Debbie: It’s Time To Move On

Filed in National by on November 9, 2014

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chair of the DNC, you need to move on.  Thanks for your efforts on behalf of us bruised and bloodied Democrats but we need ideas and real work from the DNC to pull us out of the ditch.  I was going to say “fresh” ideas, but frankly, I’ve seen nothing resembling any kind of idea coming out of DNC leadership lately.  So I repeat, ideas and solutions.

We’ve got the best Presidential record in modern history on so many measures  yet you and your lackluster communications team allowed the Republicans to command the narrative and dominate a lap dog media.   Obama bad; Obama not so white.  America not producing for everyman.

We have so many success stories with this administration.  They never got told.  No solutions to the economic malaise most of us are living.  What we got from the DNC was mostly the sound of silence.  Our base was thirsty for red meat from our Party.  They were waiting.  The meal never came.  Just a bowl of gruel. They wanted a fighting spirit and a powerful message that rocked them to their core.  They wanted ideas for change to make their lives better.  They heard heavy breathing, but no words.  We became apathetic and hopeless.

With all due respect, Debbie, it is a really bad idea for a sitting officeholder to lead the DNC.  Your perspective is tainted by the environment you live in every day there in Congress.

So, thank you.  By all means, let’s bring on more women in DNC leadership.  We have a proud legacy with our brand.  It is time for the DNC and its leadership to clearly and artfully tell your Party faithful and those open to listening what we stand for.

Then, aggressive, constant, coordinated (with our electeds and state party leaders) repetitive messaging.

You made the decision and announced that there would be no national Democratic campaign or message.  That was your idea.  It failed us.  It didn’t work.  Doing nothing (but demanding money) didn’t work.  So grateful for your efforts.  You apparently gave it your best shot.  Now it’s time move forward with a new program.

Onward with new Party leadership.

Tags:

About the Author ()

Comments (56)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. cassandra_m says:

    She put out a video talking about the election and looking for feedback. It is on Facebook (you may have to scroll down abit — can you just link to a single FB post?). There’s more than 2400 comments and it is interesting reading.

    And I agree that a sitting lawmaker shouldn’t be in charge of the DNC. Get someone who can be committed to the project full time. Bring back Howard Dean!

  2. Andy says:

    We need leadership that knows how to be Democrats and promote the beliefs of the Democratic Party, not acting like Rockefeller Republicans

  3. cassandra_m says:

    Howard Dean was on FTN this AM talking about party strategy, largely reinforcing the idea that Republican lite is not a winner. And fearful campaigning isn’t good either. I read someplace that Chris Coons was looking at leading the DSCC — which isn’t going to do much for reducing either Republican lite or campaigning from a defensive crouch.

    He also notes he is NOT running for President and he is already supporting Hillary Clinton.

  4. Tom Kline says:

    We need a new President…

  5. rustydils says:

    Best post election quote by David Gergen, it is the fourth quarter, and Obama is down by 20, yet he is acting like he is ahead

  6. calvin sparks says:

    I agree, Debbie Wassermann-Schultz Needs to go.

  7. Dana says:

    Despite Mr Merriman’s claim that “We’ve got the best Presidential record in modern history on so many measures,” the Washington Post reported that 72% of Americans believe we are still in a recession. Fox News has a big audience, but it isn’t 72% of the public; Rush Limbaugh reaches something like 30 million listeners a week, but that isn’t 72% of the public.

    Slightly over 50% of the voters cast their ballots for President Obama, in two separate elections; it’s not like the American people hate the guy. But when such a large segment of the population believe we’re still in a recession, it’s more than the Democratic leadership not crafting their message well; it’s real people feeling real pain.

  8. Dana says:

    While I don’t give two hoots about Debbie Whatshername Schultz, I wonder how the DNC can be responsible for the decisions of Alison Grimes or Kay Hagan or Mark Pryor or Mary Landrieu to separate themselves from the President in the 2014 elections? Those were individual candidates, in individual elections, who guesstimated that they’d be better off running away from the Obama Administration’s policies.

    Would any of them have won had they adhered more closely to the President and his policies? Mrs Grimes certainly wouldn’t have; she ran a lousy campaign, with several unforced errors. Maybe Senator Hagan, who lost narrowly, might have survived, but there’s no way to know. And while Senator Landrieu hasn’t lost yet, the DSCC must think that she’s a lost cause, because they pulled their funding from her ahead of the runoff election.

  9. Stan merriman says:

    Dana, you obviously did not read my blog; remember the ideas for change to make peoples lives better part? No, apparently not.

  10. JibberJab says:

    The best part of this post, “allowed the Republicans to command the narrative and dominate a lap dog media.”

    Do you honestly think the media was duped? For Obamas entire presidency the media has been in his pocket. To say that the media was controlled by the Republicans is laughable. To say that any news outlet was pushing the Republican agenda, aside from Fox, is a joke. How about, the Democrats weren’t performing?

    You’re correct, the media are lap dogs, but not for the Republicans. Watch CNN, watch MSNBC, watch John Stewart, hell watch Colbert.

    I would like to know what media outlet was duped by the Republicans. The Democrats didn’t preform and America voted. When the Republicans didn’t preform in ’06 they were voted out. Were the Democrats duping the media back then? Don’t perform, get voted out. That’s how it works. Well except here in Delaware. In Delaware when you don’t perform it just means you get another term.

  11. puck says:

    But when such a large segment of the population believe we’re still in a recession, it’s more than the Democratic leadership not crafting their message well; it’s real people feeling real pain.

    Which is why approval of Congress is even lower. What you are describing are the effects of lack of wage growth, lack of upward economic mobility, and income inequality. The Republican House has done nothing to help that situation and in fact has prevented any improvement ($10.10 minimum wage, anybody)? And with a Repub Senate, passing a bunch of tax cuts and deregulation will only make it worse.

    Would any of them have won had they adhered more closely to the President and his policies?

    Probably. Grimes and Hagan are from states that are full of desparately poor people who have benefited from Obama policies and would benefit even more from the policies Republicans are blocking. Failure to get that message out is why they lost. The message could not overcome the drumbeat of bigotry from the right, who has somehow convinced people that health care is bad for them and that ISIS and Ebola are Obama’s fault.

    The US is in the midst of an energy boom and record corporate profits which are obviously not being held back by regulation or taxes. That criticism of Obama is and always was a lie. Pennslyvania just booted a Repub governor in favor of new taxes on/gas drilling companies.

  12. Jason330 says:

    Everyone believes that the media is biased and that it favors “the other guys.” For me it is as perfectly obvious that the cable TV news media (aside from MSNBC) is totally in the pocket of the GOP, as it is plainly obvious to Jib that the media is in the pocket of Obama.

    I’d love to see actual data sometime. After all there are knowable facts. How often does cable news say “death tax” to refer to the “estate tax” for example? How often are guests on Sunday shows promoting the wingnut agenda? My sense is that the wingnut agenda dominates Sunday morning – but I can at least acknowledge that my politics color my views on it.

    What are the facts? (Not that fact matter to wingnuts like Jib)

  13. Geezer says:

    “the Washington Post reported that 72% of Americans believe we are still in a recession. ”

    And 75% believe in angels. Only on “Family Feud” does the audience response matter more than the facts.

  14. stan merriman says:

    When I used, or perhaps misused the term lapdog I meant lazy media. I argue that perhaps many in the network and print media have a personal bias one way or another and that is human and OK. What is not OK is the prevailing professional practice of basically reprinting news releases political organizations and campaigns send them without verification of facts and further probing for details and support for claims. I suppose it is because budgets have diminished for news rooms but I’m not sure journalism schools are churning out the best and brightest; TV in particular seems to emphasize photogenic qualities first.
    But, this should make Party p.r. operations alot easier. And the RNC capitalizes on this.
    The Republican Party clearly has a harder working, very skilled cadre of p.r. and messaging people and I think DNC leadership never has embraced the advice of really brilliant messagers like Lakoff and prefer to believe in the failed strategy of “build it and they will come”, absent a sales organization. So, lists of policies and positions prevail with my Democrats.

  15. BeCareful says:

    Jason330, you asked for some data on media bias. Here is one story comparing the network nightly newscasts in 2006 versus the nightly newscasts in 2014. As you’ll see, in 2006, a good year for democrats, the nightly newscasts covered the midterm elections extensively, with 159 stories between 9/1/06 and 10/20/06. However, in 2014, when things seemed headed in the republican direction, those same networks had only 25 stories on the mid-term elections — a 6 to 1 disparity.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2014/10/22/tv-news-blacks-out-years-bad-election-news-democrats

    So, there are some facts for you, although I’m sure folks here will claim these facts mean nothing.

  16. JibberJab says:

    BOOM. But I’m just a wingnut right?

  17. Rusty Dils says:

    6 years ago Obama campaigned on hope and change. Well, he got the change part, after last weeks election, their will be more republicans in state legislatures starting in January 2015, than at any time since the 1920s. Now I call that change for the better!

  18. Dana says:

    Mr Geezer wrote:

    “the Washington Post reported that 72% of Americans believe we are still in a recession. ”

    And 75% believe in angels. Only on “Family Feud” does the audience response matter more than the facts.

    No, not only on Family Feud. Perhaps you hadn’t noticed, but it also matters in the voting booth.

  19. Dana says:

    Mr Puck wrote:

    Would any of them have won had they adhered more closely to the President and his policies?

    Probably. Grimes and Hagan are from states that are full of desparately poor people who have benefited from Obama policies and would benefit even more from the policies Republicans are blocking. Failure to get that message out is why they lost.

    The North Carolina election was close enough that it’s possible that Senator Hagan would have won had she campaigned differently, but Mrs Grimes didn’t make any really positive impression in Kentucky. That you equate “desperately poor” with wanting to vote for national Democratic policies tells me that you don’t really know the people of my home state. They’re Democrats, to be sure, but they are conservative Democrats, very different from the Democrats on this blog. They are conservative Protestant Christians of a type you (plural) so frequently mock.

    The United Mine Workers union endorsed Senator Obama in 2008, but, after the Administration’s attacks on coal, the UMW declined to endorse him in 2012. When y’all prattle on about global warming, the conservative Democrats in eastern Kentucky and West Virginia see ideas to put an already-declining coal mining labor force completely out of work. That’s why West Virginians threw out an 18 term congressman, Nick Rahall, out of office and replaced him with a Republican, and that’s why Senator McConnell carried some of the coal counties that he had never carried in his five previous elections.

  20. Dana says:

    Mr Puck wrote:

    Pennslyvania just booted a Repub governor in favor of new taxes on/gas drilling companies.

    Fortunately, Pennsylvania voters also increased the Republicans’ majorities in both houses of the state legislature, boosting the GOP to 119 out of 203 seats in the House, and 30 out of 50 seats in the Senate. There will be no tax increases in the Keystone State!

  21. Dana says:

    Mr Merriman wrote:

    Dana, you obviously did not read my blog; remember the ideas for change to make peoples lives better part? No, apparently not.

    Actually, I did, but I don’t comment on everything. But I’ll address just one of your suggestions, raising the minimum wage. We can do that, but the very obvious result will be that prices will have to increase as labor costs increase, and it won’t be long until the raised minimum wage is right back to where it is today, in real terms. More, it will result in greater crowding of people now earning more than the minimum around the new minimum wage.

    The problem is that you aren’t addressing what you really see as the problem: that workers don’t get as big a piece of the price of goods and services as you believe they should. Labor costs used to be a bit over 50% of the costs of production, but automation and the transition from manufacturing to service sector jobs has reduced that to around 43%. Raising the minimum wage might accelerate the automation process in typical minimum wage jobs — fast food restaurants are moving toward automated order-taking — but that process is going to continue whether or not the minimum wage is legislated higher. Businesses are learning how to do more with automation and use fewer employees. That leads to an oversupply of workers vis a vis demand for them, and that is going to depress wages. You can artificially prop up wages through legislation, but economic realities are going to quickly push them back down to what the laws of supply and demand say they should be, in real terms.

  22. Joanne Christian says:

    First hearing DWS on a book tour about a decade ago, I was rivited by her passion and chutzpah, and thought “Dang, they’re lucky to have her…..” Meanwhile, Hilary fails as a candidate, DWS moves onto the DNC, and this poor gal is now kryptonite in the party. At least DelDem gave her a “with all due respect” intro., but I have to say it’s not looking real good.

    Totally agree with get out of office before anyone in any party takes that job. Failure is an orphan, and this woman has really probably been left with a ROLODEX of fair weather friends. It’s a sting. A hard break up from the lovefest.

    You can talk about Howard Dean, but I still think Ed Rendell is the best thing going, on any task he is placed.

    I hope Hilary will still take her calls :).

  23. puck says:

    but the very obvious result will be that prices will have to increase as labor costs increase, and it won’t be long until the raised minimum wage is right back to where it is today, in real terms.

    Uh-huh. And what happens to prices and buying power if you DON’T raise the minmum wage? Right now we have a long-standing inflation in goods and services without corresponding wage inflation, and the wealthy are pocketing the difference. That is one of the main drivers of income inequality and that recession-y feel about the economy.

  24. puck says:

    First hearing DWS on a book tour about a decade ago, I was rivited by her passion and chutzpah…

    “I hate spunk.” — Lou Grant

  25. johnny lt says:

    Regarding the 72% of people thinking we’re still in a recession: Congress has record low approvals and yet over 95% of incumbent House members were re-elected last week. It’s clear that the average American is a fucking idiot.

  26. Joanne Christian says:

    “Mr GGGRRRAAAANNNNTTTT!!!”—Mary Richards (I think 😉 )

  27. ftg says:

    DWS is the very disease in the Democrat Party…

  28. mouse says:

    The dems neeed competant inspiring leaders like Warren or Sanders. Its hard to even look at Harry Reed without cringing

  29. mouse says:

    The average American didn’t vote. But they know who won on the reality show

  30. google says:

    I was excited to uncover this site. I wanted to thank
    you for ones time for this particularly wonderful read!!
    I definitely appreciated every part of it and i also have
    you book marked to see new information in your site.

  31. Jason330 says:

    BeCareful, Got anything a little more objective…scholarly? linking to Newsbusters is a little like me quoting Michael Moore. Check out the stated mission of Newsbusters if you doubt it.

  32. Jason330 says:

    I’d still like to see some facts, BTW… if anyone has any that are not from an organization that has… “to regularly provide intellectual ammunition to conservative activists, arming them with the weapons to fight the leftist press.” as a mission.

  33. BeCareful says:

    Jason330: is that the best you can do? Face it, the mainstream media has a bias in favor of democrats over republicans. Period. It does. Foxnews has a bias the other way. MSNBC is far to the left. But, at the end of the day, the daily nightly newscasts and the NYTimes and Washington Post all skew left. I haven’t been able to find anyone disputing the Newsbusters tally. Sorry if you don’t like the message, but the response is not to shoot the messenger. I don’t have time to do all your research for you. Find me something that contradicts the Newsbusters story and maybe we’ll talk, but snarky insults aren’t going to win debates. And, indeed, you know someone is losing the debate when they try to turn away from the merits.

  34. stan merriman says:

    I think Robert Reich might have nailed it on why we lost so big. Income stagnation among what is left of the middle and employed lower classes…..longstanding. So they stayed home while Republican voters looked to their sorry leadership for solutions. Their pain might well have driven them to turn out.
    The DNC would be well advised to go deep in research on this theory of party faithful and persuadibles perceptions of our Parties policies and leadership….polling and very depthful focus groups.
    Thus the “feeling” that we are not out of the recession/depression. This is a major systemic problem that will only be fixed with radical changes to our economic system and public policy.

  35. stan merriman says:

    You know who would make a terrific DNC Chair? Jennifer Granholm, former governor of Michigan. She has a really good handle on the people’s economic pain and has a terrific media persona.

  36. Geezer says:

    Why are you, or your source, using 2006 instead of 2010 as a comparison point? And what does network news, watched by a small minority of the population, have to do with print media?

    You took two data points and want to build a narrative around it. Typical conservative. The New York Times kept news of the NSA program out of the paper for a full year so it wouldn’t affect the 2004 elections. Washington Post has one of the most right-leaning editorial pages of any of the nation’s large cities.

    Your narrative convinces nobody but your fellow travelers.

    “Face it, the mainstream media has a bias in favor of democrats over republicans. Period. It does.”

    This from a person who thinks MSNBC, which has a Republican ex-Congressman anchoring its morning show, is “far left.” The far left is not represented in American politics.

  37. Jason330 says:

    “Face it, the mainstream media has a bias in favor of democrats over republicans.”

    I’m not interested in your opinion.

  38. BeCareful says:

    “I’m not interested in your opinion”

    That’s a bit rude, but I suppose it’s what passes for informed debate here. The fact is, though, that asked for some facts and I gave them to you. You have provided nothing except to attack the source and lash out with more insults and more snarkiness. If you don’t like the study provided, show me one — just one — to the contrary.

  39. Jason330 says:

    BeCareful, This is a serious question. Do you consider Newsbusters and MRC objective sources who are trying to provide facts? I’m honestly asking.

  40. BeCareful says:

    “Why are you, or your source, using 2006 instead of 2010 as a comparison point?”

    — I would think the answer obvious. Both were second-term, mid-term elections. In 2006, the republican president was unpopular and democrats were expected to do well (and did) and the media played that up with a lot of stories. In 2014, the democratic president was unpopular and republicans were expected to do well, and media had one-sixth the number of stories. The point being that the media gave more coverage to the democrats when it was going to be a good year for them and less coverage for republicans when it was going to be a good year for them. Reverse the level of coverage, and one wonders if 2006 would have been a little less good for democrats and 2014 a little better for republicans.

    2010, by contrast, involved the tea party, a president who, at the time had higher approval ratings, and wasn’t a second-term mid-term election. So, it was quite different. Still, you raise an interesting question that I’d be interested in knowing the answer to. However, I can’t find any study that answers the question.

    “And what does network news, watched by a small minority of the population, have to do with print media?”

    For better or worse, network news is considered by many as a proxy for the media at large. But you’re not seriously going to argue that the NYT isn’t a democratic-leaning paper are you? As to the editorial page of the Washington Post, I hardly would call it right-leaning (unless, perhaps, compared to the NYT). The only major daily paper which can fairly be called conservative is the WSJ.

  41. JibberJab says:

    WHHHOOOA there Jason. Not really an opinion when BeCareful provided a source with a very interesting study. Yet to hear a valid rebuttal from you.

  42. Jason330 says:

    It is my opinion that the NYT is not liberal. I base my opinion on the fact that they were huge supporters of George Bush and the Iraq war.

    That is just my opinion though. I’d love to see some objective study of media bias. I’m even open to revising my opinion based on demonstrated facts. Just don’t give me the MRC or Newsbusters.

  43. Jason330 says:

    Jib, Do you consider Newsbusters and MRC objective sources who are trying to provide facts? I ask because I’m trying to find out if you know what the words “objective” and “fact” mean.

  44. mouse says:

    Anything that is biased toward reality or emperical science is liberal biased

  45. JibberJab says:

    Listen you condescending ass, regardless of who did the study they pulled tapes from TV. It wasn’t like they set up a poll of just conservatives. They literally sat there and watched the news and counted the number of stories. Of course there is going to be experimenter’s bias in any political poll but how can it be that biased of a poll when they simply counted the number of political stories that appeared.

    And if the News Media, aside from the HOLY GRAIL that is msnbc, is so far in the GOP’s pocket, where is your source? I don’t care about your opinion either. Where are YOUR facts?

  46. jason330 says:

    So…you consider Newsbusters and MRC to be objective sources on this topic. Given their stated missions, that strikes me as absurd. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying the media is biased toward liberals or conservatives. I’m simply saying that it would be interesting to know the facts.

  47. JibberJab says:

    No here’s what you said, “it is as perfectly obvious that the cable TV news media (aside from MSNBC) is totally in the pocket of the GOP”.

    Where are your facts?

    I understand MRC is a conservative news watchdog. I’m also saying that this particular study seems to be idiot proof. You sit, watch the news, and count. I find little room for bias considering all there data is available for people to view. And if they cooked the books some liberal watch dog group like Media Matters would have called them on it and exposed the false claims.

    Again, here’s what you said, “it is as perfectly obvious that the cable TV news media (aside from MSNBC) is totally in the pocket of the GOP”.

    Where are your facts?

  48. Jason330 says:

    Nice quote cropping.

  49. JibberJab says:

    Here is your entire post…..

    “Everyone believes that the media is biased and that it favors “the other guys.” For me it is as perfectly obvious that the cable TV news media (aside from MSNBC) is totally in the pocket of the GOP, as it is plainly obvious to Jib that the media is in the pocket of Obama.

    I’d love to see actual data sometime. After all there are knowable facts. How often does cable news say “death tax” to refer to the “estate tax” for example? How often are guests on Sunday shows promoting the wingnut agenda? My sense is that the wingnut agenda dominates Sunday morning – but I can at least acknowledge that my politics color my views on it.

    What are the facts? (Not that fact matter to wingnuts like Jib)”

    Still waiting for YOUR facts…………..

  50. jason330 says:

    We can all agree that Newsbusters and MRC would be surprised to be regarded as “objective” by anyone given their stated partisan missions. So, my evidence that you are not interested in “facts” is what you’ve written here. Was there ever a moment when you said, “Maybe this isn’t a very objective source?” If so, that sentiment never made it into your comments. And if I’m wrong about that, accept my apology.

    As for the full quote, “Everyone believes….” indicates that I was talking about opinions right upfront. Mine, yours, everyone’s. I never said the media was or wasn’t biased to liberals or conservatives. I will not be explaining basic English to you going forward. And I’m pretty much done trying to educate you on critical thinking. Have a great day.

  51. JibberJab says:

    “Was there ever a moment when you said, “Maybe this isn’t a very objective source?””

    Yes there was a moment. “I understand MRC is a conservative news watchdog.” I love how you skip over certain parts of my comments. Apology accepted.

    “I never said the media was or wasn’t biased to liberals or conservatives.” YES YOU DID.

    “For me it is as perfectly obvious that the cable TV news media (aside from MSNBC) is totally in the pocket of the GOP”

    But I don’t want be accused of quote cropping. So here is you whole quote again.

    “Everyone believes that the media is biased and that it favors “the other guys.” For me it is as perfectly obvious that the cable TV news media (aside from MSNBC) is totally in the pocket of the GOP, as it is plainly obvious to Jib that the media is in the pocket of Obama.

    I’d love to see actual data sometime. After all there are knowable facts. How often does cable news say “death tax” to refer to the “estate tax” for example? How often are guests on Sunday shows promoting the wingnut agenda? My sense is that the wingnut agenda dominates Sunday morning – but I can at least acknowledge that my politics color my views on it.

    What are the facts? (Not that fact matter to wingnuts like Jib)”

  52. JibberJab says:

    You sit there and berate BeCareful and myself for having an opinion. And when BeCareful brings up the only relevant study (Apparently it is the only one because I have been asking you for days for a source that backs up your claims and I have yet to see one) that deals with this topic of media bias, whether it’s objective or not (IT’S NOT 100% OBJECTIVE, OKAY, HERE I AM WRITING IT, NOT 100% OBJECTIVE, BUT WHAT POLITICAL IS 100% OBJECTIVE? Is that clear enough? If you want to bully me and claim I’m uneducated, that’s fine I can do it to because I’m starting to doubt wether you can read), you do nothing but attack and deflect.

    It’s fine if you want to have your opinion but don’t attack us because we have ours.

  53. Jason330 says:

    “You sit there and berate BeCareful and myself for having an opinion.”

    Not true. I said that don’t care about your opinions. You are fully entitled to your opinion. This is America. However, when you cite “research” that the very writers acknowledge was produced with a partisan agenda I care even less about your opinion.

    Why? Because these days it is easy for everyone to find “research” to allow us to confirm our opinions and feel at peace. It is hard to be a critical thinker. It is hard to find actual research, and be open to the findings. Don’t beat yourself up about simply reacting and not thinking though. I do it all the time myself. I’m willing to admit that my liberal frame of reference probably clouds my judgement from time to time. Life happens quickly, so who has the time to stop and say, “Is that really true? Is that source legitimate?” If it sounds true-ish, we all just keep on moving along.

    Also, critical thinking isn’t exactly a skill that is prized or encouraged much anymore, so welcome to 2014.

  54. JibberJab says:

    I’m completely opening to findings. Where are yours?

  55. Jason330 says:

    Okay. Let’s get down to business. Is the media biased? We both agree that we’ll be looking for legitimate, objective sources and not trying to BS each other (and ourselves) with material from talking points mills. If we view sources on a scale of 1 – 5 (1 being completely illegitimate and partisan, and 5’s being incontestable) I’ll be looking for 4’s and 5’s and let the facts speak for themselves.

    It will take some time though. Like I said, the internet makes it all too easy to find “research” that is comforting. It is hard to find actual objective research, but I’ll give it a shot.

  56. mouse says:

    The media is mostly biased toward the status quo. They crowd out any substantive information and report on the winners of reality shows and things that explode. I would assert that benefits conservatives. How much of newscasts reports on ball. What steroid laden team of felons won this week!