Elitistism And The Presidency: A Handbook For Victory

Posted by on May 5, 2008 at 2:33 pm. 10 Comments :

It’s taken over 200 years, but American politics is finally evolving into a mature process that reflects the inherent nature of her people. This experiment in Democracy has taken innumerable turns and tumbles over the years, most often relying on the dominant presence of an elite ruling class to steady the ship of state. Despite the egalitarian ring of our founding principles, a nation “of the people, by the people, for the people,” still seemed more obeisant to the privileged. But no more.

A new breed of populism has spread like a rash across the land. Its mission is to dismantle the doctrine of elitism and advance the rule of the common man and/or woman. This crusade promises to forever alter the complexion of American government and deserves a closer examination.

First and foremost, anyone who purports to be a leader in this environment, must be an avid consumer of beer. This is important to establish one’s credentials as a down to earth representative of commonality and humility. It is also necessary so that voters have a way of indicating their preference for drinking companions.
Education is a key component in this new paradigm. It is absolutely critical that you not have too much of it. And never, ever use the word paradigm. Once the American people get the impression that you know more than they do about issues like economics or foreign policy, you’re disqualified from service. Achievement and expertise only spotlight how different you are from ordinary Americans.
A show of strength will give any candidate a boost. You must not be timid about threatening enemies, advocating torture, or bombing busy population centers of third world countries. And once having taken a position, it is political suicide to change it, regardless of changing circumstances. Americans demand stubborn certitude from their barely educated leaders.
A vocal commitment to family values is mandatory. Not an actual commitment, mind you. Just a vocal one. Speaking frequently of the sanctity of marriage, no matter how many times you have violated it, will shield you from any detrimental impact. Conversely, life-long faithfulness holds no advantage unless accompanied by a virulent denunciation of same-sex marriage.
It is easy to be distracted by trivialities when engaged in a competitive campaign. But you must not let the appeal of junk food politics knock you off course. Stay focused on the issues that matter most to the people and you will always prevail. Those issues include flag lapel pins, ex-pastors, and quail hunting.
Two words: Go bowling. [Note: Take a few practice frames first]
Two more words: Don’t windsurf.
Immigration has taken a prominent role in public policy. No issue inflames the emotions of citizens like who gets to be a citizen. The Statue of Liberty notwithstanding, America is an exclusive club that can’t let just anybody in. Even the most disadvantaged, undereducated alien represents a risk to American workers, whom we’ve already established have a low regard for education, lest it turn them into the elite.
Finally, a foundation of faith is required of any seeker of high office. Submission to an unseen authority may be the single best evidence of a candidate’s refusal to be submissive. So long as you pronounce your allegiance to God, all of your other pronouncements are divinely inspired. Unless, of course, you are Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, or Allah forbid, Muslim. You may also want to steer clear of quirky, ethnic Baptist’s.

Yes, it’s taken over 200 years, but American politics is finally evolving into a mature process that honors the mediocrity of its people. In doing so it has laid the groundwork for electoral victory for anyone who understands and respects the new reality

George W. Bush understands, and he has provided a working model for success: You don’t have to be like ordinary Americans, you just have to be able to pretend you’re like them. How else could this son of Connecticut aristocracy; this progeny of senators and presidents; this oil baron and sports magnate, pass himself off as Texas bumpkin who enjoys clearing brush? This inarticulate, draft-dodging, C-, dynastic runt actually validates the American dream. As the first remedial president he has proven that you can grow up to be the Commander-in-Chief, in America, no matter how stupid you are. What other country can say that?

The presidential campaign of 2008 is shaping up as a testament to Elitistism: the practice of discriminating against those who are, or are perceived to be, elite. The goal of Elitistism (aka Simpsonism) is to drive from public life anyone who diverges from the sacred visage of American Averagism.

From an electoral perspective, the highest attainable ambition is ordinariness. Of the three remaining candidates we have:

  1. A millionaire lawyer/senator, who is married to a former president, with decades on the government teat.
  2. Another millionaire son of Admirals with a trophy wife and even more decades of being supported by the public.
  3. A mixed-race child of a single mother who has spent years as a community activist and organizer.

For the record, number three is regarded by the media as the Elitist. Go figure.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Clinton And Obama On Fox News: A Damage Assessment

Posted by on May 2, 2008 at 6:24 pm. 47 Comments :

Clinton on O'ReillyHillary Clinton’s rendezvous with O’Reilly is now history. All that is left is to try to assess the damage and establish what lessons were learned.

The Damage: Bill O’Reilly’s ratings leaped 81% in total viewers and 43% in the 25-54 demo (two night average). That is a massive, though temporary, increase and it will have the effect of inflating his average over time. I’m assuming that the bulk of the new viewers were Clinton supporters, curious independents, or morbid voyeurs hoping to observe a train wreck. It is highly unlikely that these numbers will endure. Last year I did an analysis that showed that Fox News viewers were more loyal to the network and its stars than they were to Bush or Republicans: The Cult Of Foxonalityâ„¢. O’Reilly’s base audience will quickly return to normal, probably tonight. (For the record, The Factor’s ratings dropped significantly from part one of the Clinton interview, to part two. There was a 12% decline in total viewers and a 26% drop in the 25-54 demo).

However, the damage is done. O’Reilly gets his ratings spike, bragging rights, and legitimacy transferred by osmosis from Clinton. Clinton gets nothing. O’Reilly’s base audience is firmly predisposed against her. The visiting viewers have all had plenty of opportunities to see her on other networks. So if you’re scoring it’s O’Reilly: 1.2 million (viewers) – Clinton: zero.

Clinton on O'ReillyThe Lessons: Now that both Clinton and Obama have capitulated to Fox News, will Fox abandon their crusade to defeat Democrats? Hardly. Consider a couple of the classic taunts frequently leveled at Democrats by Foxies:

“If you can’t deal with Fox how can you deal with Iran or Al Qaeda?”

Now that the Democrats have dealt with Fox, will Fox announce their confidence in the Democrats’ ability to deal with terrorists and hostile nations?

“The Democratic Party is held hostage by “far-left, liberal interests groups” like MoveOn, DailyKos, and MediaMatters, who pressure them to reject Fox.”

Now that the Democrats have accepted Fox, proving that these groups are not controlling them, will Fox cease to make these accusations? Will they refrain from disparaging our patriotism? Will they stop insinuating that we’re socialists? Will they present honestly our positions on war, faith, global warming, health care, etc.?

Clearly the answer to the questions above is “No on all counts!” In fact, the reversion to form has already begun. Chris Wallace can hardly contain his glee that the Democrats have folded. This morning he explained to the Fox & Friends crew why he was in such a good mood:

“…after all the boycotting, after all the huffing and puffing, [the Democrats] have found their way to Fox News, and you know, it’s really fun to watch, and particularly to watch the heartburn among the left-wing base – the anti-war, the MoveOn.org, they can’t stand it.”

In this spew of triumphant ecstasy, Wallace has just admitted his own personal bias against a broad swath of progressive citizens. And, shockingly, it is not just a political bias. He is actually deriving pleasure from the pain of the ideologically diverse majority of Americans who oppose the war. Indeed, he is laughing at them … at us.

He also joked with F&F that John Edwards’ poor performance in the presidential race is somehow attributable to his refusal to go on Fox? By that logic, Obama’s and Clinton’s success in the race is likewise attributable to their refusals to go on Fox. They only just agreed to appear this week, so all of their prior success was achieved without Fox and, therefore, due to its Foxlessness.

O’Reilly has been in just as good a mood as Wallace.

“The greatest thing about this interview . . . is that it’s emasculated all these far-left extortion types like MoveOn and the Kos, which threatened Hillary Clinton and threatened Barack Obama and all the other Democrats.”

So the greatest thing to O’Reilly is “emasculate[ing] all these far-left extortion types.” The most fun for Wallace is “watch[ing] the heartburn among the left-wing base.” It should be noted that the number of members of MoveOn and DailyKos alone exceed the number of viewers of many of Fox’s programs. And there is much more to the liberal base than those two examples. From what part of this should Democrats and progressives draw comfort? Fox doesn’t care about the interview. They don’t care about informing the public. They only care about how badly they can cripple their enemies.

Bill O’Reilly, Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, et al, were flailing pathetically when they were being ignored by the cool kids. We were having a real impact on their ratings, their revenue, their reputation, and their respiration. It was unwise to loosen the screws at this time. Hopefully, after having seen how they’ve reacted to our largess, our Democratic representatives will realize that Fox News is unfriendly and untrustworthy. They will whine about not being invited to the party, but will break all your furniture when you admit them. Then the whining will begin all over again.

Just stay the HELL off of Fox News!


George Bush Lauded By Berlusconi For Time 100

Posted by on May 1, 2008 at 2:43 pm. NO Comments :

GoodfellasTime Magazine has published it’s fifth annual list of the World’s Most Influential People. It’s a mixed collection with a few standouts for hilarity.

Rupert Murdoch made the list as a “Builder and Titan,” an honor he shares with Radiohead. Thom Yorke would make a great media mogul, and they could keep the band’s name as their corporate brand. Disney temptress Miley Cyrus is listed in a category where she challenges Tim Russert, the only “journalist” of the group. They are both listed under “Artists and Entertainers.” Which of these Russert is supposed to be, I don’t know. But Russert is apparently quite influential, as he has reportedly had Arianna Huffington banned from promoting her new book, Right Is Wrong, on any NBC program.

Also on the list is George W. Bush under “Leaders and Revolutionaries.” I can’t see where he’d place in either group. But the truly creepy aspect of this is that the essay accompanying his inclusion was written by the Italian Murdoch, Sylvio Berlusconi. Berlusconi, media baron and Prime Minister, related his impressions of Bush as a leader who knows that…

“…justice, freedom and democracy can flourish only if there is security.”

Spoken like a true totalitarian fascist. He is, however, right about Bush, who has shown that he will sacrifice any Constitutional principle, civil liberty, or democratic process, in the pursuit of a false security predicated on fear and lies.

Having Berlusconi pen Bush’s bio for the Time 100 holds a unique significance in light of Berlusconi’s recent electoral successes in Italy. He declared after the election that “We are the new Falange.” The original Falange was the Spanish fascist party of Francisco Franco. Berlusconi’s supporters also hailed the victory of his party’s candidate for mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, a former neo-fascist youth leader, with Hitlerian straight-arm salutes and chants of “Duce, Duce…”, Mussolini’s version of “Fuhrer.” Bush must be proud to have his friend Berlusconi compose this touching tribute.


Fox News In Critical Condition

Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 3:38 pm. 15 Comments :

In the first quarter of 2008, Fox News was the slowest growing cable news network (10%), behind MSNBC (66%) and CNN (87%). For the first time in six years they finished in 2nd place. Now, in the first month of the 2nd quarter, the diagnosis is even worse.

Ratings April 2008

Notably, Fox is showing a 14% decline form their year-ago numbers, while their arch nemesis, MSNBC, posts a 9% increase. This comes in the midst of a contentious election year when demand for news is uncommonly strong. Why then is Fox waning? The same dynamics I wrote about a month ago are still in play today:

“The stagnation of Fox’s audience can be traced in part to the downward spiral of the Bush presidency. Fox has long tethered its fortunes to a conservative ideology that has fallen out of favor.”

Mainstream audiences are less interested in the partisan cheerleading of right-wing zealots. They may also be tiring of the Crossfire-style tongue lashing engaged in by the modern punditocracy. A case in point is Keith Olbermann’s Countdown, which has been criticized for avoiding confrontation by declining to book adversarial guests. But its strategy is validated by consistently being the fastest growing program on cable news. The numbers for April show that it is the only program to grow (+21%), compared to CNN’s Campbell Brown (-23%) and Fox’s Bill O’Reilly (-12%).

MSNBC also benefited from the contributions of the rest of its lineup (Race For the White House, Hardball, Verdict) which were all either stable or higher, while their competition was uniformly lower. Even Countdown’s repeat contributed by improving on last year’s Doc Block by 10%.

What is particularly disturbing is that, in this environment where Fox News is gasping for air, the Democratic candidates for president chose this week to succumb to the howl of publicity hounding. What we already know about the narrow-minded nature of Fox’s audience, combined with the evidence that it is shrinking precipitously, should be enough to convince rational Democrats to remove Fox News from their itinerary.

This is not the time to surrender. The Democratic embargo of Fox News has almost certainly played a part in the network’s decline. Their programming has suffered by being over-weighted with right-wingers and Republicans. They have resorted to whining on air about the kids who won’t play with them. If it wasn’t hurting them they wouldn’t mention it. Now, with Fox on the ropes, Democrats should stay strong and resist whatever urge it is that compels them to act against their own interests by accepting invitations to a party from a host that seeks only to diminish them.

Let’s hope that now that the thrust and parry of the Obama/Clinton appearances on Fox are history, they can manage to rein in their impulses and get back on the team. Fox is hostile territory and our generals should not be giving them aid and comfort.


Hillary Clinton To Suck Up To Bill O’Reilly

Posted by on April 29, 2008 at 2:38 pm. 11 Comments :

Clinton on O'ReillyHillary Clinton is following in the futile steps of Barack Obama after his appearance on Fox News Sunday. My analysis of that affair applies in spades to Clinton’s announcement that she will fraternize with the noxious Bill O’Reilly this Wednesday. This is what I said about Obama’s lapse in judgment:

“A strong performance will net him nothing because the audience is limited in both size and ideological diversity. It will end right there. But the slightest misstep will be magnified a hundred fold throughout the Murdoch empire.”

It’s even worse for Clinton. The number one priority for O’Reilly is to applaud his own magnificence. The boundaries of his ego are approaching a state that is becoming an imminent danger to Earth’s orbit. The number two priority for O’Reilly is to bash Democrats. In pursuit of that he will have an ally in Sen. Clinton. She is likely to use this opportunity to assail Obama on tangents like Rev. Wright. And if she doesn’t volunteer to do so, O’Reilly will provide her with the opening. O’Reilly’s obsession with Wright is a near fetish. He has featured the ex-pastor in 19 of his 26 Talking Points Memos since the story broke last month.

Clinton’s friendliness with right-wing media is nothing new, of course. She attended a fundraiser thrown for her by Rupert Murdoch, then was endorsed by his New York Post. She sat down with Richard Mellon Scaife, who had accused her of murder when she was still First Lady, then was endorsed by his Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Her campaign’s General Chairman, Terry McAuliffe, appears in Fox News promos lauding their fairness and balance. And now she will sit across the table from the 21st century’s Father Coughlin.

As I’ve said many times before, no good can come of this. In Clinton’s case it is even more foreboding because she has demonstrated a willingness to collude with conservative opponents for her political gain. Obama promised to “take Fox on” prior to meeting with Wallace. He didn’t. If Clinton gives O’Reilly a hard time, he will hit back, but not until after she has left the stage, and for days after that. But he will come close to endorsing her if she throws him enough red meat about Obama.

There is just no upside. Fox only exists to defeat Democrats. When will these people learn?


Spin-Com: Obama And Clinton Step Up – Media Cowers

Posted by on April 29, 2008 at 12:32 am. NO Comments :

SpinComThe propaganda scandal uncovered last week by the New York Times has been virtually blacked-out by the rest of the media – particularly television. Even though this may be the most brazen act of disinformation ever perpetrated against American citizens. Why would the press seemingly act in concert to bury this story?

It really doesn’t take much imagination to understand the panic these media outlets must be experiencing. The Pentagon-driven program of dispatching retired generals to serve as TV pundits with the intention of painting an artificially rosy picture of the war in Iraq poses a slippery dilemma. These TV networks were either pawns, dupes, or accomplices, in a scheme to mislead the country and enrich the players. Therefore, it is not surprising that the media has acted to sweep it all under the rug. To report on it would be to indict themselves.

Well, at least some of the candidates for president have finally weighed in:

Senator Clinton is very concerned by a recent press report that the Department of Defense (DOD) hid behind “an appearance of objectivity” in a concerted media “campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.” The report raises issues of credibility and trust at the Pentagon.

~~~

Senator Obama is deeply disturbed by this latest evidence that the Bush Administration has sought to manipulate the public’s trust. From its misleading case to go to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, to its argument for keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely, the Administration has depended on spin because its assertions have not been supported by facts.

Both Democrats are calling for various levels of investigation. So is the Pentagon, whose spokesman has announced that they are temporarily suspending the program “pending further review.” The only candidate to fail to take a position is that straight-talking maverick, John McCain. Of course he may be the only public official who has been even more unquestioningly upbeat than the bought and paid for war spinners.

This isn’t over. It is still possible to get the press to be responsible and to perform their duty to inform the public. Write letters and emails to any national and/or local media outlet you patronize. And be sure to visit FreePress where they are collecting signatures to urge Congress to further investigate this breach of the public trust.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Barack Obama On Fox News Sunday

Posted by on April 28, 2008 at 12:01 pm. NO Comments :

Obama on FoxJust prior to Chris Wallace’s interview of Barack Obama on Fox News Sunday, I argued the futility of making an appearance on Fox:

“A strong performance will net him nothing because the audience is limited in both size and ideological diversity. It will end right there. But the slightest misstep will be magnified a hundred fold throughout the Murdoch empire”

I was right. There were no notable gaffes or exploitable vagaries and, consequently, the interview has all but disappeared. So far today I have not seen a single clip of this program on Fox News (or any other network). This despite the fact that prior to the broadcast it was so highly anticipated and heavily promoted. After Wallace made such a big issue of Obama’s appearance, invented his “Obama Watch” countdown, and called Democrats “damned fools“ for not going on Fox, they have not seen fit to re-air any portion of this news-making broadcast.

On the other hand, Fox News (and most other networks) have been re-playing Rev. Wright’s remarks in speeches before the NAACP and the National Press Club repeatedly all day long. That should tell you something about media priorities. Obviously the words of a controversial ex-pastor are far more important to the press than the words of an actual candidate for president.

As for Wallace’s priorities, Josh Nelson at The Seminal provides this revealing breakdown of questions he asked Obama:

  • Jeremiah Wright: 8 questions
  • Race: 6 questions
  • Reaching Across the Aisle to Republicans: 3 questions
  • The Economy (#1 issue for voters): 2 questions
  • Gas Prices (#2 issue for voters): 0 questions
  • Health Care(#3 issue for voters): 0 questions
  • Iraq (#4 issue for voters): 0 direct questions, 3 through the lens of Petraeus

Rush Limbaugh: Screw the World! Riot in Denver!

Posted by on April 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm. 12 Comments :

While the Conventional Media is still consumed with remarks made by Barack Obama’s pastor criticizing America, they are virtually ignoring the comments of Rush Limbaugh that are brazenly advocating violence for political gain.

Limbaugh: “Now, I am not inspiring or inciting riots. I’m dreaming. (singing to the tune of White Christmas) I’m dreaming of riots in Denver. Remember 1968?”

Limbaugh says that he isn’t inciting riots, but merely dreaming of them. That distinction is skimpy to say the least. Is he so naive that it has not occurred to him that some portion of his 14 million listeners might be motivated to help him see his dreams come true? Of all the well-deserved criticisms that can be leveled at this ego-bloated pundi-clown, naiveté is not amongst them. He knows the impact of words. He knows his audience. He knows very well the potential consequences of actions.

Limbaugh: “Riots in Denver at the Democrat convention would see to it we don’t elect Democrats – and that’s the best damn thing could happen for this country as far as anything I can think.”

Is it possible to deliberately instigate violence more explicitly than that? The title of this article, “Screw the World! Riot in Denver!” was lifted verbatim from Limbaugh’s web site. That is an unambiguous directive to his listeners who are not called “dittoheads” for nothing. But Limbaugh grants himself somewhat more leeway to engage in hypocrisy. Apparently there are worse things than electing Democrats – i.e. electing John McCain.

Limbaugh: “If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit … rather than a Republican causing the debacle.”

That, however, hasn’t stopped McCain from pursuing Limbaugh’s favor. Just last February Politico reported that, according to Republican sources, McCain sent an emissary to bring Limbaugh into the fold.

The questions for today are: Will McCain denounce and reject Limbaugh’s repugnant and dangerous remarks? Will the media give an equal amount of airtime to Limbaugh’s lunacy as they did to Rev. Wright’s rant? Will Hell freeze over?

It would be too optimistic to entertain the notion that Limbaugh would be fired over this. He makes too much money for his greedy broadcast benefactors. But if Limbaugh doesn’t face some sort of sanction for this, then what would produce a sanction? Would he have to show up in Denver with a trunk full of Molotov cocktails? Would we need a canceled check payable to Outside Agitators, Inc. (a subsidiary of Blackwater)? If there is trouble in Denver, will there be an investigation to ascertain whether the troublemakers were Limb-bots?

There may not be answers to these questions today, but we must not stop asking them. And we must not stop prodding the press to ask as well. And we must not forget to ask them after the convention. If there is trouble in Denver, if blood is spilled, it will be on Limbaugh’s hands.

Updated to add: More comments from Limbaugh advocating violence:

“I mean, if people say what’s your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.”

Contact Premiere Radio Networks, Limbaugh’s Clear Channel-owned syndicator, and tell them that inciting violence is illegal and unacceptable.

Here’s a link to Limbaugh’s advertisers who might want to reconsider sponsoring a program that advocates violence.

You can also file a complaint with the FCC.


Barack Obama Falls Into Fox News Sunday Trap

Posted by on April 24, 2008 at 2:03 pm. 7 Comments :

Fox News has begun airing promos announcing that Barack Obama will appear this week on Chris Wallace’s Fox News Sunday. This is a huge error in judgment and is sorely disappointing. There is literally no advantage for Obama to subject himself to the prejudices of a network that is overtly hostile to his candidacy. What’s worse is that Obama seems to be capitulating to pressure applied by Wallace himself.

Last month, in a fit of pique, Wallace launched the Obama Watch to shame the candidate into granting Wallace an interview. The whole ploy was unprofessional and innately biased as it sought to portray Obama as either uncooperative or afraid. Having succumbed to the tactic, Obama will now be interrogated by a man who has called Democrats “damned fools” on a network that is an endless loop of Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers videos, when they aren’t talking about how elitist or unpatriotic he is.

At this point in the Democratic primary every appearance, every speech, every minute of a candidate’s time is precious. Why Obama thinks that this engagement with Fox in any way benefits him is inexplicable. The potential audience has little to no value for Democrats. And as the perennial fourth place finisher out of the four Sunday news shows, the potential audience is also, well … little.

My previous article, “Fox News: For Republicans Only,” shows clearly that Fox is unabashedly partisan. It’s CEO, Rupert Murdoch, is maxed out to both John McCain and Hillary Clinton in campaign donations. Nothing for Obama. For evidence of Murdoch’s hostile intent one need only to refer to his New York Post’s endorsement of Obama that reads more like an indictment. [See Starve The Beast for a detailed analysis of why it is not only pointless, but harmful, for Democrats to appear on Fox News]

This is nothing but a trap. It makes Obama look small for having conceded. It exposes him to risks from a pseudo-news operation that is working openly with his opponents to orchestrate his defeat. A strong performance will net him nothing because the audience is limited in both size and ideological diversity. It will end right there. But the slightest misstep will be magnified a hundred fold throughout the Murdoch empire. Look for any rhetorical slip to be broadcast incessantly on the Fox cable and radio networks. Watch for it to be published in over 100 News Corp. newspapers and magazines. Then wait for the rest of the media to pick it up and pile on.

Obama on FoxIn addition, Obama’s presence will lend his credibility to a news enterprise that has none of its own. Fox will immediately brag about having made him cry “uncle” and cite it as a victory that proves that they cannot be ignored. They may even edit Obama into future network promos as they just did with Clinton’s campaign chief, Terry McAuliffe.

We can only hope now that Obama has a change of heart or a scheduling conflict that forces him to cancel this interview. Almost any other use of his time will be more productive since this use will be only counterproductive. Fox only wants this so that they can build themselves up and tear the likely Democratic nominee for president down. No good can come of it.

Update: It didn’t take long but, just as I predicted, Fox is already bragging about Obama’s retreat. Chris Wallace responded to charges that his “Obama Watch” was obnoxious saying, “It may have been obnoxious but it was also effective.” He went on to boast that Obama must need Fox because of his loss in Pennsylvania. I told you so.


Fox News: For Republicans Only

Posted by on April 23, 2008 at 3:32 pm. 4 Comments :

The ratings for the cable news coverage last night reveal something at once interesting and expected:

25-54 5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p:
FNC ElectionHQ: Hume: Shep: Primary: Primary: Primary: Primary:
  228 261 316 483 507 679 465
CNN Blitzer: Blitzer: Elec.Cent.: Elec.Cent.: Elec.Cent.: Elec.Cent.: Elec.Cent.:
  294 366 479 720 785 910 712
MSNBC Hardball: Spec.Cov.: Spec.Cov.: Spec.Cov.: Spec.Cov.: Spec.Cov.: Spec.Cov.:
  243 308 431 651 679 594 414

Fox News came in third in five of the seven primetime and prime adjacent hours. They finished the evening in third place.

Fox News is a Republican network. Their viewer base doesn’t care about news that they don’t think affects them. This is consistent with viewing patterns that show CNN and MSNBC spiking whenever a significant news event takes place. Viewers simply do not tune in to Fox for news. They tune in to have their preconceptions about public affairs validated.

This is proof that the Democrats who avoid Fox News are right to do so. The Fox audience is of no use to them. Last night’s ratings merely confirm studies that show the same thing. From Starve The Beast:

“The Mellman Group’s research revealed that Fox viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88% to 7%. Only Republicans were more united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.”

It’s too bad some Dems still don’t get it. Terry McCauliffe, the general chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, went on Fox News last night and slobbered all over Major Garrett. This Public Display of Affliction is downright embarrassing. So embarrassing that Fox turned it into a promo that has already hit the airwaves.