Open thread: The Fox Effect


On the primary heating up

In noticing my own reactions to the debate ... I'm still undecided ... I'm finding myself highly influenced - in a negative way - by attacks. For example, even though I've given money to Ken, I bristled when he went after Cal on the Sierra Club endorsement. I can't imagine it won very many people over.

I'm still embarrassed by my attacks on Kay Hagan during the primary two years ago. They didn't help Neal one bit, and even worse, I had to personally make up for my guilty feelings during the general.

Think before you click.

highly influenced by attacks

I also find myself very influenced by attacks - that's why I've done all I can to support candidates not undermined by Blanche Lincoln's DSCC.

If Ken is "attacking" Cal for his lack of leadership on bank bonuses and his flip-flops on offshore drilling and workers' rights, what place do you and I have in holding Kissell accountable for his promises on health care?

My main point was this:

I don't think attacks work here. They might work in the general media, to raise negatives in an arena where many are undecided. In fact, they probably do work.

But among more informed voters, like those on this blog, they run a risk of backfiring. Questioning the wisdom of a Sierra Club endorsement, which I personally have done in the past (when they didn't endorse me) isn't a winning strategy. It may be a last gasp shot at getting some traction, but it won't likely produce the desired results. It sure didn't for me.

I don't disagree with you about the DSCC. It pisses me off when they throw their weight around in a primary election. Whether it's explicit or behind the scenes, the distinction doesn't matter to me. I don't like it one bit. I didn't like in the last cycle, and I don't like it now.

All that said, there's a way to criticize that pattern of DSCC meddling that threads the needle between making the point and making enemies.


PS With regard to Kissell, it's a matter of degree. His pattern of policy ignorance and community avoidance (here at BlueNC) has long since reached the tipping point of intolerably obnoxious. I have no qualms about burning bridges there. Maybe you think the Cunningham campaign has reached that same point of no return, but in my view it's not even close.

Might be as good as his Glenn Beck-Chalkboard rant

The writers on this show are freaking brilliant sometimes. This skit was right on par, if not better, than the one they did imitating Glenn Beck and his crazy chalkboard.

What makes me laugh even more is that the bozos on FOX (and who worship FOX) will never get it: Stewart is a comedian. He makes no other claims. If he does a better job of passing on the real essence of a story or issue being funny, that's just because he and his writers are terrific.

FAUX NEWS, on the other hand, will never understand why this is so funny because they honestly consider themselves news people, which is funny (and scary) in itself.

I knew Stewart was different when he went on Crossfire a few years ago and called Tucker Carlson a "Dick" to his face.

My biggest question is: How long can the Daily Show last? Personally, I hope until Stewart is at least 90 years old.



not only current attacks but also ones done in previous election

I am not only negitively influenced by current negitive attacks on candidates but also ones from previous elections. There is a poster on this blog who was a rabid supporter of one of the candidates in the 2008 Lt. Gov. race. I supported the same candidate but it was embarrasing how personal and insulting this poster became during the campaign and I now question my support of a candidate due to this persons support of the same candidate.