Liberal Pundits Or Concern Trolls?

That’s the question I have to ask myself upon viewing the fallout from the cancellation of the Democratic presidential candidates debate in Nevada, which was to be sponsored by Fox.

I’ve had a bone or two to pick from time to time with “the great orange Satan,” but I have to give credit where it’s due; Kos was absolutely right when he said that those who were merely “concern trolls” towards the Democrats in general (such as Morton Kondracke) wouldn’t even bother to go through the niceties of pretending to care about that party’s point of view and would just go right for the jugular instead when the debate gets cancelled, which happened of course.

And this morning’s column from Dick Polman in the Inquirer concludes with this bit of nonsense (excerpted from this blog entry)…

If the Iraq Study Group is right to argue that we’d be better off talking to our enemies abroad, then why shouldn’t U.S. politicians talk openly with those whom they perceive to be their enemies at home?

The juxtaposition of those two vastly different scenarios is absolutely astonishing to me.

Also, am I crazy to wonder why anyone would leapfrog over the supposition (fact, actually) stated in that highlighted sentence that we have a major television network that airs sports, prime time programs and what passes for news and political commentary that is hopelessly biased against one of the two major political parties, but instead blame the aggrieved party for not allowing itself to be victimized?

Is it a leap of logic to wonder why the Democratic Party would cancel this debate when the network scheduled to moderate the debate has given aid and comfort to all manner of nonstop smears regarding one of the party’s candidates and has provided a safe have for others who have smeared another candidate?

The question to me isn’t why this network was removed from the assignment of moderating the debate. The question to me is why they were ever considered seriously as a moderation option in the first place.

Polman also cites the example of how the Repugs supposedly play fair by allowing Helen Thomas to pose questions at White House press conferences (gosh, I’d forgotten, those press conferences being so frequent and all that – this Boston Globe column noted that Bush held the fewest press conferences of any president in the TV age in his first term), though the Repugs never get around reporters they don’t like by allowing their favorites to lob softballs at them, do they?

Another attempt by Polman to justify his argument is noting that Dem House Rep. Maxine Waters and Sen. Carl Levin have appeared on Fox “news and analysis” programs. Yeah, but neither Waters nor Levin are running for president, are they, Dick? Neither one of them are the same lightning rods, so to speak, as the presidential candidates, right?

And as far as Polman's statement that the "why can't we catch this guy?" joke (sort of) by Roger Ailes was directed more at Bush than it was at Barack Obama, it is absolutely to laugh for Polman to ignore Ailes' lame attempt yet again to somehow link Obama with Osama in the minds of Fox's largely-single-brain-celled audience.

And speaking of fair weather friends, Bill Maher has apparently decided to criticize the Democrats for pulling out of the debate also (there’s a video of his remarks from the CNN web site that I am unable to link to at the moment).

Oh well – I really wasn’t planning to watch any episodes of “Real Time” this season anyway, so this just sealed it.

I’m tired of this notion that the Democratic Party is always supposed to assume the role of “professional victim” in our national dialogue (and Fox’s typical rabid demonization instead of making some kind of gesture of conciliation betrays their malicious intent). And I’m glad that we’ve been able to turn that around for the time being.

And I could care less whether Bill Maher or Dick Polman get that or not.