Republican Party Is Just a Wing of Fox News
After its losses in November, the GOP gave up being an actual political party and went full-time into generating content for Fox News. With emcee Michael Steele at the helm, the party has done absolutely nothing that would help bring it back into serious contention, so focused has it been on boosting Fox's overnights with its loyal audience.
The one-third of the adult audience that Fox targets can be brought back to spend hours on the network on a daily basis only as long as the GOP can whip up a daily frenzy for its commentators. So the party is more and more made up of personalities who can deliver reliable Neilsens like Palin and Bachmann. Plus spectacle-based programming like tea parties and "You lie!"
I have to doubt predictions that the GOP will make gains in the midterms, especially as the economy improves. But that's not their game. After Obama's victory, viewership of news content by Democrats dipped (who watches Keith as loyally as they did last fall?), as progressives became less motivated. Now it's Fox's turn to shine, and they have a whole party behind it.
The one-third of the adult audience that Fox targets can be brought back to spend hours on the network on a daily basis only as long as the GOP can whip up a daily frenzy for its commentators. So the party is more and more made up of personalities who can deliver reliable Neilsens like Palin and Bachmann. Plus spectacle-based programming like tea parties and "You lie!"
I have to doubt predictions that the GOP will make gains in the midterms, especially as the economy improves. But that's not their game. After Obama's victory, viewership of news content by Democrats dipped (who watches Keith as loyally as they did last fall?), as progressives became less motivated. Now it's Fox's turn to shine, and they have a whole party behind it.
Advertisement
I suspect the party has a side deal with Comedy Central, as well.
October 11, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Myself and many others that I know do not view Fox News as the "oracle".
But if you believe in stereotyping large groups of people, good job.
Many people, including myself, read both the WSJ and the NYT. We watch both Fox and MSNBC. We read both TPM and Drudge.
October 11, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, a mix is good. Fox definitely has some stuff on it you won't find anywhere else. But what would it be lately without the Republican antics?
October 11, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would still be very popular. You say that Fox has some stuff on it you won't find anywhere else. But is that so bad? You could say the same thing about MSNBC and NPR. Fox was very popular before the recent "antics" if you're referring to the tea parties, etc. Go back a couple years and Fox was still very popular.
October 11, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but Fox's old stuff won't fly nowadays. Security through war. Economic prosperity through tax cuts. Obama's gonna paint the White House black. They don't have that anymore, but now they've got some blockbuster shit from all that new Republican talent.
October 11, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Fox's old stuff won't fly nowadays."
Are you kidding?
I watch the Fox Movie Channel all the time!
1964!
Goldwater!
"In your heart you know he's right!"
That's good stuff!
October 12, 2009 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe it's as simple as your talking points would imply. But we'll just have to agree to disagree.
October 12, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Middle Class said:
I think large groups of people stereotype themselves by watching FOX only.
October 12, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you know this?
October 12, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some one needs to poll to see what percentage of Fox viewers are birthers. After the way the Fox viewers were fed and bought the nonsense about Saddam co-operating with Al Qaeda and WMDs there does appear to be a certain correlation between Fox viewing and credulity.
October 12, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please. Lots of people were saying that there was a connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. You didn't need to rely on Fox for that. You could have read Newsweek, listened to NPR or listened to many Congressmen/women.
October 13, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
But only Fox viewers STILL believe it, dumbass.
October 13, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not true. But I'm sure you have some basis to back up your statement
October 13, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do know that the republican party encompasses many more people than the tools in Congress, the RNC and Fox News? Conservatives and those who lean to the right make up 43-percent of the electorate. That's nearly 73 million people, 55 million of them registered republicans.
I, for one, am a republican who thinks very little about most of the folks on your very short list of conservative idiots. Most republicans I know think the same thing to varying degrees depending on how much they pay attention to politics. No American political philosophy is as monolithic as many liberals define conservatives as being.
I would suggest listening to a broader cast of characters before passing judgment on an entire group of citizens, many of whom support many progressive policies when presented as innovative solutions rather than the same old liberal shit in a shiny new sock.
October 12, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not questioning thoughtful Republicans. I am saying that the leaders of the party are more focused on entertainment than on governing.
October 12, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, but as Bill's comment above demonstrates, focusing overmuch on the current mouthpieces keeps liberals from effective communications with grassroots conservatives - most of whom are apolitical at best - looking for innovation instead of condemnation.
October 12, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I guess the only thing wrong with the Republican Party is their policies. That and a willingness, no determination to be corrupted and shamelessly by any corporate bandito who wants to screw every American who isn't a billionare.
When you strip away all the smoke screen BS (balanced budget[like when?], ban abortion [oh really?], Gays are commin'[true], guns, Guns, GUNS[!!!]) the only non wealthy constituancy that seems to be well served is the racist contingent. They get more hate all the time. The naked core philosophy is: Rich People should get richer and everybody else is here to serve that end. Republicans have been selling the same old hogwash for over a century and every time they con enough fools into letting them try it out the whole thing crashes and burns.
Gosh knows the Democrats aren't perfect but for the life of me I can't think of anything good for America the Republican party has supported in my lifetime. There must be something but I'm stumped. I'm sure someone will provide a long list here.
October 12, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the answer would depend on how old you are, though I could probably find one or two pieces of legislation that weren't totally regressive and self-serving for the rich.
As for the democratic party, I would suggest they are even less than not perfect since they have long been the flip side of our partisan political coin that keeps the oligarchy firmly in place.
There isn't much more than a handful of things that the democratic party have done in my lifetime that match your criteria, though they have been lock-step with the GOP on just about everything bad from Iraq to the Patriot Act.
We have a allowed a small group of incompetent Americans on both sides of the political divide to assume positions of authority they are clearly incapable of handling.
October 12, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
JEM-I was under the impression you were going to leave TPM for greener pastures?
Your statement though they (Democrats) have been lock-step with the GOP on just about everything bad from Iraq to the Patriot Act. is patently false, although it may be the result of brainwashing from watching Fox News with your erudite conservative kin.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 that Bush/Cheney pushed with visions of mushroom clouds and as partisan political jujitsu in October 2002, just before the midterms, and to allow Bush to play the role of the courageous Saddam Slayer and heroic War President, would have NOT PASSED if just the Democrats had voted, it failed in the House on the Democratic side, 126-82, and 21 Democratic Senators voted against it while only one Republican, liberal Lincoln Chafee voted against it.
Not exactly a Democratic Party in 'lock step' with Republicans, and at the most critical vote which could have stopped the whole phony concocted war before Bush/Cheney/Rove could start it.
October 12, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I said my time would become increasingly limited and it was kind of a relief given the lack of real historic perspective around here.
There is so much more to America's problems than a single vote for a single unconstitutional bill in which a united democratic party keeps us out of war. It is a linear time-line stretching clear back to the end of World War II and the rise of our modern corporate state.
The democratic party and the republican party have been equally unable to deliver on a myriad of broken promises over the last 40 years.
October 12, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not limited enough. You bring up the Iraq vote all the time as an example of your "pox on both houses" ortrhodoxy. NCD just eviscerated that argument, so you change the subject. In other words, you're still peddling your bipartisan bullshit and your inability to debate honestly, you moronic hack.
October 12, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not eviscerated by actual objective reading of the facts. A united democratic front keeps us out of Iraq. That is indisputable. A republican party that lived up to its true conservative principles would have been helpful as well.
October 12, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
JEM-
Accountablity, Republican style. Not buying it JEM.
October 12, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't vote for George Bush or a single republican currently in office.
By the way, if you are going to "quote" someone, it is usually better to use their actual words rather than your interpretation of their words. Make you look like less of an idiot.
I'll give you that one free of charge.
October 12, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny. NCD provided facts. All you've got is snark.
But you've never let facts get in the way of your utter certainty that the Republicans aren't chiefly at fault for most of our current problems. Just because they've managed to co-opt some Democratic support doesn't change the fact that their governing philosophy is what has run the country into the ground.
October 12, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I linked to facts and NCD linked to nothing.
Kind of like you usually do when offering opinions, so it is little surprise that you find his opinion more to your liking. Objectivity and logic are not strong suits for partisans on both sides.
Carry on smartly.
October 12, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"[Democrats] have been lock-step with the GOP on just about everything bad from Iraq to the Patriot Act."
Not a fact. The characterization of "lockstep" is just that, a characterization.
Compare to:
"The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 that Bush/Cheney pushed with visions of mushroom clouds...would have NOT PASSED if just the Democrats had voted, it failed in the House on the Democratic side, 126-82, and 21 Democratic Senators voted against it while only one Republican, liberal Lincoln Chafee voted against it."
Facts. You lose. Again.
October 12, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fact: If the democratic party doesn't vote to go to war, we never go to Iraq. Fact: If the democratic party refuses to go along with the Patriot Act, we keep many civil liberties intact.
Those are the facts and they are indisputable.
Some other things the democrats have failed to stop or fix in my lifetime: Environmental degradation, NAFTA, living wage, health care, equal pay, a foreign relations not based on war, the defense budget, etc.
The democratic party has been the flip side of our corporate-controlled coin for the last forty years and you have zero evidence to prove otherwise. They have been the very definition of lock-step, though either in-action or through actual support of regressive policies to save their own hides or reelection bids or both.
Incumbent democrats are every bit as culpable for our current state of affairs as are incumbent republicans, but I wouldn't expect a partisan warrior to understand the distinction.
October 13, 2009 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Fact: If the democratic party doesn't vote to go to war, we never go to Iraq."
"Fact: If the democratic party refuses to go along with the Patriot Act, we keep many civil liberties intact."
Uh, dipshit, both statements are mere speculation. Not facts. You have no objective proof that the Iraq War would not have been waged without the congressional vote, nor do you have any objective proof that Bush would not have put in place the policies that were codified in the Patriot Act.
But, then, you've never let a little thing like the facts get n the way of your delusional claim that a minority of Democrats are just as responsible for the Iraq War as George Bush.
And what ARE you still doing here, anyway? you obviously didn't come up with any new material in the nanosecond that you actually stopped trolling this site.
October 13, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your stance is that if Congress doesn't vote to go to war we would have gone anyway? I will be looking for some historical precedent to back up that assertion. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.
October 13, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try Googling "Nixon and Cambodia" you nitwit.
October 13, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try Googling LBJ and Vietnam, you moron.
October 14, 2009 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did LBJ escalate Vietnam without congressional authorization? Because that is what we were just debating, you stupid fuck.
October 14, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very classy of you.
October 12, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're concern is duly noted.
October 12, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you always have to trash people rather than just debate the point?
October 12, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because s/he isn't that smart and this is the only way s/he can feel like a wo/man.
October 13, 2009 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Duly noted.
October 13, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why the personal insults? Can't you just point out the inconsistencies you perceive without making it a personal battle?
October 12, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
We would all be served by better mouthpieces. Except Fox, which is just laughing its way to the bank.
In the end, it hurts the Republicans because it doesn't advance them politically, and it hurts the rest of the country because it makes it harder for Democrats to focus on their agenda and get stuff passed.
October 12, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I knew we would find a way to agree. All very good points.
October 12, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't let my concern trolling be wasted.
October 12, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK - I guess when I read the title of your post it seemed to imply you were criticizing more than just the leaders.
October 12, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I usually just read the titles before I post, too.
October 12, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't see anything in the body of the post that contradicted the title. Nowhere did you say you were only criticizing the leaders of the party and not the rest of us.
October 12, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the rest of us?"
So you finally admit you're a Glenn Beck-fellating Birther, and are dropping the pretense that your just a moderately conservative guy who likes to debate liberals?
Color me convinced, trollboy.
October 13, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
That made zero sense. Nothing I said implied whatsoever that I am in the Glenn Beck camp.
When you have nothing better to say, you just throw the Glenn Beck label around or call somebody a dumbass. Very classy.
October 13, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got your "classy" right here, numbnuts.
October 13, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way to go. Insults will get you far in life.
October 13, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anonymity makes small men brave. I suspect you aren't nearly this big of an asshole in person.
October 14, 2009 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
That may be true, but I'm sure you're every bit as stupid in real life as you seem on this site.
And last time someone breached your privacy, you screamed like a little girl, so bitching about "anonymity" on the internet is pretty hilarious coming from you.
If you want to meet and go toe-to-toe offline, bitch I'm there.
October 14, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's got you there, Root. The post backed up the premise of the title that the republican party is a bunch of Fox News watching morons who can't think for themselves.
October 13, 2009 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good stuff, very funny. :D
October 12, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny indeed!
October 12, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great stuff, Rootman! I like your style as you punch right to the point on the GOP's leadership embrace of blather over substance that defines them these days.
REGARDING: "The one-third of the adult audience that Fox targets..."
I saw pics of he crowds attending Beck's rallies. Can you please define the term "adult" as used in the citation?
Thanks for this. Definitely rec'd!
October 12, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink