Talking Life and Death With Some of Us Now. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dirtandiron, native, congenitalefty

      I'm at the point of calculating when I lose my house and go out on the street.

      That said, the only thing we need is the passion and simple direct messaging. We don't need the lying and character assassination, most of which frankly is lying also

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:43:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  re:You're Talking Life... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dirtandiron, native

        I am sorry for your situation Gooserock. I really am. But it wouldn't be character assassination if it was actually true.

        I believe the enemy (collectively) to be a bunch of lying cancerous evil, disgusting,hypocritical, Pharisaical, parasitical un american hateful elitists.

        Start with their actions, then move on to why they did what they did and end with an appeal to action, IE: Remove these assholes like a cancerous tumor from the American body politic.

  •  "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become… (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    debedb, Roger Fox, Diogenes2008, TBug, GAS

    a monster…" Nietzsche
    That being said, defending one and all from monsters is praiseworthy. Battling them on their terms has got to be an act of self destruction.

    Without heroes we are all losers with nothing to aspire to.

    by qua on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:37:03 PM PDT

  •  Ed Schultz is close to Limbaugh (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    janmtairy, Roger Fox, NM Ray

    He is abrasive and outspoken and makes his dislike of republicans in your face. He isn't intellectual enough for most liberals but he has the biggest audience in liberal radio and has a TV show.
    He also hunts and fish and attracts some conservatives listeners who belong to unions. Liberal radio just never caught on,most on the left don't like to be told what to think.

    •  Not a fan of Ed, but RU calling ED a liar? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I mean really- Ed tends to use actual facts compared to Rush Lintball.

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:51:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the reason Left wing radio (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dirtandiron, native, beemerr

      has not caught on is because of financial support. The right wingers are puppets of the rich and business giants like Koch, who will gladly pour millions into getting a program established, and supporting it while it is one the air.

      "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

      by azureblue on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:54:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Listen to Ed Schultz. He's Common as Dirt But Not (5+ / 0-)

    mean. Great at repeating simple talking points. Very passionate and terrific in front of a live audience. The audience he pitches to are those "who have to take a shower after work" as he says.

    We've got him. But the intensely conservative ownership of our public airwaves severely limits his reach.

    You're wrong though about reaching a large fraction of the conservative base even if we had a more accessible public square. I've been a wedding/funeral musician since the early days of the rightwing revolution, well before Reagan's Presidency, and as such visiting and participating in rightwing churches and mixing with rightwing Catholics.

    That's most of the conservative base and they have been describing liberals and rational people as "enemy" ever since those days. They left mainstream media 2 generations ago until it became sufficiently corporatist.

    Probably we could reach 10 of that approximately 40% of the electorate, and they plus the reachable moderates would be electoral victory nationally though not regionally in much of the country.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:42:21 PM PDT

  •  Responding to just the title (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, Dirtandiron

    We need asshats?

    Now I'll go ahead and read the diary.

    FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:42:44 PM PDT

  •  Limbaugh and Coulter are not what they used (0+ / 0-)

    to be.....and they never were.

  •  You're all wrong. What we really need (5+ / 0-)

    is to own the entire msm like the RW does, if you want to talk about equivalence.

    Support a starving artisan: Buy My Stuff New bracelets just listed!

    by jan4insight on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:47:37 PM PDT

    •  Yep Ask Ed Schultz, It's All Ownership, He's In (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jan4insight, Dirtandiron

      DC in part to lobby Dems about this issue.

      However the RW doesn't "own" the media. The media by the wording of the 1st Amendment is structurally a rightwing institution that must promote the interests of the rich and their enterprises against all others including the people, the nation and humanity.

      The framers' astonishing notion of recognizing 2 rights to assert with no general right of the people to Know by which some kind of balance or at least access could be assured for their issues, will be recognized for the madness it is some day though maybe not by Americans.

      Those of them who lived to serve under their press freedom learned some brutal lessons about how it would actually function.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 01:01:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here in NC......the Amendment One thingy is (0+ / 0-)

      coming up.....but listening to my conservative 'acquaintances''s gonna die horribly....maybe...maybe one is pushing it here so to think NC has a pinkish tinge to it....;-)

  •  Even if we had the "Propagandist" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lunachickie, jan4insight, native

    you suggest. . .

    The totally right wing Corporate Media that owns all of the air waves these days would not give them the air time to spread their propaganda.

    Come on. . .6 giant media corporations own 98% of all media, national and local.  They all support the "small" government, right wing idiots that will do their bidding once in office or places of influence.  Unless Progressive billionaires start popping out of the air and buying up media, it will NEVER happen.  Or we could go back to limited ownership of multiple media business. . .but I doubt I'll see that day again.

    *the blogger formerly known as shirlstars

    by Shirl In Idaho on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:49:00 PM PDT

  •  GOP has some 'splainin to do....Coulter and (0+ / 0-)

    FATASS, Inc are merely sideshows.......'Their depth is as deep as......fill in the blank'

  •  That is not the problem at all (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It might be a canard at this point, but from experience I can tell you that the media is not a level playing field.   The people who invest in these money losing enterprises do so for one reason only -- to influence policy so they can make money in their other ventures.  

    What we need is our own media, and with the internet we may have a chance.   But -- we win by being the BBC or what VOA used to be, not by going the Fox News route.

    •  The BBC and the VOA.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      are boring. We need flash, we need sizzle, we need to do something OTHER then repeat the truth. We need to go out there, call our enemies every name in the book AND weave the truth into a NARRATIVE. Then and only then will Joe six Pack sit up and take notice.

  •  The left has Miller, Maddow, Stewart, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Colbert, O'Donnell, Schultz and Bill Maher just to name a few.  The get out the truth and some do it with humor.  I would not trade what the left has for the right wing sleeze machine comprised of disrespectful, deceitful and backward thinking people IMHO.

  •  Right now what we need is the equivalent of OWS (5+ / 0-)

    on the Big Media.
    We need Big Media to drop the false equivalency, etc. and to simply stick to responsible reporting of the truth.

    It's starting to show signs of happening, but we need a breakthrough movement that can be as effective at changing the narrative as OWS was.

    I think msnbc is slowly gaining in credibility and acceptance., but there's a reason Olbermann didn't fully succeed as the "blowhard of the left" to counter O'Reilly, Limbaugh. He preached to the choir.

    What would help would be if MSNBC would come up with some creative ideas for progressive programming on weekends, etc. that would help draw in average viewers. Innovative, interesting programs on solar energy, (maybe a "make-over" show), renewable energy, emerging jobs in green tech, new developments in science, etc. Borrow ideas from Link tv and do world music shows.,
    Shows that bridge the gaps.

    I'd rather have a buntle afrota-me than a frottle a bunta-me.

    by David54 on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 01:06:00 PM PDT

  •  There's always thinkprogress. (0+ / 0-)

    Just as dumb and dishonest; it's a testament to the left, though, that they don't have as much influence as Rush etal.

  •  When every microphone in this country (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, beemerr

    isn't owned by one of six corporations, who I believe conspire to lie, obfuscate, or omit real facts in favor of divisive dogma, there won't be any real need for a "Limbaugh or Colter on the Left".

    Cuz, you know, actual truth would be being reported, instead of state-subverting propaganda.

    It is time to #Occupy Media.

    by lunachickie on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 01:12:40 PM PDT

  •  FDR and the New Deal had Will Rogers (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hlsmlane, native, GAS

    Will Rogers spoke to Common People.  He was on the Radio every day and he wrote a one sentence statement that was published every day in many of the leading newspapers.  People looked for what he said and they waited to hear what he had to say.

    Why don’t they pass a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting anybody from learning anything? If it works as good as Prohibition did, in five years we will have the smartest people on earth.
    The Republican platform promises to do better. I don’t think they have done so bad. Everybody’s broke but them.
    Republicans take care of big money, for big money takes care of them.
    The whole trouble with the Republicans is their fear of an increase in income tax, especially on higher incomes.
    And, he also spoke of nations fighting wars:
    Draft capital as well as men. Boys, there ain’t going to be no war.
    I have a scheme for stopping war. It’s this—no nation is allowed to enter a war till they have paid for the last one.
    There is no argument in the world carries the hatred that a religious belief one does. The more learned a man is the less consideration he has for another man’s belief.
    I guess that's why we're always fighting in the Middle East and probably always will be.

    Impeach Grover Norquist! Defeat a Republican!

    by NM Ray on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 01:14:54 PM PDT

  •  I've been off work a month due to an illness (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    native, congenitalefty, GAS

    that I hope will be resolved after an operation May 7.

    The point of the above admission is to indicate that I have had the time to listen to 'progressive' radio (computer) for the last month non stop and I can make this evaluation.

    I start with Bill Press, then Stephanie Miller. I then go to Sam Seder (the majority report) on the computer at noon. After that I download the previous day's Nichole Sandler at radioornot. I then catch Randi Rhodes at 3 and a repeat of Thom Hartmann at 6.

    All times are eastern. I get Press and Miller on wcpt chicago and Rhodes and Hartmann on kphx phoneix. The majority report and Sandler are on the computer only.

    Because I am not sleeping well I have caught an hour or so of Alan Colmes 10 pm to 1 am on wcpt occasionally and I like him as well.

    I have also caught Mike Malloy and he certainely is in your face but without the barrage of lies I got from the right. I also catch ringof fire radio on the weekends as well as the past weeks  repeats of Democracy Now.

    When I'm working I tune into elrushbo when I'm driving around just to keep in touch with the out of touch. I also listen to Hannity on my way home for an hour for the same reason.

    The progressive voices are very articulate and never 'quote' without the proviso of facts to back them up.

    The problem is conglomerates like CC have the market saturated in 'right wing voices' by a huge measure. You can even pic up Hannity or rush on 3 stations in the same town, at the same time but no progressive voices.

    Coming back to the title of this opinion, non of the progressives I have listened to in the last month (some for years) practice innuendo or the omission of facts (hence truth) and they do espouse the very values you seek in the body of you opionion, you just have to listen......

  •  Show me one (0+ / 0-)

    shred of evidence that Ann Coulter has ever influenced one voter on any matter of public significance -- ever -- and we can talk. It's one thing to provide caustic comfort to the choir; it's another to influence public opinion and politics.

    As for the need for a Limbaugh -- which I interpret to be an egocentric personality who uses humor, emotion, and ridicule to persuade -- we have some of those. The fact that they haven't been as influential as Rush is both an accident of history and a reflection of the differences in personality between liberals and conservatives.

    You are reading my signature line. #hashtag

    by cardinal on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 01:17:07 PM PDT

  •  You're right, but two cents on it. (0+ / 0-)

    Limbaugh and Coulter are two overgrown babies who scream and yell when no one is paying attention to them. We don't need someone like that. What we do need, is someone who can yell down the liars and the ignorant with facts and logic. So in a way, you're correct. However, going the way of Coulter or Limbaugh is not the way to do it.

  •  I heard this guy (0+ / 0-)

    on Sirius the other day, and  think his name is Mike Malloy. Does he count?

    I almost left the building, but I decided to stay.

    by secret38b on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 01:22:58 PM PDT

  •  We do need better, consistent messaging (0+ / 0-)

    and a concerted and funded effort to educate and influence Americans. We do not need professional liars and propagandists such as Coulter and Limbaugh. They are bad for the health of America.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 01:24:59 PM PDT

  •  Look to the money behind the Oz like figures (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    congenitalefty, GAS

    Conservative talk radio has roots going back to radio preachers back in the 30s that sold holy water over the air and made millions doing it, and to such figures as HL Hunt who sponsored conservative talk shows on his HLH Aloe Vera selling programs in the late 1960s out of Dallas.

    The reason for the growth in the industry was not the on air personalities.  It was the millions and tens of millions being poured into it by oil millionaires and billionaires who joined the Christian Right in a crusade to remake America, no matter how long it took.  

    They have been amazingly successful, particularly out in the rural areas and in the small towns where there is no diversity of media, because there is not the economy of scale to support it.  

    This was done, in part, to counter what the right saw as the liberal advantage.  The tradition of academic scholarship and scientific inquiry is a liberal innovation in terms of the history of what we call Western Civilization.  The Consititution and the whole tradition of the rule of law comes from this.  

    What the right wing is trying to do is to propose that there is an alternative to science and to academic integrity, which is better and more Christ centered.  The problem is that it is not Christ centered so much as it is a rehash of failed efforts to instill justifications for a financial aristocracy.  

    Nevertheless there are a lot of people that are convinced that they are bringing about a better future through an alternative to the whole liberal tradition, in the largest sense.

    Limbaugh isn't dangerous, compared to those who financed his career.  He will retire or die someday.  The beat will go on.

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 01:46:34 PM PDT

  •  We don't need a Limbaugh or Coulter we just (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, beemerr, congenitalefty, GAS

    need the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, and a breakup of the media conglomerates. Six companies owning all the media is not a free press, I am sorry.

    Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

    by Dirtandiron on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 01:47:20 PM PDT

    •  An agenda and a unified message (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dirtandiron, beemerr, dmalrajabi

      wouldn't hurt either. The problem is that the Democrats seem scared to stand up for positions even when they're popular, and unwilling to fight against propaganda or unpopular positions. It's frustrating.

      I'm no philosopher, I am no poet, I'm just trying to help you out - Gomez (from the song Hamoa Beach)

      by jhecht on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 02:59:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, AaronInSanDiego, GAS

    The sane right doesn't need them either. Demagogues and hate-mongers poison the entirety of political discourse, and you don't counter them by adding more demagogues.

  •  Nah. Just need to quit givIng those 1000 coordinat (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Ted radio stations a free speech free ride

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and partisan lying by broadcasting sports on Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 01:56:14 PM PDT

  •  Had one, but he's "Senator Franken" now. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NM Ray, GAS
  •  We need a likeable common sense person. (0+ / 0-)

    President Bill Clinton has a remarkable gift.  If we had someone like President Clinton who could laugh and have people like him.

    Ron Reagan, the younger, is that type of person in some ways.

    Impeach Grover Norquist! Defeat a Republican!

    by NM Ray on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 02:03:23 PM PDT

    •  I'll take an SOB who tells me the truth anyday (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Keith lets you know right up front that he doesn't care if you like him or not. He thinks he is special. He is.

      After all the lies, deception and mean-spiritedness we had to put up with under eight years of Bush, I welcome the truth even when it is not to my liking.

      We all need a reality check. We need to get tough or crawl back into our shells and sleep through the next decade.

      I am sorry, but cowards disgust me.

  •  Good Diary and Discussion, Terrible Title (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We've got enough problems with the meme that "both sides do it" without giving it substance.  And, as others have noted, we have some excellent spokesmen.  We don't seem to have a cohesion around a simple message that gets pounded daily, nor a means of effectively countering the lies of the right.

  •  I'd rather have a Rachel Maddow (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    any day.

    We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

    by CatM on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 02:36:31 PM PDT

  •  I'm not sure it works, because (0+ / 0-)

    you are asking someone to go against what many consider part of their liberal values in order to sell liberalism, and it may come across as disingenuous. Not saying the right wing blowhards are not disingenuous, but the people who are persuaded by them think they are sincere.

    "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

    by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 03:59:47 PM PDT

  •  Molly Ivins (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

      THAT"s who we need!  I miss her but the nation misses her most.

  •  What we need are better Democrats who have the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    guts to call out the opposition party with facts and not be afraid of the fallout for doing so.  We need to follow the example of Senator Bernie Sanders who speaks with conviction.  We need 50 of his type to make the message clear, and listened to by the MSM.  We need the Progressive Caucus to call more press conferences along with the Congressional Black Congress doing the same.

    We need better Democrats in DC, with voices.

    “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius

    by LamontCranston on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 06:33:38 PM PDT

  •  Howard Stern was disappeared from radio (0+ / 0-)

    I wonder why.  I wonder how.

  •  So, I have been thinking. Maybe the title... (0+ / 0-)

    Was a little out there. We don't need the lying about Republicans, because the things they have done are despicable enough to get them in enough trouble as it is. But the hatefulness we need. We don't need bipartisan, simpering, backpedaling and niceness. We need anger, fighting spirit, truthfulness and the willingness to go for the jugular. WE NEED BETTER MESSAGING.

    We need someone to want to kill the Republican agenda. Someone who wants to drive a stake through the black cold hateful hearts of this evil empire that they can taste it in the back of their throat. We need someone who wakes up in the morning thinking about what they are going to do to destroy the enemy, and goes to bed exhausted from all the sticking it to the Rethugs.

    Americans need to know that someone out there is fighting for them, regardless of the win. The fight is what attracts support, and the message you are screaming while you are doing it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site