Kos has a post up indicating that, with $10 million cash on hand, Bayh was willing to part with $100,000 to assist the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Quoth the Kos:
I don’t care how much these guys have raised via campaign rallies and
the like. At this point, with the only thing standing between us dramatically expanding the playing field is cash, these 2008 hopefuls need to pony up.$100K from Bayh? Ridiculous and shameful. Insulting, in fact. Dodd has close to $2 million CoH in his Senate reelection kitty. Biden has $3.3 million. Who knows how much more they have stashed away in their leadership PACs.
They can hoard that cash. That’s their prerogative. But we shouldn’t forget when they ask us to sacrifice for their efforts in 2008. Anyone unwilling to give ’till it hurts to win back Congress and move America forward this year shouldn’t get much respect when they ask us to help them out.
I rarely go to visit The Daily Kos for the same reason I rarely listen to Sean Hannity.
They are blind partisans.
Kos sounds pretty socialist most of the time.
Mike Sylvester
Fort Wayne Libertarian
So… what does Kos’ statement have to do with being a “blind partisan?”
Kos is definitely partisan (so am I, frankly), and he’s not always right, but I don’t think he’s a “blind” partisan. Certainly not to the degree of Sean Hannity. Certainly no more than a libertarian who accuses Kos of Marxist sympathies because he has the temerity to expect rich Democrats to put their party over… what, hoarding for a rainy day?… in a watershed election when the only thing stopping Democrats from competing in all the potentially competitive seats is… money.
Or maybe I missed the part where Markos said the government should step in and redistribute Evan Bayh’s warchest among all the Democratic candidates.
I don’t know if Kos is right or not about the idea that more money will make a big difference in the Senate races. But he’s probably right about the grass roots being reluctant to dig deep in the future for a candidate who isn’t willing to dig deep now.
Kos likes to talk. I dunno why, but Bayh won’t be popular with the far left of the party. Kos is over there, and will want another candidate like Kerry or Gore that won’t win in red states and we will lose again… no matter how badly this Bush administration stumbles. Bayh is stumping and donating… and no matter what he does Kos and that type will not approve of him.
Now ex Gov Mark Warner seemed like a moderate Democrat, so Kos’ support for him shocked me. Until I heard about money connections.
I don’t go to DailyKos anymore, if you don’t walk in lock step with them then you are against them.
Certainly not to the degree of Sean Hannity.
It is a matter of perspective. I agree with Mike, they’re both on the fringe. If you find yourself firmly on one side most of the time, from your POV the person on your side will look less extreme and more…passionate.
I don’t know much about Hannity because I’m just not going to watch Faux News. Kos has a bias, and he declares it. Faux declares itself as “fair and balanced.”
In any event, my take on Kos is not that he’s especially liberal in his policy views. He just wants the Democrats to be more muscular in their opposition to the Republicans. Since Gingrich and the ’94 revolution (before that if we’re counting Limbaugh’s demonization of liberals generally), Republicans on the national level have won elections by whacking wedge issues and painting Democrats as somehow defective personally, rather than as having honest differences of opinion on policy.
I’m sure this sort of thing has been going on to one extent or another since the beginning of politics. But I believe it underwent a recent quantum leap in ’94, leading to nonsense like the Clinton impeachment and endless investigations of Clinton’s sex life — more hours of investigation, incidentally, than went into investigating the failures to prevent the attacks of 9/11.
Arguments about who started it aside, however, you just can’t fight that sort of thing with arguments about how great your policies are. So, like with a prisoner’s dilemma situation — if you get a bonk on the head, the only realistic strategy is to respond in kind. Milquetoast responses like those of Lieberman, Kerry, and pre-2001 Gore just aren’t going to be successful.
It’s a fiery, partisan response that Kos advocates, not necessarily particularly liberal policies.
Doug:
I do not watch Fox either, I get satelite.
I listen to Hannity on the radio in small doses. He is awful…
I think he and Kos are similar.
I think they are both blindly partisan and that they cannot see the fault with their own Party as often as they should.
Mike Sylvester
The difference being that Hannity shouts things that are demonstrably false on a regular basis. In order for there to be equivalence there, I’d be interested in what kinds of falsehoods Kos throws out there. Are they both partisan? Sure. But Kos will throw a Dem under the bus for wrongdoing. A noteworthy example is the Bill Jefferson situation in Louisiana, where there was universal condemnation from the Left and a sincere wish for him to resign and leave. I don’t sense any readiness on Hannity’s part to do the same when his side does wrong. Instead, his approach would be to demonize the “liberal media” and just piss and moan like the loud, ridiculous clown that he is.
Daily Kos has already made up its mind against Bayh, so it wouldn’t make any difference to them whether Bayh donated millions or one cent. Besides the far extremes, most people in politics have sort memories, and very few will hold this against future Presidential contenders (for right or wrong).
That being said, I COULD argue that these candidates are holding back because if Democrats win the House and Senate this year, Democrats may not do as well in 2008. Obviously, 2008 Presidential contenders want the best chance they can get, and a Republican Congress would help them. But if I actually argued that theory (and believed it, which I don’t), that would make me as whacked out as those at Daily Kos. But it just goes to show how easy it is to think up these crazy ideas, and why we have so many on the internet doing it.
Based on some of the comments on here I went and did some research on The Daily KOS.
As I said in my original post I do not read KOS much… He is too far to the Left for me.
There are some differences between he and Sean Hannity.
Sean Hannity absolutely hates Democrats and he refuses to hold Republicans responisble for anything.
Daily KOS absolutely hates Republicans and anyone who disagrees with Daily KOS.
KOS would never support Bayh; Bayh is far too moderate for KOS.
After looking at KOS and listening to Hannity I have to say that Hannity probably is a little more partisan then KOS; but, not by a lot.
I do not care for the style of either one of them.
Mike Sylvester
Fort Wayne Libertarian
Currently on kos are pieces about a Republican ad buy featuring Osama and encouraging people to vote GOP. Also, a piece about Jerry Lewis-R of California firing ethics investigators. Another piece about Lamont trailing Lieberman in a new poll. That’s some quick research. I’m missing the “hates Republicans” side of it. Yes, we hate the things they are doing, as I’ve chronicled in earlier posts. If they want some love from me, they should stop their crappy governance which appears to consist of solely hanging on to power, the country be damned. I get so tired of the “oh, they just hate hate hate” stuff. We hate their policies. Their policies have brought poor results. I don’t hate them as individuals. I just don’t want them governing our country anymore.
If you want hate, try Little Green Footballs. You’ll see a much angrier tone, much less rationality, and a much itchier trigger finger among those folks. They’re generally considered the anti-kos. A more unhinged online community you are unlikely to find.
The “kos as hate group” meme is a concoction of the establishment Right (and Left/DLC also, actually). Most in the kos community are professionals, upper-middle class, and quite peacible. And quite funny, really. And really there would be just silence on there if the Republicans didn’t give the left so much ammo. Their head of internet child protection uses the internet to troll for boytoys. Their “fiscal conservative” class of 94 sets deficit records. Their administration garners Christian votes while calling them freaks and kooks. They were asleep on 9/11, then woke up and beat that horse every election since, as if they did something great. We just call them on it, and they call it hate. Poor, poor babies.
Well, Doug, if you’re not going to watch “Faux News,” then how would you know it’s “Faux News.” Oh, I understand now, you must watch the unbiased CNN, CBS, etc. What was I thinking? Oh, that’s right. I watch them all and make up my own mind.
I watch Fox a couple of nights per week, for maybe 30 minutes at a stretch. Usually Hannity and Colmes, with special guest Ann Colter, etc. I’m left with the impression that only an idiot would believe the stuff they’re saying with a straight face. I’m all for Republicans/conservatives having their beliefs and expressing them (I once was one myself). But Fox News is just so cartoonish about it.
To be fair, all 24-hour news networks end up looking ridiculous in that they have a lot of time to fill, so they repeat endlessly and pursue so really angles to stories.
Hannity and Colmes is a political debate show. It IS supposed to be partisan: Democrat vs. Republican. Both Hannity and Colmes ARE going to slant their views, but it’s fair in that BOTH sides get a voice.
Using the other main network, CNN, as an example, the McCaferty File on Blitzer’s show is very partisan in favor of the Dems. That’s OK, because it’s an opinion segment, not the straight news portion.
It’s like when people say this newspaper is biased in favor of the Dems and this newspaper is biased in favor of the GOP because of what is written on the op-ed page. It’s the op-ed page — it’s supposed to reflect a certain view. That’s OK, and is good, because it generates debate of ideals. The key is to keep those biased views on the op-ed page and not on the news pages. That’s what CNN does with McCaferty and it’s what Fox does with Hannity and Colmes.
Basically, what it comes down to for a lot of people is, “If I don’t agree with it, even if it’s an editorial, then the whole organization is biased.”
The “news” shows on Fox, i.e. Special Report with Brit Hume, don’t blur that line. So, for Doug and others to say Fox News is biased is simply incorrect. Hannity and Colmes is biased (both ways), but the news coverage of the channel certainly is not. And considering that more people watch Fox News than CNN and MSNBC combined, the majority of viewers watching these types of networks must agree.
Have you noticed that the Republicans have all the hot chicks and the Dems get uglier. Hillary, God help us if I would have to look at her everyday.
Fox News has better looking anchors and reporters then all the other news organizations together.
Just thought I would throw some real manly stuff out there and give ya all a break from the politics.